Blackwell Reference Online

Extract

When Francisco Indalecio Madero (1990: 242) wrote in 1908 that after 32 years of Porfirio Díaz's iron rule “we do reject absolutely … that it may be suitable for this regime to be prolonged,” this was to mark the beginning of a long-drawn-out phase of armed social struggles lasting until 1920 and making its impact well into the second half of the twentieth century. Its complex nature not only derived from the disunity in the subaltern classes and hence their lack of a clear revolutionary goal. It was also the result of a vacuum in leadership by the ruling classes, who lacked coherence in the decision about which future mode of accumulation to adopt following the elimination of the close-meshed web of repression during the Díaz years. Furthermore, it proved an expression of Mexico's contradictory entry into the world market and its future role as an economy dependent on providing cheap raw materials and labor. With the exception of the years 1880–4, Díaz ruled from 1876 until he stepped down in 1911 and went into exile. Díaz is credited with having created the conditions for the state's financial stability and strengthened its infrastructure, particularly the extension of the railway. Mexico's entrance into the realm of nineteenth-century imperialism is marked by impressive figures. Between 1876 and 1910 the population nearly doubled to roughly 15 million people, production of ... log in or subscribe to read full text