Mexico’s working class has long lacked the benefits of an independent labor movement, similar to those in the United States and Canada. Low wages, scarcity of labor rights and impunity in cases of labor rights violations have made Mexico an attractive investment destination for international capital. The Mexican bourgeoisie has largely allowed the arrival of new capital, driven by the prospect of more open export markets and the hope of alleviating the various crises the country has faced. This overproduction has led countries like the United States to export their surplus capital to Mexico, where labor exploitation can grow unhindered, thus alleviating the crisis and undermining labor movements throughout North America. Working class responses to this international problem have been marked by theoretical confusion. Now we are again faced with an impending crisis and an increase in capital exports to Mexico, largely influenced by the trade war with China. This underscores the need for a unity of interests among the working class in all countries and the importance of a clear workers’ program, guided by an independent communist party. Such a party must confront the challenges of international trade, capital flows and imperial conflicts arising on the continent in a comprehensive manner, without repeating the shortcomings of previous movements that focused primarily on national approaches.

The international movement of capital is strongly influenced by overproduction, which leads capital-rich countries such as the United States to look for new ways and places to invest. Previously, this capital flow was directed towards China because of its economic openness, but presently there is an increase in its movement towards countries such as Mexico. This shift became evident during the US-China trade war, which resulted in a stagnation of Chinese commodity imports to the US, signaling that the flow of capital exports from the US to China has decreased. In fact, China now has its own surplus capital that it seeks to export, which is reflected in the declining share of commodity exports in its GDP. On the other hand, commodity exports from Mexico and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to the United States have experienced significant growth, signaling that US capital has begun to move to these locations. Among these is India, where a phenomenon equivalent to that of Mexico can be observed. Despite belonging to the bloc of nations known as BRICS, a formation of large regional economies also including Brazil, Russia, India and China, Mexico has not seen explicit sanctions from the US government, thus indicating that economic factors, combined with the trade war, have redirected capital exports to countries like Mexico. This shift has benefited several Mexican industries, such as the automotive and computer parts sectors.

The growth of capital in Mexico has empowered the Mexican bourgeoisie to reverse past trade impositions. This shift in the balance of trade in Mexico’s favor began after the signing of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Free trade had a positive impact on Mexico’s exports to the United States, resulting in an influx of capital into Mexico. However, this trend was hampered by increasing US investment in China at the turn of the century, and has intensified again since the US-China trade war. With its newfound power, the Mexican State has implemented protectionist measures to safeguard its domestic markets, including the “nationalization” of 13 electricity-generating plants belonging to the Spanish company Iberdrola, and the prohibition of genetically modified corn for human consumption and glyphosate. Additionally, the export of crude oil produced by Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) has been reduced, with future plans to completely halt exportation entirely. The nationalization of lithium mines has been carried out as well. These measures have allowed Mexican capital to have greater control over numerous industries that were previously dominated by foreign investors.

The Mexican Business Council (CMN) confirmed that Mexican companies will invest $30 billion by 2023. Rolando Vega, president of CMN, which includes the 62 largest companies in the country, told the media that the historic opportunity presented by the potential relocation of companies, also known as “nearshoring”, must be seized. The Mexican government also estimates that by the end of the year there will be a 3% growth, driven mainly by direct foreign investment, as a result of nearshoring. In 2022, the foreign investment figure reached $35 billion, the highest since 2015. It appears this amount will continue to increase in the coming years. Interest rates have been rising almost in parallel with those of the US. In May interest rates were 11.25%, avoiding a massive outflow of capital, and this has played out in favor of the peso appreciating against the dollar. At that time, $1 was equivalent to an average of 18 pesos, while during the previous government $1 was equivalent to an average of 20 pesos. Banking capital is one of the most benefited. The 15 richest families in the country have increased their fortunes by 645 billion pesos, in contrast to the increase in the number living in poverty from 51.9 million to 55.7 million. The government is managing with a neoliberal policy in the classic style, despite its critical attitude toward previous governments.

On the other hand, the United States seeks to protect its access to Mexican markets in a variety of ways, despite the increasing flow of capital into Mexico and the power this gives the country. One such strategy is through the threat of a trade war. The Office of the US Trade Representative has issued an ultimatum to Mexico, demanding the opening of its markets to genetically modified corn, foreign oil companies and energy producers, as well as increases in oversight. If no agreement is reached, the case will be submitted to an arbitration panel under T-MEC (known in the US as USMCA, or the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), which replaced NAFTA, and American sanctions will be imposed on Mexico. In addition to this threat, some Republican politicians, such as Senator Lindsey Graham and former President Donald Trump, have mentioned the possibility of military intervention in Mexico, justified by the cartels’ control of fentanyl production. This position reflects the ideological consensus within the US Republican Party. While this military intervention is only remotely possible, it would certainly be used to address US trade concerns in Mexico. The American media reflects these new attitudes, emphasizing the alleged loss of democracy under the AMLO government, the “control” of Mexico by drug cartels, and other significant problems.

NAFTA and its successor agreement have had significant effects not only on trade disputes, but also on the Mexican labor movement. After the Mexican Revolution, many sectors in Mexico were dominated by State unions that were often under the direct control of the regime. These unions “negotiated” wage increases that, in reality, resulted in a decrease in workers’ purchasing power. Following the crises of 1976 and ‘83, the search for greater surplus value and the need for export markets led the Mexican bourgeoisie to open the country to trade, which destabilized the import substitution model previously used. These changes, together with the effectiveness of controlled unions, which were used to reduce wages, led to a historic decline in wages in Mexico and the impoverishment of its working class. In response to the large flow of capital into Mexico, the programs of the Mexican, American and Canadian working classes converged in the creation of independent Mexican unions. Strikes were held in all three countries, putting pressure on their respective governments. In response, the United States proposed the North American Labor Agreement (NAALC), a treaty that bureaucratized the investigation of labor violations and sought to appease the working class without solving the underlying problem. Finally, due to the aforementioned pressure and the perception that the Mexican labor system represented “unfair competition”, especially from conservative sectors in the US, greater labor protections were agreed to in the T-MEC (USMCA) in 2018. These protections, however, existed only in theory until the signing of labor reforms in 2019, which improved the process for reporting labor violations and poor working conditions. This was in large part thanks to pressure from Mexican unions.

Another phenomenon that characterizes relations between the United States and Mexico is migration. We can observe that the movement of migrants responds to the needs of capital in the region. From 2005-14, the migration trend was mainly dominated by emigration from the United States to Mexico. This trend has gained prominence since the pandemic, when many American workers moved to Mexican cities to escape rising living costs at home and to take advantage of remote working. This trend, however, increasingly impoverishes the Mexican working class. In contrast, the United States has experienced high rates of immigration from other countries, which helps to valorize American surplus capital and reduce production costs, thus alleviating the country’s prevailing overproduction problem and impoverishing the domestic working class. However, this effect has not been sufficient to solve the problem. Contrary to what one might think, more and more Mexicans are returning to their country, motivated by the same reasons as Americans. The bourgeois media present this as a confrontation between the two populations, where some win and others lose. In reality, this apparent conflict between the two nations shows the unity of the working class, driven by the flow and concentration of capital. The American working class cannot be free while the Mexican working class is in chains; neither can Mexican workers be free while neighboring Americans are exploited.

This internationalism is in stark contrast to the traditional rhetoric of the bourgeoisie, which promotes nationalist divisions. Time and again, the Mexican bourgeoisie seeks to extol national interests, represented by economic growth driven by the flow of capital into Mexico, as interests that unite the Mexican proletariat and its national bourgeoisie. These interests, however, are directly opposed to those of the workers, since “national glory” is always at the expense of the blood and toil of workers. First, this flow of capital into Mexico is based on the potential surplus value of the Mexican worker, which is considerably higher than that of countries like China and the United States. The supposed “national interest” in this case is to maximize labor exploitation in order to attract more capital. To achieve this, both the bourgeoisie and the nation have an interest in increasing the working day, reducing wages and decreasing investment in labor safety measures. Historically, this is what has happened under conditions of strong corporatism, controlled unions and the labor system utilized during the 1980s. The Mexican bourgeoisie worked successfully to convert economic growth into the casualization of Mexican labor seen today. As long as this is not the case, and wages go up, it will only be because of the coordinated action of the workers, and external circumstances that do not allow it. The presence of a strong opportunist left is essential to divert workers’ struggles and absorb them back into the logic of capital, all for the sake of maintaining national order and capitalist economic growth.

Mexico’s populist government seeks to “integrate” the interests of the working class with that of the nation. However, improvements for the working class will only materialize if it remains independent and militant in the face of the bourgeoisie. The adherence of the most advanced branches of the proletariat to the left bourgeois parties would represent the end of the struggle and a massive disarmament of the working class. A resulting popular front would be subject to the inevitable laws of capitalist competition and, despite the good intentions of its leaders, would only achieve concessions to the extent that they do not disturb the relations of production. In times of growth, these concessions would be convenient for disarming the workers, and in times of crisis, they would only translate into greater labor precariousness, which would be made possible by their disarmament. A naïve view of the current situation could lead us to conclude that support for the United States is the best thing to do, as the US seeks to improve freedom of association in Mexico. However, reality shows that the US is in the same situation as Mexico. Its support for independent unions is based on the fact that Mexican labor exploitation is considered “unfair” to its national interests, and only then are small concessions appropriate. However, when independent Mexican unions do not contribute to the growth of American industry, especially during a crisis when there is a capital surplus, their national interests would change. At that point, Mexico would not be seen as attracting American capital in an “unfair” way, but would be alleviating the world crisis by absorbing global capital surplus. The bourgeois world would be compelled to maximize exploitation in Mexico, and imperialist competitors would converge on this objective despite their differences.

Faced with the negative consequences of a popular front, the only solution for the workers lies in strengthening the labor movement to the detriment of capital and the nation. Given that the interests of the workers are contrary to those of the nation, and that they can only achieve improvements through an independent labor movement, it is necessary to take this further and advocate revolutionary defeatism, turning setbacks in any imperialist conflict into advances for the revolutionary seizure of power. In the short term, this materializes in an independent, international movement with a program oriented toward wage increases, shorter working hours and improvements in working conditions, against national interests in both Mexico and the US. The programs of proletarian struggle in each country should not be limited to purely national demands, since historically it has been shown that capital will use the weaker position of the proletariat in other nations to weaken the strongest workers’ movements. Only in this way can apparent national antagonisms like gentrification and immigration be resolved, and the real antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat be revealed.

This central contradiction lies at the very heart of the capitalist system, lurking in the depths of divergence between the social nature of the mode of production and the individual appropriation characteristic of capital. This contradiction manifests itself in the conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, but it is also reflected in the very core of the US empire. The United States stands as the predominant world force due to its economic power, which makes it the epicenter of crises in overproduction and the producer of a massive surplus of capital that needs to be exported to countries like China, India or Mexico, where it is more profitable to unload. The export of this capital simultaneously strengthens these nations, creating national bourgeoisies powerful enough to challenge American domination. This phenomenon has been evident in the current case of China, as well as in the history of the United States, itself once a center for European investment. Thus, American power is characterized by this crucial contradiction: its economic power enables it to exercise global dominance, but at the same time drives it to strengthen potential rivals capable of confronting it. This contradiction will inevitably find its resolution in imperialist wars, but it also contains within itself its own negation, opening up the possibility of a society beyond capitalism struggling to emerge.

In summary, Mexico is at a pivotal historical moment. It has experienced a significant increase in capital inflows, which has strengthened its economy and allowed it to gain control of key domestic markets such as oil, corn and lithium, among others. In the face of the US government’s uncertain response, Mexican leaders have resorted to nationalist and opportunistic rhetoric to mobilize workers in defense of the homeland and against the United States. However, this political alliance only serves to maintain the bourgeois order and, due to economic necessities, imposes the interests of the bourgeoisie on all other classes. This translates into the generalized impoverishment of the population, a result that unfortunately aligns with what has historically occurred in similar situations in Mexico. This situation not only represents a defeat for the working class in one country, but for an entire continent.

Therefore, it is the duty of the working classes throughout North America to coordinate their actions in a unified program that addresses the specific problems facing workers in each nation. In this way, they will be able to confront the movement of capital between countries as a tool of the bourgeoisie. This movement is only a reflection of the growing need to obtain surplus value and only generates imperialist conflicts, such as the one we are currently witnessing. Its solution lies in proletarian revolution and the destruction of capital entirely.