The History of Capitalism in Mexico : Its Origins, 1521–1763

What lies at the center of the Mexican colonial experience? Should Mexican colonial society be construed as a theoretical monolith, capitalist from its inception, or was it essentially feudal, as traditional historiography viewed it? In this pathfinding study, Enrique Semo offers a fresh vision: that the conflicting social formations of capitalism, feudalism, and tributary despotism provided the basic dynamic of Mexico's social and economic development. Responding to questions raised by contemporary Mexican society, Semo sees the origin of both backwardness and development not in climate, race, or a heterogeneous set of unrelated traits, but rather in the historical interaction of each social formation. In his analysis, Mexico's history is conceived as a succession of socioeconomic formations, each growing within the "womb" of its predecessor. Semo sees the task of economic history to analyze each of these formations and to construct models that will help us understand the laws of its evolution. His premise is that economic history contributes to our understanding of the present not by formulating universal laws, but by studying the laws of development and progression of concrete economic systems. The History of Capitalism in Mexico opens with the Conquest and concludes with the onset of the profound socioeconomic transformation of the last fifty years of the colony, a period clearly representing the precapitalist phase of Mexican development. In the course of his discussion, Semo addresses the role of dependency—an important theoretical innovation—and introduces the concept of tributary despotism, relating it to the problems of Indian society and economy. He also provides a novel examination of the changing role of the church throughout Mexican colonial history. The result is a comprehensive picture, which offers a provocative alternative to the increasingly detailed and monographic approach that currently dominates the writing of history. Originally published as Historia del capitalismo en México in 1973, this classic work is now available for the first time in English. It will be of interest to specialists in Mexican colonial history, as well as to general readers. ## Preface to the English Edition Forty years ago, a debate opened on the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe; its influence soon spread to other areas of historical research. 1 In the mid-sixties, the debate started up again in an unexpected setting: Latin America. Taking up the issues of that first round, it now incorporated non-Marxist thinkers and new themes: dependence and the nature of Third World societies in their Latin American variant. 2 A decade later, seeking a new synthesis, the European theme was reintroduced through seminal contributions by Pierre Philipe Rey (1973), Robert Brenner (1974), and Immanuel Wallerstein (1974). These contributions inspired a wave of polemical essays and historical studies that led to the development of a well-defined problematic, sustained by an abundant literature that is still growing. 3 The History of Capitalism in Mexico was published in Spanish in 1973 and is part of that debate. It stirred considerable controversy in Mexico and was later adopted as a textbook by many teachers, running into more than twenty editions. During the two decades since its original publication, research both on theoretical questions addressed in it and on the economy and society of New Spain has advanced by leaps and bounds. Furthermore, events in the last ten years must lead us to reconsider our ideas on the origin and development of capitalism in the world and in Mexico. The incorporation of all these developments would require either changes in a text that, meanwhile, has acquired a personality and life of its own or, better still, the writing of a new book-and that is not the case here. Especially since, having reviewed the subsequent literature on the issues addressed in it, I can confirm that its central theses remain valid. I would rather develop them further, qualify them, and incorporate corrections inspired by the excellent monographical research published throughout this period than reject them or change the book's general approach. Perhaps the best service one can render the contemporary Englishspeaking reader is to attempt to situate correctly the position occupied x The History of Capitalism in Mexico: Its Origins, 1521-1763 I chose to develop these objections in a case study that would demonstrate the existence of powerful precapitalist formations in the early stages of Latin American history, their articulation with early capitalism, the emergence of original forms of transition, and the wide diversity of local class struggles and alliances that characterized these processes. I soon established that, given conditions in Mexico, an approach that centered on relations of production was necessary but not sufficient. The presence of precapitalist modes of production other than feudalism, the fact that capitalism was originally transplanted from Europe, and the peculiarities of a conquest characterized by strong drives to colonize and settle made it necessary to pay particular attention not only to violent changes in the forces of production but also to all political and cultural cataclysms that accompany the collapse of a civilization and the rise of a new one and that can hardly be synthesized under the rubric of "class struggle/' I thus reached a series of theoretical conclusions that concurred grosso modo with what would later be called the theory of articulation of modes of production. As early as May 1972,1 published an outline of my conclusions in an article, the main ideas of which might serve as an introduction to reading the text: During its first two centuries of existence, the economy of New Spain formed a heterogeneous system in which different modes of production coexisted, not separate from each other, but as an organic whole that gave each part its particular meaning. Its history manifested itself in changes in the relative importance of individual modes of production and transformations in relations between them. The combination, within this system, of tributary despotism, feudalism, and simple mercantile relations conferred a predominantly precapitalist character on the whole until the mid-eighteenth century. Capitalism, to the extent that it emerged in several sectors, was in an embryonic and subordinate state. The system was made up of two basic structures: the republica de los indios (despotic-tributary) and the republica de los espanoles (feudalcapitalist). The former consisted, on the one hand, of all the Indian communities and, on the other, of the encomenderos, the royal bureaucracy, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The surplus product from the communities took the form mainly of tribute in labor, kind, or money. The forces of production underwent some change, but they were not developed much more than in pre-Hispanic times. The latter emerged from the process of colonization and mestizaje. Its basic units were the estancia, thehacienda, the mill, the mine, the workshop, and the obraje. The income of the dominant classes derived from the surplus labor of Indian and African workers, granted in encomienda or distributed in repartimiento to Spanish properties as slaves, free-wage laborers, or The History of Capitalism in Mexico: Its Origins, 1521-1763 possible to go considerably further in the study of mechanisms of survival and adaptation of Indian communities, labor relations, links between the economic and political realms, class and caste formation, and the integration of New Spain into the international economy of that period. As an example of the richness and diversity of their contributions and taking only those that deal directly with the period and issues studied in Histoha del capitalismo en Mexico, I will review some of them in the following pages, aware that the time will soon come for new theoretical syntheses, of which this book might be regarded as a worthy precursor. The theoretical debate has been enriched by research carried out by Victor M. Soria (1988), who further pursues the analysis of modes of production in colonial Mexico. He rightly emphasizes the social role played in their articulation by tribute, taxes, commercial and monetary circuits, and surplus extraction from the metropolis. It is regrettable that he could not fight the temptation to add a new mode of production (artisanal) to those already known. Bringing together the study of modes of production, the changing colonial relation, and agrarian crises, he argues that the history of the colony be divided into four periods, each marked by the outbreak of a crisis and by substantial changes in the articulation of modes of production. Leaving aside internal causes of development of the economy of New Spain, without however, denying their importance, Angel Palerm (1978) analyzes the economy's incorporation through silver into a system "increasingly dominated by capitalism." He explains, however, that it was not a free-market economy but a state-regulated and managed economy. Gunder Frank (1979) has studied the dynamics of New Spain's agriculture between 1521 and 1630. Having removed all aspects that might contradict his thesismainly those relating to Indian society, the natural economy, and precapitalist relations between the economic and political realms-he arrives at the anticipated conclusion: the Conquest over, Mexican agriculture became capitalist, and its entire development was determined by the dynamics of the market and accumulation on a global scale. Enrique Florescano (1984) has synthesized the history of the hacienda in New Spain. He argues that only after securing its own system of obtaining, keeping, and replacing laborers did the hacienda consolidate itself. That was the reason behind the hacendados' demand to abolish the repartimiento. The haciendas were set up to supply the market created by mining centers and large cities, but the hacendados always tried to be self-sufficient as far as their own internal consumption was concerned, in order to avoid the financial expense otherwise incurred if goods had to be obtained through the market. Ulises Beltran (1989) deals with the transformation of agrarian labor systems between ## Preface to the English Edition XVll 1524 and 1640 and their effect on New Spain's economy. He argues that these changes were the result of fluctuations in the relative prices of goods and factors of production, in turn brought about by changes in population and market size. Carlos Sempat Assadourian (1973) maintains that in the early seventeenth century, Latin America was already divided into large economic spaces defined (1) around one or two dominant products that directed their growth outward and (2) by a degree of specialization and a division of labor suitable for these products, and that (3) the metropolis devised a system of direct control over each individual area, and (4) it hindered or prevented relations between areas. Jos6 Carlos Chiaramonte (1984) has traced the history of the concept of feudalism in Latin American thought since the mid-nineteenth century to the present day and ends with an analysis of the 1965 Puiggros (feudal colony) / Frank (capitalist colony) debate. He concludes that neither succeeds in substantiating his respective thesis in a satisfactory manner and that the problem has not been adequately researched. Ciro F. Cardoso and Hector P6rez Brignoli (1979) have criticized Wallerstein's thesis. They argue that, as regards production, Europe could not be considered capitalist since the end of the fifteenth century; the rise of capitalism in that continent was not a simple outcome of surplus transfer from the periphery; and the theory of a world economy cannot explain how the system determines the diversity of forms adopted by labor at an international level. The best summary to date of the debates on the subject is the one by Steve J. Stern (1988). He has criticized Wallerstein's theory and has shown that the latter's thesis on the three forms adopted by international labor does not provide an adequate explanation of labor relations in sugar and silver complexes, the two major colonial products. Wallerstein's reply and Stern's comments may well represent the beginning of a new stage of the debate at a higher level. Research on Indian society during the colony has flourished. Teresa Rojas (1988) has looked at Mesoamerican agrarian technology in the sixteenth century. Relying on sources that had not been adequately used before, she offers a much more complex, diversified, and accurate image than the one previously held. Mercedes Olivera (1978) has analyzed the community of settlers in the municipality of Tecali, southwest of the city of Puebla, between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, and has found more continuities than ruptures. At the end of the sixteenth century, some eight thousand Indians of diverse ethnic origin formed a well-integrated and relatively autonomous unit. In political terms, they constituted a republica de los indios; in religious terms, they were members of the same parish of Santiago Tecali; in economic terms, they were self-sufficient and their common language was Nahuatl. Spanish, black, or mestizo settlements were small, and society was still divided xviii The History of Capitalism in Mexico: Its Origins, 1521-1763 into pillis (nobles) and macehuales [comuneros). Land ownership was determined by pre-Columbian traditions endorsed by the Spanish administration. Significantly, Nancy M. Farriss (1984) subtitled her book on the Mayas under the Spaniards, The Collective Enterprise of Survival In it, she argues that the Mayas managed to avoid the disintegration of their society largely because of their own resources, among which were their knowledge and strategies to assimilate and adapt to conquests, derived from a long pre-Hispanic history of foreign domination. She reminds us that the policies of Spanish colonialism must not be confused with the modernizing processes imposed after the second half of the nineteenth century, because the settlers were themselves premodern people. Marcello Carmagnani (1988) has studied the processes of reconstruction of Indian society in Oaxaca during the colonial period. He has uncovered systematic and concerted action by comuneros to strengthen the relation between households and communal forms, between cofradias and fraternities, and has found that their vitality contradicts the widespread image of an inert Indian world, eroded by the action of exclusively external forces. Maria Teresa Jarquin (1990) has analyzed political, religious, and economic development in Metepec in colonial times. She argues that the fusion of both cultures cannot be reduced to a mechanistic superimposition of Spanish on Indian culture, but, rather, to a complex process of reelaboration on both sides that gives rise to a new way of life. Jesus Ruvalcaba (1985) has analyzed the political economy of a community in the northern region of the Valley of Mexico during the sixteenth century (twenty-five thousand inhabitants at the end of the century). He asserts that, despite the introduction of the plow, the use of animal power, and new seeds and plants, production and the social structure that sustained it preserved the inhabitants' pre-Hispanic traits. Any changes that may have taken place came about mainly because of violent demographic shifts. The study of labor relations has been enriched by the authoritative study of Silvio Zavala (1985), which paints a vast fresco of labor conditions among Indians in the mid-sixteenth century. He describes in detail labor legislation and its relation to a reality governed by the encomienda and obligatory services. He reveals forms of coercion hidden behind free labor contract laws. He describes the complexity and diversity of social relations contained in tribute and obligatory services, as well as the struggles fought between the Crown and the ecclesiastical orders, on the one hand, who insist on laws being obeyed, and encomenderos and "all-powerful men," on the other, who are set on obstructing them. Woodrow Borah (1983) has studied the Indian court that operated in central Mexico between 1592 and 1820, regulating xix relations between Indians and Spaniards. Laws, petitions, and proceedings reveal a clash between differing Spanish and Indian conceptions regarding the norms that should govern relations between them. On the question of the rise of the dominant classes, one must mention Jose de la Pena (1983), who, drawing from sources unknown till now, has studied the rise of New Spain's oligarchy. He records the early presence of "all-powerful men" who still lived and thought in terms of the Castilian medieval world of the fifteenth century and their substitution by a network of families who controlled not only new agrarian activities, mining, and trade, but also cabildos, public works, the provisioning of cities, and land distribution. The source of church wealth in the sixteenth century has been researched by John Frederick Schwaller (1985), who describes in detail tithes, parish revenue, pious works, and alms, as well as the impact on them of fluctuations in production and agrarian prices, of demographic changes, and of the rise of the haciendas. Linda Greenow (1983) has analyzed credit and mortgages in Guadalajara in the eighteenth century. She reaffirms the central role of the church in this area, which controls the development of the economy as a whole and concludes that, as regards credits, the church did not operate as a corporative institution but as a set of private interests that clashed and intertwined. It would be impossible to mention here all the major studies that have revolutionized our knowledge of the origin of the hacienda. Other themes and approaches follow from studies like the one by Ross Hassig (1985), which deals with the provisioning of Tenochtitlan-Mexico before and after the Conquest. The author finds continuities and ruptures that furnish evidence of both the persistence of the Indian economy and the technical revolution introduced by the Spaniards. Tribute and earlier systems of transportation survived, but the introduction of new products, the expansion of the market, and the use of mule trains and wagons drastically altered the relation between the city and its hinterland. On the assumption that, for cultural and economic reasons, chroniclers were more interested in providing an account of rural areas and of religion than in urban conglomerations, Jos6 Luis Rojas (1986) has turned to alternative sources to demonstrate that the way of life of Tenoch titlan's inhabitants at the time of the arrival of the Spaniards was genuinely urban and very different from life in rural villages, and that this aspect has been neglected in research on pre-Hispanic society in its entirety. Cecilia Rabel (1985), who has studied tithes in one Guanajuato municipality, argues that they represent a little-used, basic indicator for analyzing secular trends in prices and the colony's economy in general. The study of forms of Indian peasant resistance has been given new xx The History of Capitalism in Mexico: Its Origins, 1521-1763 impetus through such works as William Taylor's (1979), which deals with the social implications of criminality and rebellion in Mexican villages in the colonial period, and Friedrich Katz's (1988), which provides a comparison between peasant rebellions in the century prior to Cortes's arrival and those in colonial times. Katz concludes that, due to their military superiority, demographic catastrophe among the Indian population, and their methods of indoctrination, the Spaniards were more successful than the Aztecs in preventing them. The increase in the number of rebellions in the nineteenth century came about because these conditions no longer existed. John Coats worth (1988) has classified peasant rebellions, quantified their frequency, compared their patterns in different countries of the subcontinent, and arrived at the conclusion that in Mexico their frequency and scope grew after 1760, in response both to demographic and economic pressures and to the Bourbon reforms. Thanks to the diversity of such contributions, a new image has emerged of the enormously vast and highly diverse region called New Spain, of its many cultures and complex processes of fusion. It possesses a history profoundly influenced by events taking place several months' sailing away in Seville, Antwerp, or London, but in which the main actors were Indians, Spaniards, blacks, and mestizos who, with hatred and love, struggle and collaboration, ultimately merged to establish the bases for an entity not in the least imaginary, albeit very problematic, which is present-day Mexico. I have received a great deal of personal and intellectual help in the writing of this book. Most of the research was done during my tenure as visiting professor at Humboldt University in Berlin. The administrators of this institution and in particular the directors of the Institute of Contemporary History, Helmut Stocker and Gunter Rose, as well as the other contributors to the center, did their utmost to help me with my research. Friedrich Katz read parts of the manuscript, and our discussions were always full of encouragement and new ideas. An earlier version of this work was presented as a doctoral thesis at the same university. The members of the examining panel, Manfred Kossok, Johan Lorenz Schmidt (Radvanii), and Max Zeuske, submitted the manuscript to a meticulous analysis, and their written comments made possible a substantial improvement. In Mexico, Gast6n Garcia Cantii read the book carefully, while my conversations with Roger Bartra and Sergio de la Pena served to clarify many ideas. Some of the most valuable encouragement, criticism, and comments came from my seminars with UNAM postgraduate students. Of course, the responsibility for the errors and shortcomings of the book lies with the author alone. The help given by Ellen Wernicke from Humboldt University Library and Mr. Riedmann from the Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut was invaluable in enabling me to locate sources. The struggles waged by Mexican students, intellectuals, and workers in 1968 for the renewal of their country inspired this work and hastened its completion.