Revolution has been defined and redefined by historians and scholars assuredly since it's inception. The word breaks down to three main parts: re is a denial, vol or volition is will, and the "tion" which is an institutional or object word reference. A denial of the established will therefore is not a bad working definition which can be and has been ammended and expounded on for years. However the aim of this paper is not to merely define revolution but rather to examine and dissect the accounts of many of these scholars and their opinions on specifically the Mexican revolution.
    In his book The Mexican Revolution, Adolfo Gilly argues that the Mexican revolution of 1910 occurred within the guidelines of Marxist political theory and explains the events that took place therein as representative of people acting within their predetermined class structures. Gilly does this by systematically referencing turning points in the revolution which contain actions that he judges to be emblematic of the social status of those who take them. We can extrapolate from Gilly's own experiences as a revolutionary political prisoner and from his textual references--which I will detail later--that he supports peasant uprising and the revolutionary ideals of Marx. I plan to show that Gilly's motivation in detailing the Mexican Revolution goes beyond historical curiosity but rather he uses the book as a mouthpiece to voice his ideas by emphasizing certain actions and ignoring others he catenates the timeline to present his belief in structure--specifically class structure--over agency.
    That this book is accurate and historically valid is evidenced by its repeated reprinting and the regard shown to it by many prominent scholars and historians. But it can be both precise historically and still contain biases. When Gilly writes "the revolutionary tide had reached its peak with the occupation of Mexico City, the Xochimilco discussions between Villa and Zapata, and the march past the National Palace. From that time, the subaltern classes instinctively or half-conciously looked forward to a political transformation in their favor. Their enemies were routed. And now that their leaders had seized the formal attributes and national seat of power, they expected them to exercise it in their interests," he appears to be detailing a national sentiment (Gilly 172). But you can read into this that Gilly supports the peasant uprising by excitedly declaring their ascent while also incorporating Marxist class theory into his explanation--or foreshadowing--of the descent that comes at the other side of the peak. It's not that the peasants have lost their strength to act, they were certainly able to mobilize, rout armies, and take charge of their demands. But because they are peasants, that is they belong ot the peasant class, they were and are and will be unable to control government institutions which require aristocracy in the sense that an aristocracy or upper class better understand the needs of a national citizen rather than a local one. The peasants scope was limited to their own surroundings and because of this class-scheduled inability they were predetermined by Marx and thus by Gilly to fail in their overall aims. This happens because revolutions are sparked when the will of the people runs in opposition to the will of their government.
    As the Sanderson article outlines, Karl Marx wrote about the modes and means of production shaping society as it progresses through its different evolutions of early communism, feudalism, capitalism and ideal socialism. For Marx in a capitalist system the productive forces–the manpower, tools, etc–are in conflict with the relations of production–the property, trade, law, etc–which govern them. This conflict gives rise to revolution and paradigmatic change towards the consensus of the many after which will arise new institutions which cause greater class disparity which give rise to newer and newer paradigms. Although this seems cyclical for Marx there was an idyllic community in true socialism but he also believed that it had to evolve through capitalism to get there. This sort of fuzzy logic confounds Marx’s greatness as a political scientist and historian. This evolution becomes dogmatic in the revolutionaries who read it and thus they start to see political life as predetermined.
    Part of Gilly’s attractiveness as a writer is in his ability to put forth adage-like commentary which helps the textual flow but is subversive in its own right. When he writes “the ranks and leadership of intermediate classes attracted in the period of rising movement–never fail to register the ebb and are always the first to desert,” Gilly has a lot of information packed into a very subtle sentence (Gilly 180). He could have written it: the petty- and bourgeoisie classes which supported the rising peasant rebellion when it was the hegemony were aware of the peasants loss of power once they reached the capital and thus withdraw their support for a political entity which would look out for their best interests. Although they contain the same information, Gilly’s is much more implicit and seductive as it quietly implants his own Marxist world view. In this way Gilly is very convincing in his portrayal of the Mexican revolution of 1910.
    However Gilly is committed to structures being the greater historical driver rather than the agency of individuals. The revolution was carried out by people but Gilly would have us believe it was carried out by the people. He subtly argues that the peasant masses were the driving force behind the revolution and that revolutionary leaders played a secondary part to the people as a whole and what they represented as an instrument for change. Other historians have taken a differing view in which they favor the role of individuals and leaders. Agency and structure seem in opposition to one another but I am of the opinion that they both play a role and that depending on the situation one can have more impact than another. I don’t think it’s a static relationship in that one is always greater; even from event to event they can be in flux as to their importance. These ideas are integral in Selbin’s ideas of institutionalization and consolidation. Institutionalization is when the revolutionary forces take over the government and install their own infrastructure and consolidation requires that the will of the people accept the new form of revolutionary government as having replaced the old one and they re-nationalize themselves under the new revolutionary regime.
    When Gilly writes “the final decision was essentially due to deeper class factors” and “Angeles and Obregon tended to see the country as a whole; Villa, as well as Zapata, saw it in regions,” he again emphasizes the trying of individuals to their social classes (Gilly 192, 196). But he does praise the peasantry in saying “only the class tenacity of General Francisco Villa was capable of maintaining, in the midst of utmost adversity, a years-long struggle against Carranzism” (Gilly 205). He wants to write a history in which the tenets of Marxism are tested and held to be true while also praising the revolutionary ideals of the proletariat and the Mexican peasant. Gilly’s work is inspiring in this regards, especially considering he wrote much of is confined in a panoptic prison.
    But his scope is limited, and Knight helps clarify the situation after Gilly’s history. The rise of a people’s ruler in el jefe maximo which allowed for the executive to have a lot of power but when that power was passed on to lesser men it can often be abused. Voter fraud, silencing unquiet citizens, and making false promises while maintaining hold over the military have often led to successful dictatorships. Opening Mexico for democracy and free trade brought back the foreign investment which was violently rejected in the revolution. Nationalizing major industries creates bureaucracy and inefficiency but does guarantee on the strength of the government that the economy will survive. Or perhaps it’s the other way around? Regardless the issue of social mobility and economic factors will always remain tantamount in the mind of revolutionary peasantry. Swinging too far into one side or the other, be it in structure versus agency, socialism versus capitalism, rich versus poor, leads to social imbalance which will be corrected by the other invisible hand, that of the will of the people.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Gilly, A. The Mexican Revolution, The New Press, New York, NY, (2005).