The postrevolutionary period in Mexico was a chaotic and kinetic period for radical leftist politics and organized direct actions. Autonomous organizations representing workers and peasants proliferated throughout the country and made significant waves. Despite the plethora of works already available on postrevolutionary Mexico, newly published scholarship punctures the assumption that nothing is left to write about by bringing out of obscurity untapped stories that stimulate the mind and inviting further inquiry. In effect, they remind Mexicanists that the work is far from done.
Enter Miles V. Rodríguez's book, a semi-fresh take on postrevolutionary people's movements that takes readers on a journey through the gloomy story of radical leftist politics in Mexico and combines the histories of two interconnected movements largely written about separately for far too long. In short, Rodríguez's work surpasses existing scholarship on people's politics that gives only nodding reference to the failed attempt to forge alliances between labor and agrarian movements and its long-lasting ramifications in people's politics. Contrary to standard narratives, Rodríguez, by drawing attention to the mutualism of labor and agrarian activism and focusing less on its disconnects, lucidly explains that cooperation across movements was not as tenuous as is often believed. These movements, made up of different autonomous organizations of different sizes, made a concerted effort “to create a national revolutionary alliance against capitalism and the state, as part of an international revolutionary movement for socialism,” in large part under the tutelage of communist leaders (2, 3). Rodríguez takes us through the political convulsions, divisions, and state repression these movements endured, as well as well as the headway they made, measurable in centimeters, toward radical systemic change.
Quite often, state violence is responsible for the collapse of national liberation movements, civil disobedience, and violent direct action. Yet not all the time. Readers will appreciate that Rodríguez does not sensationalize the extent to which state violence figured in thwarting the unity communist leaders and militants sought to build. Instead, through clear explanations and examples, he looks at how these movements were often partially responsible for their own demise. The histories of people's movements, of popular political mobilizations, are filled with stories of dysfunctionality, expulsions, ideological differences, and personal vendettas. Militants regularly decamped to form splinter groups, compromising any chance of unity and often leading labor unions and peasant organizations to compete for clout over souls and further factionalize the greater movement.
Far too often, mass insurrections unjustly eclipse people's movements that did not create the same national attention or commotion. Rodríguez rejects the notion that these movements were minor expressions of political dissent that inflicted only a small dent on the prevailing social order. The upsurge of class antagonism visibly rattled the national bourgeoisie and compelled it to hamstring the momentum of people's movements and foil their efforts to bolster unity through violence and symbolic violence. Yet, even though unity was never accomplished, their efforts did not go unnoticed by future people's movements who memorialized them, tried to learn from their mistakes, recycled discourses, and saw themselves as part of a much broader history of social resistance and political activism.
The book is not without its issues. First, at times Rodríguez unwittingly privileges the role of the highly dysfunctional Communist Party of Mexico (PCM by its Spanish acronym) and hardly speaks to the skullduggery repeatedly spewed by communist opportunists. My intention here is not to play down the role communist leaders played in building bridges across organizations and movements; however, Rodríguez could have done better to acknowledge the agency of peasants and workers. I am sure Rodríguez is not saying that the underclasses required professional revolutionaries to hold their hand throughout the revolutionary process. Still, a more explicit and wholesome analysis of agency would have benefitted the book.
Second, even though while Rodríguez is not necessarily approaching this study from a Marxist perspective, his explanation of the usage of “people's” movements versus “popular” movements might unsettle the nerves of political theorists or revolutionary Marxists. In short, the book falls short of a thorough materialist analysis of ‘people's’ versus ‘popular.’ Although some readers might consider this pettifogging, terminology and labels matter in the historical writing of insurgent politics, social movements, and revolutions—and the issues he raises here need to be ironed out a bit more.
The ideas and observations in the book will surely find expression in academic circles and seminars. Doctoral students interested in early political agitation after the Mexican Revolution, and searching for a dissertation topic, would do well to scrutinize Rodríguez's book and benefit from the gaps he has left open—perhaps deliberately—to entice more profound studies.
