Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T21:13:30.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Porfirian Labor Politics: Working Class Organizations in Mexico City and Porfirio Diaz, 1876-1902

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

David W. Walker
David W. Walker*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Chicago, Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most studies of relations between government and organized labor in Mexico stand firmly on the supposition that the Revolution of 1910 marked a sharp break with the past. The labor policies of the Díaz regime have alternately been described as either brutally repressive or as neutral and aloof in keeping with nineteenth century liberal doctrine (especially before 1906). If either of these somewhat contradictory characterizations are true, then the case for discontinuity in labor policies is clearly confirmed.

This essay will argue that neither description of labor policies during the Díaz regime is accurate. Rather, patterns of interaction between the Díaz government and urban working class organizations, especially in Mexico City, shaped the evolution of the Mexican labor movement and national labor policy along lines followed ever since. The Díaz government developed a flexible and sophisticated array of labor policy instruments that was based upon cooperation with and subsidies to progovernment labor organizations as well as political rewards and the other fruits of cooptation for labor leaders loyal to the regime. With its labor allies, the Díaz government promoted modes of organization which retarded labor militancy, sponsored informal as well as official mediation between workers and employers during strikes and other conflicts, and disseminated propaganda and instituted educational programs, including pro-government labor newspapers and schools for the working class, designed to promote labor's identification of its own well-being with the interests of the state. While the Revolution of 1910 and the later developments of the Cárdenas era institutionalized statelabor relations as never before, the objectives and instrumentalities of contemporary labor relations have their origin in the Porfiriato.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , January 1981 , pp. 257 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The thesis that Porfirian labor policy was synonymous with unrestrained violence and wickedness originated with anti-Díaz revolutionary propaganda such as Turner’s, John Kenneth Barbarous Mexico (Chicago, 1910)Google Scholar. The efforts of post-revolutionary regimes to legitimize themselve encouraged the development of a special historical interpretation of the Porforian era as a whole and of labor policy in particular. Azurbide’s, German Liste La huelga de Río Blanco (México, D.F., 1935)Google Scholar, published by the Secretary of Education in its series “Library of the Worker and Peasant”, was one of a multitude of popular histories promoted under the aegis of post-revolutionary regimes which reported that the ruthless slaughter of striking workers was a routine expression of national labor policy before the coming of the Revolution, Most working class histories from Salazar, Rosendo and Escobedo, José G., Las pugnas de la gleba, 1907–1922 (México, D.F., 1923)Google Scholar to Araiza, Luiz, Historia del movimiento obrero mexicano (México, D.F., 1964–65) have continued to use episodes of industrial violence in 1906 and 1907 as the basis for analyzing Díaz’s labor policy, ignoring or misrepresenting labor relations before 1906.Google Scholar Clark’s, Marjorie Ruth Organized Labor in Mexico (Chapel Hill, 1934)Google Scholar standardized many misconceptions about Díaz's labor policy for North American readers. The durability of the historiographie tendency is evident in the introduction to Ruiz’s, Ramon Eduardo Labor and the Ambivalent Revolutionaries: Mexico, 1911–1923 (Baltimore, 1976)Google Scholar which noted that the Díaz regime “as the tragedies of Cananea and Río Blanco testify, crushed strikes with bayonets.” Until recently, the single exception to the trend was Ramirez’s, Manuel Díaz Apuntes sobre el movimiento obrero y campesino de México, 1844–1880 (México, D. F., 1938)Google Scholar which argued that Díaz, “like those who succeeded him to the Presidency of the Republic … knew very well how to deal with those fitting precursors of labor reformism....” A landmark study which buried forever the more exaggerated misconceptions about Díaz’s labor policy, Anderson’s, Rodney D. Outcasts In Their Own Land: Mexican Industrial Workers, 1906–1911 (DeKalb, 1976)Google Scholar, showed conclusively that Díaz’s labor policy after 1906 was very different than its historiography might suggest. Nevertheless, Anderson does claim that before 1906 the Díaz regime did follow a laissez-faire policy and did not intervene in the labor movement.

2 This paper is based in part on research undertaken in association with the author’s “The Mexican Industrial Revolution and Its Problems: Porfirian Labor Policy and Economic Dependency, 1876–1910,” (MA Thesis, University of Houston, 1976). The author would like to express his appreciation to John M. Hart under whose guidance work on this topic began and to John H. Coats worth, who courageously read preliminary drafts and whose suggestions gave to this essay a coherence that otherwise would be absent.

3 An exhaustive treatment of gremial organization in Mexico is Stampa, Manuel Carrera, Los gremios mexicanos; la organización gremial en Nueva España, 1521–1861 (México, D. F., 1954).Google Scholar

4 Walker, , “Porfirian Labor Policy,” pp. 18, 19.Google Scholar

5 For an appreciation of artisan reaction to tariff policy, see Orozco, Luis Chávez, La agonía del artesandado (México, D. F., 1977)Google Scholar; Artisan political activity is also described in Orozco, Chávez, Historia económica y social de México (México, D. F., 1938), pp. 119–126 Google Scholar; López Rosado, Diego G., Historia y pensamiento económico de México: communicación y transportes; relaciones de trabajo (México, D F., 1969), pp. 250, 251.Google Scholar

6 The social and political roles of the artisan as described here are developed in DiTella, Torcuato S., “The Dangerous Classes in Early Nineteenth Century Mexico,” Journal of Latin American Studies, 5 (May 1973), 79–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; For another analysis of the relationship between politicians, artisans, and the urban masses in Mexico City, see Shaw, Frederick John, “Poverty and Politics in Mexico City, 1824–1854,” (PHD dissertation, University of Florida, 1975).Google Scholar

7 Cited in Aparicio, Alfonso López, El movimiento obrero en México (México, D. F., 1952), p. 77.Google Scholar

8 Marin, Guadalupe Rivera, “ El movimiento obrero.” México, cincuenta años, de revolución (México, D. F., 1963), p. 194 Google Scholar; Díaz Ramirez, auntes, pp. 30–40 passim; For an account of artisan organizations fomented by both Liberala nd Conservative politicians in Colombia between 1847 and 1854 for political ends, see Urrutia, Miguel, The Development of the Colombian Labor Movement (New Haven, 1969), Chapters 1–3.Google Scholar

9 El Hijo de Trabajo (México, D. F.), Jan. 19, 1877; For an extended treatment of the development of an urban working class in nineteenth-century Mexico, see Basurto, Proletariado industrial.

10 La Convención Radical (México, D. F.), Jan. 19, 1897: Before Jan. 7, 1888 the newspaper’s name was La Convención Radical Obrera. Both are hereafter cited as La Convención Radical.

11 Hart, John M., “Nineteenth Century Urban Labor Precursors of the Mexican Revolution: The Development of an Ideology,” TAm 31 (Jan. 1974), 301–309 Google Scholar; Ramirez, Díaz, Apuntes, pp. 61, 103, 110–115.Google Scholar

12 For an explanation of Díaz’s appeal to the working class, see Hart, , “Labor Precursors,” 311.Google Scholar

l3 Ramirez, Díaz, Apuntes, pp. 105–111 Google Scholar; Hart, , “Labor Precursors, 309.Google Scholar

14 A circular distributed by Larrea which called for the Gran Círculo’s reorganization is cited in Ramirez, Díaz, Apuntes, p. 121.Google Scholar

l5 Ramirez, Díaz, Apuntes, p. 128.Google Scholar

16 El Periódico Oficial (México, D. F.), Apr. 20, 1879; Olaguíbel, y Arísta’s position in the Ministry of Hacienda is reported in The Two Republics (México, D. F.), December 29, 1877 Google Scholar; Sept. 7, 1878.

17 Ramirez, Díaz, Apuntes, pp. 117, 118, 121, 122, 128.Google Scholar

18 For the Gran Círculo’s version of the schism, see El Periódico Oficial, May 25, Jun. 1,1879; For the Zacatecas Gran Círculo’s version, see its organ, El Hijo de Trabajo, Apr. 27, 1879. The former accused radicals of engineering the breakup. The latter listed political opportunism and corruption as causes; For another interpretation of the significance of the Zacatecas Gran Círculo, see Hart, “Labor Precursors.”

19 Ramirez, Díaz, Apuntes, p. 136 Google Scholar; Hart, John M., “Agrarian Precursors of the Mexican Revolution: The Development of an Ideology,” TAm, 29 (Oct. 1972), 144–146.Google Scholar

20 El Hijo de Trabajo, May 11, 1879.

21 For an account of the radical side of Mexican labor as manifested in the activities of anarchist ideologues, see Hart, John M., Los anarquistas mexicanos, 1860–1900 (México, D. F., 1974)Google Scholar; The association of Ordóñez and others in the radical factions within the Mexican labor movement is reported in Hart, , “Labor Precursors,” 303,304,311,313Google Scholar; The term radical is employed in the essay to describe those elements in the labor movement which espoused policies of non-cooperation and active resistance to industrial capitalism and to the state. Contemporaries alternately described those elements as anarchist, socialist, communist, and nihilist with little discrimination between the various labels.

22 Ramirez, Díaz, Apuntes, pp. 138–139 Google Scholar; There were never any substantial changes in leadership. The officers of the Congreso Obrero in 1888 were Ordóñez, José María González y González, and Carmen Huerta. The Permanent Commission in 1888 included those officers plus veteran members José Barbier, José Muñuzuri, and Fortino C. Dhiosdado. Newer members included Abraham A. Chavez and Juan N. Serrano y Dominguez, who would enjoy increasing prominence in the 1880s and 1890s. The Congreso met monthly during the 1890s. Its member sociedades de obreros usually were listed on the last page of each issue of La Convención Radical. For an overview of the Congreso Obrero’s activities between 1879 and 1895, see Obregón, Arturo, “El segundo Congreso Obrero, 1879,” Historia Obrero, 7 (Jan. 1977), 19–24.Google Scholar

23 La Convención Radical, Feb. 13, May 22, 1887.

24 Ibid., Jan. 15, 1888.

25 Ibid., Feb. 13, 1887.

26 La Semana Mercantil (México, D. F.) cited in La Convención Radical, Aug. 26, 1888.

27 See the report of a demonstration in support of Díaz “under the incentive of militar-obrero Carrillo and obrero Ordóñez” featuring all the workers from the textile factories of La Victoria, San Antonio Abad, Guerrero, and Minerva and delegations from other textile factories located in Tlalpam, Contreras, and Tizapan. La Convención Radical, Feb. 13, 1887.

28 For example, Landa y Excandón organized and subsidized the Gran Círculo Mutualista y Moralizadora de Obreros del Districto Federal, a federation of mutualist organizations which functioned much like the Gran Círculo and the Convención Radical. See Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 232, 233.Google Scholar

29 Huitron, Jacinto, Origenes e historia del movimiento obrero en México (México, D. F., 1974), p. 59.Google Scholar

30 La Tribuna (México, D. F.) cited with commentary in El Periódico Oficial, Nov. 2, 1879.

31 Mexico (City). Ayuntamiento, Actas de cabildo (1880), (México, D. F., n.d.); Ayuntamiento. Actas de cabildo (1881), pp. 46, 166, 350, 366, 380.

32 La Convención Radical, Jan. 22, 1888.

33 Ibid.. August 15, 1897.

34 El Socialista (México, D. F.), Apr. 14, 1879.

35 The Two Republics, Jan. 10, 1885; Mexico. Ministerio de Hacienda y Credito Público, Memoria (1902–1903), (México, D. F., 1907), p. 175.

36 Biographical sketches of Ordóñez can be found in El Socialista, Jun. 30, 1881 and La Convención Radical, Jun. 28,1891 ; Advertisements for Ordóñez’s businesses and notices of election results for the Ayuntamiento frequently appeared in La Convención Radical.

37 For example, see the speech by Jose María González to a gathering of industrialists and labor leaders at the Tivoli de Eliseo reported in El Socialista, Jun. 19, 1879.

38 La Convención Radical, Aug. 15, 1897.

39 For example, Pablo Mendoza, the leader of a textile workers organization active in Puebla between 1906 and 1911 kept Díaz and local police well-advised on activities in his area. Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 191–193, 206, 207, 234.Google Scholar

40 La Convención Radical, Dec. 20, 1891.

41 Typical patriotic demonstrations led by Juan Cano are reported in The Two Republics, Feb. 5, Aug. 25, 1885; After 1886 Pedro Ordóñez almost always presided over such affairs.

42 The homage paid to Cuauhtemoc suggests that Díaz’s labor allies anticipated the usefulness and appeal of indianismo. See the report of a typical ceremony conducted in Spanish and Náhuatl under the auspices of the Ayuntamiento in La Convención Radical, Aug. 25, 1901.

43 La Convención Radical, Nov. 3, 1901; State funding was a routine matter. As early as 1880 the Ministry of Gobernación awarded the Gran Círculo $100.00 to celebrate September 16. Mexico. Secretaría de Gobernación, Memoria (1880), (México, D. F., 1881).

44 La Convención Radical, May 27, 1888.

45 Chávez’s election is reported in La Convención Radical, Dec. 25, 1887.

46 La Convención Radical, May 27, 1888.

47 Ibid., Jun. 3, 10, 1888.

48 El Hijo del Ahuizote (México, D. F.), Jun. 10, 1988.

49 The nomination was endorsed by El Proletariado (México, D. F.), Jun. 3, 1888; See also La Convención Radical, Jun. 10, 1888.

50 For example of electioneering, see La Convención Radical, May 27, 1888; Jul. 28, 1895.

51 La Convención Radical, May 1, 1887.

52 El Periódico Oficial, Aug. 28, 1879.

53 Ibid., Apr. 20, Sept. 11, 1879.

54 Ibid., Aug. 10, 17, Nov. 16, 1879.

55 La Convención Radical, Jul. 11, 1897.

56 For example, seethe publicity surrounding the Ministry of Fomento’s sponsorship of a housing project for workers, the Colonia de Obreros. La Convención Radical, Feb. 20, 1887.

51 La Convención Radical, Jan. 20, 1901.

57 Ibid., Feb. 5, 1888.

59 A federal subsidy is reported in Ayuntamiento, Actas (1880), p. 229; Six schools for men workers and three schools for women workers are listed in La Convención Radical, Feb. 6, 1889.

60 La Convención Radical, Jan. 7, 1900.

61 Orozco, Luis Chávez, “Orígines de la política de seguridad social,” Historia Mexicana, 16(Oct.-Dec. 1966), 162–170 Google Scholar; Basurtoo, , Proletariado industrial, p. 159 Google Scholar; Navarro, González, Vida social, 4,p. 344.Google Scholar

62 The efforts of the Governor and the Secretary of State in Veracruz in behalf of a mutualista in Nogales are related in La Convención Radical, Mar. 17, 24, 1889; The tax exemption is reported in La Convención Radical. Sept. 23, 1900.

63 La Convención Radical, Jun. 20, 1897.

64 For example, the porfirista Gran Círculo threatened members who defected to the Zacatecas Gran Círculo with the loss of benefits. El Periódico Oficial, May 25, Jun. 1, 1879.

65 La Convención Radical, Sept. 19, 1897.

66 La Convención Radical, July 18, 1887; Government sponsorship and donation of land to an agricultural colonia composed of workers from the Pueblan textile factory Santa Cruz in collaboration with the Congreso Obrero is reported in El Socialista, Sept. 9, 1880.

67 A perceptive, if generally unappreciated, work which argues that the strike already enjoyed de facto recognition by the Mexican state before Díaz came to power is Urbina, A. Trueba, La evolución de la huelga (México, D. F., 1950)Google Scholar

68 La Convención Radical, Jun. 10, 1900.

69 For example, see a worker’s letter offering to name spies in the textile factory where he worked. El Socialista, Aug. 6, 1877.

70 The manifesto of the Junta General is reproduced in El Hijo de Trabajo, Jun. 22, 1884; The organizing effort by the moderate organization apparently followed an earlier attempt by more radical elements. See charges of selling out in El Hijo de Trabajo, May 11, Jun. 1, 1884.

71 El Hijo de Trabajo, Sept. 7, 28, Oct. 12, 19, 188.

72 La Convención Radical, August 27, 1887; For another example of mediation by the Governor of the Federal District involving strikes by porters at customs houses and by textile workers at San Antonio Abad, see La Convención Radical, Jun. 2, 1895.

73 La Convención Radical, Mar. 11, 18, 1888.

74 Ibid., Jun. 24 Jul. 22, 1888; Mar. 17, 24, 1889.

75 Ibid.. May 11, 1890.

76 Ibid.. Jan. 11, 23, 1898.

77 La Convención Radical, Feb. 20, 1898; Sometimes the Congreso Obrero provided or made arrangements for material assistance to strikers. For example, see its activities in regards to a tobacco workers strike in 1895 in La Convención Radical, May 26, Jun. 16, 23, 1895; An important factor in the Congreso Obrero’s decision to aid the strikers may have been criticism of inactivity by rival labor organizers. See El Obrero Mexicano (México, D. F.), Aug. 12, 1894; See also La Convención Radical, Oct. 7, 14, 1894; Mar. 17, 24, 1895.

78 La Convención Radical, Sept. 21, 1902.

79 Useful source material on railroad workers in the Porfiriato is contained in Rodea, Marcelo N., Historia del movimiento obrero ferrocarrilero en México, 1890–1943 (México, D. F., 1944).Google Scholar

80 El Colegio de México, Estadísticas económicas del Porfiriato: fuerza de trabajo y actividad económica por sectores (México, D. F., n.d.), pp. 149, 150.

81 See Walker, “Labor Policy,” Chapter 1.

82 La Convención Radical, April 26, 1888.

83 El Colegio, Estadísticas económicas, pp. 149, 150.

84 La Convención Radical, Nov. 24, 1901; The newspaper suggested a worker with three dependents would spend a $1.00 daily wage as follows: $0.75 for food; $0.125 for rent; $0.125 for clothing. There remained the question of how the worker reacted to the stringencies of such a budget. As La Convención Radical pointed out, who could be happy crowded into “a miserable room of ten square meters”? A slightly different and more detailed budget is found in González Navarro, vida social, IV, p. 391; For an index of changes in Mexico City prices for this period, see El Colegio, Estadísticas económicas, p. 172.

85 La Convención Radical, Nov. 24, 1901.

86 Ibid., Oct. 12, 1902.

87 Ibid., Dec. 7, 1902.

88 Ibid., Nov. 23, 1902.

89 Ibid., Mar. 10, 1901.

90 Ibid., Nov. 24, 1901.

91 For a reform proposal which anticipated many of the services of the modern welfare state, see La Convención Radical, Aug. 18, 1901.

92 La Convención Radical, Nov. 23, 1902.

93 Ibid., Mar. 24, 1901.

94 Ibid, Jul. 24, 1901.

95 Ibid, Jun. 10, 1900.

96 Sociologist Neil, J. Smelser notes: “Beliefs that are potentially revolutionary may exist temporally long before strain arises to activate these beliefs. … ” in Theory of Collective Behaviour (New York, 1963), p. 381 Google Scholar; In the case of Mexico, those beliefs were anarchist and socialist ideologies first introduced in the 1860s and the subsequent radical tradition in the Mexican labor movement which had developed as early as the 1870s. That labor radicalism survived within the movement in the first two decades of Porfirian rule is evident by the strident denunciations of radical activity by Díaz’s labor allies.

97 El Imparcial (México, D. F.), Jul. 5, 1906.

98 The program of the GCOL, reproduced in El Clarín (Orizaba, Mexico), August 12, 1958, is cited in Anderson, Rodney D., “The Mexican Textile Labor Movement, 1906–1907; An Analysis of a Labor Crisis,” (PHD dissertation, American University, 1968), p. 82.Google Scholar

99 For an argument that this represented a dramatic departure from established labor policy, see Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 36, 100.Google Scholar

100 For a more detailed treatment of the reorganized GCOL's relationship to the government, see Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 107–110.Google Scholar

101 Díaz’s reaction to the national level to labor unrest is well documented in Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 122–130.Google Scholar

102 Radical elements also took advantage of the situation. El Imparcial, Oct. 31, 1901, blamed strikes at Tizapan near Mexico City and at Santa Rosa, Veracruz on a group it called “the socialists of the league”; The GCOL’s organizing efforts are well documented in Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 130–135 Google Scholar; For a description of the many textile strikes in the Autumn of 1906, see Navarro, Moisés González, “Las huelgas textiles en el Porfiriato,” Historia Mexicana, 6 (Oct.-Dec. 1956), 201–206.Google Scholar

103 Araiza, , Historia, p. 103 Google Scholar; El Imparcial, Dec. 5,7,8,1906; El Paíx (México, D. F.), Dec. 8,1906.

104 El Imparcial, Dec. 8, 1906.

105 Ibid, Dec. 16, 18, 19, 21, 1906.

106 Ibid, Dec. 30, 1906.

107 El Imparcial. Dec. 27, 1906.

108 El País, Jan. 1, 1907; El Imparcial, Dec. 28, 29, 30, 1906.

l09 The arbitration decision is reported in detail in El Imparcial, Jan. 7,1907; Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 151–153 Google Scholar argues that there is no reason to disbelieve press accounts which report the GCOL’s delegates were overjoyed to hear the decision.

110 To put the positive aspects of the laudo in perspective one can appreciate that Maximilian’s law of November 1, 1865 fixed work hours and holidays, prohibited company stores, forbid child labor without parental consent, and required health care and schools in large factories. The law is cited in Aparicio, López, Movimiento Obrero, p. 96.Google Scholar

111 Anderson says of the laudo: “… it is a clear example of the regime’s willingness to break with its past laissez-faire policies in order to impose a settlement sufficiently attractive to the workers For his argument that the laudo was a remarkable success for the Díaz regime and that it allowed the GCOL leadership to take concessions “home to the rank and file”, see Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 151–154.Google Scholar

112 For a discussion of the progress and problems of economic development under the Porfirian regime, see Walker, “Porfirian Labor Policy,” Chapters 1, 3.

113 El Imparcial, August 14, 1906; Anderson, , Outcasts, p. 301 Google Scholar notes the vacillating quality of Díaz’s labor policy between 1907 and 1911. Anderson implies this was because labor practices were not institutionalized. More probably, labor policy shifted back and forth as Díaz tried without success to reconcile demands from both labor and capital without alienating either side.

ll4 El Imparcial, January 7, 1907; Araiza, , Historia, 2, pp. 110–113 Google Scholar; Salazar, , Pugnas, 1, pp. 23–25.Google Scholar

115 The account which follows is extracted primarily from Navarro, Moisés González, “La huelga de Río Blanco,” Historia Mexicana, 6 (Apr.-Jun. 1957), 511–532 Google Scholar; A well-documented, if subdued version is also in Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 154–164.Google Scholar

116 Anderson argues that because the PLM did not plan the uprising that “There is simply no substantial evidence that la huelga de Río Blanco was politically motivated.” See Anderson, , Outcasts, p. 156 Google Scholar; Apparently, what the textile workers themselves did at Rio Blanco is lessened by the fact that they may have acted spontaneously and without intellectual direction.

117 Ruiz, , Labor, p. 31.Google Scholar

1l8 Their attempts to recruit working class support are well documented in Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 271–297 Google Scholar passim; Readers should be wary, however, of attempts to characterize the Mexican labor movement and the working class as “moderate” and “nationalistic” since the “articulation of the unarticulate” may easily be confused with deliberate attempts by the state or by the political opposition to seek popular support through appeals to nationalism. Since the “official” labor movement was very much more visible, judgements about the nature of the Mexican labor movement may be very difficult to evaluate. A study of the Pro-Díaz and the Anti-Díaz press can reveal a great deal about strategies for dealing with the working class, but such materials are of limited usefulness for describing the working class. For another point of view, see Anderson, Rodney D., “Mexican Industrial Workers and the Politics of Revolution, 1906–1911,” HAHR 54 (Feb. 1974), 94–113 Google Scholar and Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 312–328.Google Scholar

119 Ruiz, , Labor, pp. 26–41 Google Scholar passim; Meyer, Michael C., Huerta, A Political Portrait (Lincoln, , 1972), pp. 158, 173–175.Google Scholar

l20 Meyer, Jean, “Los obreros en la revolucion mexicana; los batallones rojos,” Historia Mexicana, 21 (Jul.-Sep. 1971), 1–37 Google Scholar; Hart, John M., “The Urban Working Class and The Mexican Revolution: The Case of the Casa del Obrero Mundial,” HAHR, 58 (Feb. 1978), 1–20.Google Scholar

121 Clark, , Organized Labor, pp. 19–22, 59, 60, 66Google Scholar; Ruiz, , Labor, pp. 47–61, 70–72.Google Scholar

122 Works dealing primarily with the CROM’s relationship to the governments of Carranza, Obregon, and Calles include Clark, Organized Labor and Carr, Barry, El movimiento obrero y la política de México, 1910–1929, 2 vols., (Mexico, 1976)Google Scholar; Ruiz, Labor, Chapter 5–8 also documents the subject well; The relationship between the CROM and the CGT is examined in Hart, John M., Anarchism and the Mexican Working Class (Austin, 1978)Google Scholar; CROM overtures to the American Federation of Labor are discussed in Levenstein, Harvey A., Labor Organizations in the United States and Mexico: A History of Their Relations (Westport, 1971).Google Scholar