Since age 17, it has been my view that fundamentally the post Revolutionary regime simply continued the Porfirian regimen under a different guise, and that both regimes were liberal capitalist according to the manner of their times. This conclusion was actually a no-brainer since it was obvious just by looking at things.
But no-brainerism is the foundation of the post-revolutionary regime's history. The official oyster, swallowed whole by politically correct American academics and socio-activists, is that Diaz was a conservative, racist dictator who oppressed the country for 30 years until The Revolution kicked him out and, returning to the Wisdom of Juarez, inaugurated a new revolutionary era of leftist social democracy.... This too is utter nonsense. The PRI can be credited with modernizing the country in a variety of both superficial and important ways but many of these changes were already in the works and as for those that weren't it is likely that over time a regime uninterrupted by revolution would have gotten around to making many of the same changes.
The Porfirian regime was in fact very progressive, which is why it was admired around the world. It's modernisation was not simply a matter of gas-lamps, railroads and post-offices, but included fomenting arts and science and sending to France for the latest positivist educational theories -- intiatives that were continued and broadened by the PRI. As a classically capitalist regime, the Porfiriatio had little use for the Indian except as a laborer. But the dirty little secret is that the PRI also had little use for the Indian except as a laborer incorporated into the brave new world or as an object d'art for muralists. Whereas as the Porfiriato left the Indian to his gods, the PRI sought to save him from them.
It is indisputable that the PRI did establish social-democratic entitlements, which is to say that it struck the same bargain with the syndicalist movements that Germany and France had. As part of the "tri-partite" bargain of 1920, the PRI also acknowledged (and to a debated extent enforced) Indian land rights, something Diaz himself would not have done.
The differences between the the pre- and post- Revolution regimes were simply matters of historical inevitablity. All of which is to say that "on" the Cinco de Mayo, Mexico irrevocably adopted the via liberale.
The Porfirian regime was in fact very progressive, which is why it was admired around the world. It's modernisation was not simply a matter of gas-lamps, railroads and post-offices, but included fomenting arts and science and sending to France for the latest positivist educational theories -- intiatives that were continued and broadened by the PRI. As a classically capitalist regime, the Porfiriatio had little use for the Indian except as a laborer. But the dirty little secret is that the PRI also had little use for the Indian except as a laborer incorporated into the brave new world or as an object d'art for muralists. Whereas as the Porfiriato left the Indian to his gods, the PRI sought to save him from them.
It is indisputable that the PRI did establish social-democratic entitlements, which is to say that it struck the same bargain with the syndicalist movements that Germany and France had. As part of the "tri-partite" bargain of 1920, the PRI also acknowledged (and to a debated extent enforced) Indian land rights, something Diaz himself would not have done.
The differences between the the pre- and post- Revolution regimes were simply matters of historical inevitablity. All of which is to say that "on" the Cinco de Mayo, Mexico irrevocably adopted the via liberale.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment