Aspects Of The Social Revolution example essay topic

The significance of the Mexican revolution lies not in the repercussions this insurrection exerted on the international level, but rather in the way it served as a precursor to the direction the 20th century would follow. For while Mexico had gained significance internationally by being a leading exporter of raw material under Porfioro Diaz, it was not the only Latin American, or Lu so-American country to follow this route. One must also bear in mind that the materials being exported out of Mexico were not exclusive to the region. Even within it's geographic hemisphere, the Mexican revolution did not lead to the massive changes that the American Revolution had caused. Yet that is not to say that the Mexican revolution is not a significant event, for it established the rebellious pattern the 20th century would take. Disparities in classification of the revolution arise from the numerous factions and ideological assumptions advocated for the overthrow of Diaz's rule, hence one can argue that it was a political, social, or economical revolution.

Carlos Fuentes argued in his book, The Death of Artemio Cruz, that the form Mexico's revolution can best be described as social. A social revolution advocates a complete transformation of all characteristic aspects of society, encompassing the political structure, economically distribution, and social hierarchy. Disparities over the definition of this revolution results from the interdependent relationship social status has with the economic and political realm. For a higher social status correlates with a higher economic foundation, and political power, creating a model of tri-dependency in which each of the three is reliant upon the other. Hence in evaluation of the social revolution one must examine the changes exerted in all three of these categories, where with a political and economic revolution the realm of implacability falls exclusively within their own grouping. The social structure during the waning era of Porfirio Diaz's reign can best be described as a highly rigid hierarchical establishment, with the elite being reluctant to cede power in any sense to the growing middle class, which consequentially lead to a complete alienation of the lower classes and a growing anti-Diaz sentiment.

For the reasoning behind this reluctance to embrace the new intelligentsia and middle class one must understand the methods implored by the established elite in their own rise to power were not docile. During the conversation between Ludivinia Menchacha and her son Peder ito, owners of the Hacienda Artemio Cruz grew up on, the methods of Diaz's followers were mentioned, "Have you come to tell me that there is no more land or greatness for us, that others have taken advantage of us as we took advantage of the original owners. 1" She continues with, "That the enemies we had shot so we could be the masters, or the ones whose tongues were cut out or hands were cut off on your father's orders so that he could continue to be the master... were victorious one day and set our house on fire and took away what wasn't ours, what we had by force not by right? 2" What the author was alluding to was the vicious cycle of the new elite plundering the established elites economic base. Santa Ana's followers were given unlawful land grants for their service to him, and Diaz allowed his followers to continue this tradition and confiscated all of Santa Ana's loyalist's wealth. Hence one can see that the apprehension to share power with emerging middle class was based on valid concerns.

This emerging new elite class, one that is characterized by Artemio Cruz, did continue this plundering cycle after overthrowing the old regime. The meeting between Don Gamaliel and Artemio demonstrates this tendency, for while Artemio is an archetype for the emerging elite class, Don Gamaliel embodies the old hacienda owners. "Artemio Cruz. So that was the name of the new world rising out of the civil war; that was the name of those who had come to take his place. Unfortunate land that has to destroy its old possessors with each new generation and put in their place new owners just as rapacious and ambitious as the old ones. 3" This theme is brought up again in the conversation between Cruz and Go zonal Bernal who stated, "The educated ones only want a half revolution... to live well, to take the place of Don Porfirio's elite.

4" While the concept of redefining the establishment of the elite in Mexico harks in the realm of social implacability, it can be considered political because of the role the elite class has in creating legislative policies, and for the revolution's call for a new political institution. By establishing Artemio Cruz as an archetype for the new elite that emerged, Carols Fuentes made another indication to what the nature revolution was. For the social roots of Artemio was that of the peasant class, and his rise to power was dependent upon the changing of that structure, or more specifically the enabling of the lower class to exercise social mobility through the re structuralization of the previous social hierarchy by delegating the previously exalted individuals to a lower stature. This notion of new sociological boundaries was touched upon in Bernal's pensive conversation with Artemio about the early days of the revolution, "When the leaders didn't matter. When we weren't doing this to raise up one man but to raise up all men. 5" Yet the nature of the revolution was also indicated by Artemio Cruz's later social stature, for if the revolution was indeed social then a new hierarchical system must be in place.

By describing Cruz as a powerful individual, in both the economic and political sense, the author attests that a new elite had come to power, a characteristic of a social revolution. This new position of luxury is demonstrated when Artemio entertains his contemporaries by throwing a lavish New Years Eve party in 1955, or vacationing in Acapulco. While the author barley touches on the aspect of political reform within the context of the social revolution, he does make numerous remarks about the economic change. Before one examines these changes, a better understanding of the pre-war conditions of the economy is needed. The economic foundation of Mexico in the early 20th century was still based heavily in the rural sector, which was dominated by the hacienda complex.

By 1910 over one half of all rural Mexicans lived and worked on these haciendas from sunrise to sunset for seven days a week, all for an income that was 12 times poorer than a United States farm laborer. While the exploitation of the agrarian workers by the hacienda and its tien da de ray a, the general store, was a problem another economic grievance is the confiscation of the peasants land by foreign investors and hacienda owners. The author uses the plight of Yaqui the Indian to demonstrate the unlawful seizures; in a confession before his execution he states, "He's telling things. How the government took away the land where his people always lived, to give to some gringos. How they fought for their land; how the federal troops came, cut off the men's hands and chases them into the hills. 6" Yaqui embodies the movement of poor labors who joined the revolution for a greater distribution of Mexico's wealth, which in most cases advocated the disjuncture of the hacienda and the subsequent parceling out the land.

Carlos Fuentes addresses the economic concerns of the revolution again during Cruz's involvement in the offensive against Huerta, in which he indicates, "In every town they passes through, the general would investigate working condition, reduce the workweek to eight hours by public decree, and distribute land to the peasants. 7" Yet while these aspects appear economical at a first glance, at the core of them is social retrieval. Both cases demonstrate how the revolution attempted to redistribute the land to the populous. Yet the intentions of this distribution are social in nature, for while land was considered an economic asset, ones economic status was determined by their social stature.

Hence with the creation of a new hierarchy, the ability to improve oneself economically was commenced. It is contradictory to state that one can be a peasant and be fiscally successful, or vise a versa, and while economic stature is a requirement for social elitism, the one cannot be achieved without the other. In conclusion, Carlos Fuentes describes the Mexican revolution as being social, and looking over the aspects one must agree. The intentions of the revolution were to complexly change the structure of Mexico, and whether or not the revolution succeeded in this aspirated goal is irrelevant.

The other point that needs to be address is the failure of the author to examine the political aspect, the overthrowing of the old regime, and whether this holds any bearing on the classification of the revolution. To that one must remember that while it is true that not all aspects of the social revolution was discussed in the book, the political aspect is complimentary to the social revolution, not necessary. The social revolution is a broad extension of rebellious tendencies, enveloping numerous aspects. The act of doing this is unique attribute, and all one needs to do to prove that a revolution is indeed social is show that more than one feature of the society was changed willfully, in which the author did. For the political revolution calls for a change in the political realm, and the same holds true to it's economic counterpart..