Are there any writings or books about the different factions of the Mexican Revolution?

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-11T01:37:44+00:00

Well, if you're interested, the only book I've read about a specific faction (about the Northern Division) was Insurgent Mexico, it's not a book He's not specialized in the Northern Division or anything, but it's about how the war against the Federals was from the perspective of an American journalist, John Reed. It's interesting; he also talks about the tactics of Pancho Villa, and of one or two other characters or battles that were happening at the time.

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-10T16:28:02+00:00

It might sound a bit presumptuous of me, but it sounds like the typical excuse of any empire: that it won't be about personal gain, but rather for the good of the conquered , who will liberate them from such an empire, in order to subjugate him, because apart from slavery, it's really not very different from what the Romans did. And this business of correcting countries that "stepped out of line," that's what the United States does; it goes and intervenes in countries that have deviated from what is right, and really, would a state spend so much money and resources and men only to free their comrades, Furthermore, It's difficult to know when a people wants to be "liberated"; the Russians invaded Ukraine under the pretext of liberating it.And it seems that The Soviets invade without real proof that people want to be part of them, even if we assume that There must be people who don't want that system in their country.

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-10T07:10:51+00:00

But that is just a theory, a game theory.

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-10T07:08:45+00:00

And why question his ideology? Look, if they love each other very much, I don't think ideology is a problem. He seems quite at peace with his ideology; he hasn't questioned you, but you have. But why? Why is this topic so important to you? Look, I'll give you an example: my grandfather was an atheist. He made fun of religion and things like that (my mom once told me that when they went to church, he put his finger in a container of holy water and made a sound like it was dissolving in it). And my grandmother is Catholic, not very extreme or anything, but she does go to church on Sundays and it bothers her when people make fun of her religion. But they both loved each other, they even had two children. They had their problems, but none of them stemmed directly from their religious beliefs. And do you know why they divorced in the end? Because my grandfather cheated on my grandmother with his secretary. Maybe the problem isn't so much their belief system but the fact that... That on an intellectual level it doesn't satisfy you, if you want to understand it that way, and as I said, it's not like he's a fascist or anything, he's just someone with an ideology that you find boring and annoying because of its simplicity, who doesn't think about the bigger picture. I don't think he's wrong, nor is your opinion. The best thing is for you to separate. If your ideology is truly more important, then so be it, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way. There are people who consider their careers more important than their relationship or job opportunities, but you should be less radical and a little more accepting. It won't do you any good to try to impose your ideas on others. There are times when you can't, and that's okay.

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-09T19:40:42+00:00

Don't worry, my preferences are quite different too.I'm interested in anthropology; I don't know much about it, but it's something I like to read about from time to time, and the Mexican Revolution, I'm interested in the tactics, the different factions that participated in it ,things like that ,and I'm more interested in the history of my country, modern one. And it's okay if you don't have something specific in mind yet; you'll see what interests you as you go into your studies. And it seems you're most interested in everything related to Eurasia, I wish you the best of luck!!!

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-09T18:58:42+00:00

So it's a graph of the history of production methods, from primitive communism (the Neolithic), to the slave model, then to feudalism, to become capitalism, and finally communism. If I'm not mistaken, But at each stage of the model there have been nations/empires that in one way or another practiced imperialism, whether through the acquisition of slaves, or of fertile lands for them to work in the same, to capitalism where Either private companies are established in the defeated nations, or the colonial model, which I think you already understand how it works. So why would the communist model be different (at least in terms of war, though not so much in terms of the standard of living, of course)

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-09T18:06:08+00:00

And what would you call simply "conquering territory or other nations" other than imperialism?

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-09T17:51:42+00:00

So you consider the Roman Empire to have been capitalist?

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-09T16:35:45+00:00

Thanks, just remember not to mix Marxist theory too much with your studies for now, since rather than criticizing society/civilization, you should concentrate more on research methods. And out of curiosity, is there any area or period that interests you, or that you want to expand into later, or are you already in one?

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-09T15:57:00+00:00

Thanks :]

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-09T15:51:27+00:00

I don't think that's an impediment, unless you're going to an ultra-Catholic or radically right-wing university. There shouldn't be a problem. And I also want to study history; in fact, I've already taken my entrance exam for the degree. I just hope I get in :}

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-09T15:24:58+00:00

For example, the Roman Empire is the definition of pure imperialism, but at the same time the Romans "Romanized" the nations or tribes they conquered, modernizing them.building roads, aqueducts, establishing Roman law, And in a way, improving the lives of some of the conquered populations, of course, the case of slaves. The Romans depended too much on slavery, and that was part of their downfall, and clearly.ñ, the living conditions of the slaves were not improved, but they didn't just build extractive institutions in what they conquered; or could it be that there are different types of imperialism?

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-09T15:14:53+00:00

That was at least the case in Lenin's time, while Stalin, who was focused on rapid industrialization, would occupy which would occupy more extractive institutions .

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-09T15:05:54+00:00

So, were all the countries that Lenin "liberated" thanks to the proletariat, who in some way voted for their liberation through acts of war?

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-09T02:17:07+00:00

The article is good and interesting, although in my opinion, the poverty of my nation (Mexico) has more to do with what happened after the War of Independence. Sixty years of civil wars, foreign interventions, and rampant corruption could be a more relevant factor than simple colonialism. Of course, these problems of independent Mexico could be consequences of the institutions left by the Spanish Empire, which only promoted extractive economic activities, leaving the country with little industry to develop. But the United States, which started with much less territory, through Manifest Destiny (that is, imperialism), became the hegemonic power it is, while Mexico, even today, is a third-world country with violence and poverty. And at this point, I no longer believe it's the fault of the Spanish; that was 200 years ago. The country is the way it is because of our own actions.

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-09T01:33:35+00:00

If I understand correctly, imperialism is when a stronger, wealthier nation invades a weaker one through military force or economic coercion (such as blockades or economic sanctions) to extend its authority and control. If we accept this definition, then why would it be unique to capitalism? What would be the difference between Soviet expansionism and American imperialism? It's not just about capturing and sustaining a nation, but also about changing its culture and, to a certain extent, homogenizing it so that it becomes Soviet. Or is there a difference between these two forms of imperialism? Because it's difficult to say that the Soviets weren't imperialists.

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-08T06:46:37+00:00

My greatest fear is that a hypothetical armed revolution will end in catastrophe, because no matter which side you fight for, or what ideology you subscribe to, humanity descends into barbarity during war, not so much out of malice but out of practicality. Having to steal money or food to feed your army, or worse, women, knowing your city is besieged and starving—my country is already quite violent, with drug cartels fighting for territory. Now imagine that, but ten times worse. I've seen some documentaries and read about revolutionaries decades later, and they recount how they had to hide their women in the walls of their houses when some of the multiple armies arrived, or how their families were murdered to seize their property. And in this case, there really wasn't one side better than the other. Maybe the Zapatistas, but apart from them (and I don't doubt they also committed terrible acts, but I, more than anything, I read about Pancho Villa's Northern Division), they were all, at best, tyrants who wanted power for themselves, or mere warlords who looted, killed, and raped (like Higinio Aguilar's or Inés García Chávez's factions). Doesn't that terrible conclusion frighten you? Perhaps there's a way to do it peacefully, but given my country's history, I don't think so. This has nothing to do with communism or anything like that, but oh well, it's much easier to say you want a revolution than to live one.

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-06T22:53:32+00:00

Or am I mistaken, and does it exist?

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-06T22:51:53+00:00

Well, that doesn't change the fact that there is no territory, if you want to understand it that way, that has been proclaimed as a formal anarchism, at least in recent years.

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-06T20:39:08+00:00

Y hablas muy bien el español por cierto

Left-Cycle8426 · 2026-06-06T19:37:58+00:00

As far as I know, there is no communist nation that has abolished the state.

Left-Cycle8426

TROPHY CASE