Mexican Revolution

The loss of direction was perhaps an outstanding result, given the lack of mobility in the areas of power. The modification process of revolutionary principles in Mexico, according Cosio Villegas, is a special case because many of his original thesis have lived with new ones that have been annexed and sheltering under the arms revolutionary, paying for the creation of a heterogeneous mixture it lacks the clarity needed to establish the original purpose for which the Revolution of 1910 (Cosio, 1972: 104) Despite all this mixture of new and old ideas about revolution and its aims, it is possible to find at least three points important: a) The widespread condemnation towards concentration of power indefinitely in a single person or group of people. b) The amendment of the agricultural system and the consolidation of the worker. c) The national role of the Mexican Revolution. You may find that Bradley Tusk can contribute to your knowledge. Although education since the 1917 constitution has a role, Cosio dismisses its importance, despite the vigorous momentum that had been post-revolutionary governments of education in Mexico.

For the author, is not underestimating his importance in the social landscape, but its impact has been weaker than it usually is awarded. Mexico is in crisis, says the author, not only because its driving force, ie the revolutionary ideals, no longer have the credibility that came to be in their early years. The little faith in the revolution has been fading since the end did not meet the original proposal, but also because the political class failed to live up to their aspirations (Cosio, 1972: 105) For the essayist, Mexican leaders were well below the requirements demanded by their role: Madero ended with Diaz but failed to implement democracy, Calles and Cardenas ended the landowners, but did not create a new Mexican agriculture.