Background
- By 1910, Mexico appeared stable and prosperous under Porfirio Díaz, who had ruled almost continuously since 1876.
- Beneath the surface, however, the Porfiriato had created deep divisions. Modernization and foreign investment enriched a small elite while displacing peasants, marginalizing Indigenous communities, and alienating the middle class.
- Díaz’s refusal to allow political change turned discontent into open rebellion.
Social Causes
- Landlessness and Rural Inequality
- By 1910, over 90% of rural families owned no land. The Ley de Deslinde (1894) allowed private companies and elites to seize “vacant” lands, destroying communal (ejido) systems.
- Indigenous Displacement
- Indigenous peoples lost ancestral territories and were forced into debt peonage on haciendas or mines, creating resentment that fueled the revolution.
- Urban Labor Strain
- Industrialization brought harsh working conditions in factories and mines, often under foreign ownership, with long hours and minimal pay.
- Social Mobility Blocked
- A small elite monopolized wealth and opportunity; education and reform did not reach the rural poor, widening class divisions.
- Peasant Radicalization
- Figures like Emiliano Zapata mobilized rural communities under slogans such as “Tierra y Libertad” (“Land and Liberty”), demanding restitution of land and justice.
Ejido
Traditional communal land used by Indigenous and peasant communities, dismantled under Díaz’s privatization policies.
Land and Labor Conflict in Morelos
- The state of Morelos, dominated by sugar haciendas, exemplified rural inequality.
- Peasants displaced by expanding plantations joined Zapata’s movement, seeking land reform and autonomy.
- Zapata’s Plan de Ayala (1911) called for expropriation of haciendas and redistribution of land to those who worked it.
- The Morelos uprising revealed the revolution’s grassroots social dimension, not merely a political rebellion but a struggle for survival and dignity.
Economic Causes
- Foreign Economic Dominance
- By 1910, over 40% of Mexico’s economy (especially mining, oil, and railroads) was foreign-owned, mainly by the U.S., Britain, and France.
- Uneven Modernization
- Industrialization and rail expansion benefited elites and foreign investors but bypassed rural Mexico.
- Falling Real Wages
- Inflation and exploitation reduced living standards for workers even as national production soared.
- Regional Disparities
- The north prospered with mining and trade, while the south, especially Indigenous regions, suffered economic decline.
- Dependence on Export Economy
- Mexico’s growth relied on exporting raw materials, leaving it vulnerable to market fluctuations and foreign pressure.
The Cananea and Río Blanco Strikes
- The Cananea Copper Strike (1906) in Sonora and the Río Blanco Textile Strike (1907) in Veracruz exposed worker frustration with exploitation and foreign dominance.
- Both strikes protested low wages and poor treatment by U.S.-owned companies and local elites.
- The Díaz regime used the Rurales and army to suppress the uprisings, killing and imprisoning workers.
- These events revealed the regime’s prioritization of foreign business over national welfare and deepened anti-elite and nationalist sentiment.
Political Causes
- Authoritarianism of Díaz
- The Porfiriato’s political system excluded most Mexicans from power. Elections were rigged, and opposition leaders were exiled, imprisoned, or silenced.
- “Order and Progress” Ideology
- Díaz’s regime emphasized modernization and stability but rejected democratic participation.
- Corruption and Patronage
- Loyalty was rewarded through appointments and favors; the Científicos, Díaz’s elite technocrats, shaped policy for their own interests.
- Middle-Class Frustration
- Professionals, teachers, and journalists resented the lack of political mobility and growing oligarchy.
- Crisis of Succession
- By 1910, Díaz was elderly with no clear successor. His claim that Mexico was ready for democracy exposed the regime’s contradictions.
Interconnection of Causes
- The political rigidity of the Díaz regime prevented peaceful reform, converting social and economic grievances into armed conflict.
- Foreign dominance and land inequality created nationalist and populist movements that transcended class boundaries.
- Regional diversity: industrial labor in the north, peasant revolts in the south gave the revolution multiple fronts and motives.
- Ultimately, the revolution was both a political rebellion against dictatorship and a social revolution seeking justice and redistribution.
- Use the three-category framework (social, economic, political) to structure essays logically.
- Include specific uprisings (Cananea, Río Blanco, Morelos) to illustrate how abstract causes translated into local revolts.
- Emphasize that the revolution was multi-causal and regionally diverse.
- Oversimplifying the causes as purely social or economic; political exclusion was the trigger.
- Ignoring foreign influence, a key element linking economic grievance and nationalism.
- Knowledge and Perspective: How can modernization, presented as progress by one group, simultaneously represent oppression and loss for another?
- Analyze the political, economic, and social causes of the Mexican Revolution.
- To what extent was Porfirio Díaz responsible for the outbreak of revolution in 1910?
- Examine how inequality and modernization combined to produce revolutionary conditions in Mexico.


