The massive demonstrations that took place in Mexico on November 15th of last year, presented by most media outlets and social networks as a spontaneous reaction of “Generation Z” and “the citizenry” against the corruption and violence of the current government, mask a much deeper political dynamic: the acute clash between different sectors of the Mexican bourgeoisie and the parties and movements that represent them, over control of the state apparatus and the distribution of power. We communists distance ourselves from the dominant narrative in our analysis of these situations, focusing instead on the conflict from the perspective of class struggle, the only lens capable of fully interpreting political crises in a capitalist society.

Originally organized by a movement called Generation Z Mexico, which called for protests and marches across the country in response to growing economic insecurity, state corruption, and the assassination of Uruapan Mayor Carlos Manzo. Despite initial claims that it was exclusively a youth movement, it became clear that many older generations also mobilized, including right-wing conservative factions of the bourgeoisie such as the PRI, the PAN, and even elements of the Sinarquista movement (which had Nazi leanings). The bourgeois press has provided only a superficial understanding of the causes that triggered these events and the mass mobilization that brought different strata of class society into the fray, resulting in 140 injuries (100 of whom were police officers) and numerous arrests.

This interclass mass explosion is itself a consequence of the continuous deterioration of economic conditions for both workers and the petty bourgeoisie facing proletarianization. All of this is compounded by the problem of drug trafficking (a business that profits the bourgeoisie and finances all the groups that alternately control the government), which is nothing more than a symptom of capitalist production in a country subservient to US imperialism and shrouded in a mystifying fog by the bourgeois establishment.

Background: Inter-Bourgeois Conflict for Control of the Government

The current political context in Mexico, with the Morena party in government, is characterized by the rise to power of a faction of the bourgeoisie that espouses a nationalist, sovereignist, and “leftist” discourse (summarized in the so-called Fourth Transformation or 4T), gaining support among voters because of corruption and the social effects of the neoliberal policies of previous governments (PRI, PAN). The traditional bourgeois establishment, represented by the parties that are now in opposition (PAN, PRI, PRD, Movimiento Ciudadano) and their associated business elites, was displaced from direct control of the State, but retains immense economic power.

The rejection of the security policy (“Hugs, not bullets”) and the current government’s handling of violence and corruption are the rhetorical fuel used by this displaced bourgeoisie to frame their bourgeois -democratic opposition. The assassination of a mayor who called for a “tough on crime” approach was used as a catalyst for outrage, opportunistically exploited to mobilize a segment of the population. However, both the ruling and opposition factions, despite their discursive differences, are staunch defenders of capitalism and guarantors of the business interests of national and transnational corporations, basing their accumulation on the exploitation of wage labor in Mexico.

The Situation of the Proletariat: Low Wages and High Unemployment

While the press focuses on the political infighting among elites, the real situation of the working class and oppressed sectors remains unresolved. Despite increases in the minimum wage, the cost of living and inflation steadily erode purchasing power. Average wages remain low, job insecurity and informality persist as structural realities, labor rights enshrined in bourgeois legislation, as well as pensions, are subject to attacks and regressive reforms.

The fundamental demands of the proletariat are not the focus of the protests that dominate newspaper headlines and social media posts. Most of the labor unions and federations in Mexico, historically tied to the interests of the state and under the control of various political parties with representation in parliament, maintain a position of subservience to employers and a demobilization of workers. The silence or support of these unions for the current government demonstrates the lack of a distinct voice and identity for the working class in the face of conflict between bourgeois sectors and the challenge of building an independent, proletarian class movement, freed from the bourgeois polarization that currently places them in the false dilemma of supporting either the government or the opposition, both of whom are bourgeois.

Despite the government’s much-touted policy of nominal wage increases, the purchasing power of the working class remains a central struggle. Since López Obrador (AMLO) took office as president of Mexico, his promises to raise wages above the cost of the Basic Food Basket (CBI) through a gradual program have not been fulfilled. While the wage increases were presented in the media as the highest in over three decades, the reality is that they fall far short of the CBI. For example, when AMLO assumed the presidency in December 2018, he announced an increase in the daily minimum wage from $88.36 pesos to $102.68 pesos, and to $176.72 pesos in the border region between Mexico and the United States. But in reality, the wage increase was fought against by all employers, who denied and delayed raises for workers or withheld money from other items, such as the Christmas bonus in some cases. The entire wage policy implemented by López Obrador was agreed upon with the business sector, represented by COPARMEX. And Claudia Sheinbaum has maintained this policy of nominal increases that are clearly lagging behind the Basic Income Guarantee (CBI). In fact, the Obrador administration abandoned the use of the CBI as a reference for wage adjustments and adopted the poverty line monitored by the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL) as the benchmark, a decision also reached with the business sector.

For an urban household of four not to be considered income-poor, it would need a total income of approximately 18,259.84 Mexican pesos per month. A single minimum wage covers roughly half of a family’s needs. These figures clearly demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican bourgeois government, which claims its wage policy is based on “significant and constant increases”, “a living wage”, “breaking the myth that wage increases increase unemployment and fuel inflation”, and “a historic recovery of purchasing power”. But the wage policy of the current administration has remained in concert with the business sector and has remained aligned with the needs of exploiting wage labor and stimulating the market to facilitate the circulation of goods, thus increasing the domestic demand that the bourgeoisie requires.

The differences with the administrations of Felipe Calderón and Enrique Peña Nieto correspond to the growth of transnational investments. Mexico has reached record figures for foreign investment. A historic high was reported in 2024, and by the third quarter of 2025, the figure exceeded $40 billion, a 15% increase compared to the previous year. This is the result of the nearshoring phenomenon, a relocation strategy whereby companies move part of their production, manufacturing, or services to countries geographically close to their main market. In the Mexican context, this refers primarily to companies from the United States (and to a lesser extent, Canada) that have moved their production operations, traditionally located in distant markets such as Asia (specifically China), to Mexican territory. President Sheinbaum has emphasized that nearshoring “is an opportunity that must be seized with a development focus, ensuring that the new companies that establish themselves offer quality jobs and decent wages”. But the truth is that, just as in the past, companies that have established themselves in Mexico continue to rely on various cost-cutting measures, with low wages being the primary factor. On the other hand, in the northern municipalities, closer to the U.S. border, the Sheinbaum administration, always in consultation with the business sector and continuing the policies initiated by President Obrador, implemented more significant wage increases, not for reasons of “social justice”, but with the aim of closing the gap with the municipalities and counties on the U.S. side of the border and ensuring a readily available workforce for companies based in northern Mexico.

Sheinbaum’s bourgeois government speaks of a "historic reduction in multidimensional poverty and a significant increase in the coverage of the basic food basket", but statistics say otherwise, and the government itself has contradicted itself by implementing social programs to support people living in poverty—programs that would be practically unnecessary if wages were sufficient to cover all the needs of a working family. In fact, the "achievements" the government touts regarding poverty reduction cannot be attributed solely to wage policies but are also strongly linked to so-called "welfare programs", which include government cash transfers through pensions for senior citizens, women aged 60-64 (primarily Indigenous), and children and adults (up to age 64) with disabilities, as well as children of single parents (up to age 3). A lot of populism, a lot of propaganda, and very little impact on the real situation of working families.

However, informality and precarious employment is a structural phenomenon affecting a significant portion of the working population. This is the biggest obstacle in the Mexican government’s wage policy, since the wages pompously announced in the media only apply to a small segment of the working population, leaving the unemployed, the underemployed (those who need and are available to work more hours than their current job allows), and informal workers out of reach. Thus, in addition to the minimum wage being extremely low and insufficient to cover the cost of basic necessities, it only applies to a maximum of approximately 35% of wage earners.

Let’s see how the rest of the universe of Mexican workers is composed, and this has to do with the statistics of unemployment, underemployment and informality.

The statistical figures from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) show a labor market with a low open unemployment rate, but the true magnitude of unemployment is hidden behind underemployment and informality.

General Breakdown
Indicator	Men	Women	Total
Unemployment Rate (UR)	2.9%	3.1%	3.0% (Sep 2025)
Labor Informality Rate (TIL)	55.0%	55.9%	55.4% (Q3 2025)
Underemployment Rate	-	-	7.5% (Oct 2025)
Sources: INDEC, CEPAL, others

The national unemployment rate has remained relatively low, fluctuating between 2.5% and 3.0% in 2025. However, the rate showed a slight upward trend in the second half of 2025. Most notably, more than half of Mexican workers (33.1 million people) remain in the informal sector, without access to social security or benefits—a figure that remains “very high” and represents a structural characteristic of the Mexican economy. The informality rate is slightly higher for women. Furthermore, approximately 3.7 million people are underemployed.

Young people are the most vulnerable age group in the Mexican labor market. Those aged 15 to 29 experience significantly higher unemployment rates than the national average, reaching approximately 7.1%, almost double the overall rate. Lack of prior experience remains a major obstacle for those seeking their first job. Eight out of ten young people report difficulty finding work, often due to a lack of experience required by employers or unsatisfactory wages. This is reflected in the high proportion of unemployed individuals concentrated in the 15-24 age range, representing around 33% of all unemployed people in Mexico, demonstrating a high concentration of this problem within this demographic group of workers. Nearly seven out of ten young people (67%) who are employed work in the informal sector, a level 12 percentage points higher than the national average. This implies a lack of access to social security, benefits, and job stability. Data from 2024 indicated that, even among university graduates, only 30.7% found jobs that matched their qualifications, highlighting a disconnect between the education system and the demands of the labor market. In addition, there are the so-called "NEETs" (Not in Education, Employment, or Training), a group of young workers who are neither studying nor working, numbering approximately 4.8 million. Young women represent a much larger proportion of this NEET category, due to gender factors such as caregiving responsibilities at home.

The growth of the young working population, which constantly enters the labor market, is significant, and the vast majority are headed straight for the tragedy and frustration of unemployment, underemployment, and informal work, in a labor market that exploits them and pays them with hunger and unmet needs. This segment of wage earners, young people between the ages of 15 and 29, is what they call “Generation Z”. But this “Generation Z” is nothing more than the youngest stratum of the wage-earning class, burdened by low wages, precarious employment, and job insecurity, without union organizations to channel their frustration and discontent, and subject to manipulation by the bourgeois and opportunistic factions that are currently vying for control of the government. It is true that throughout the world, youth represents a social stratum that gives an exceptional boost in any social conflict, but the observation of the behavior of this social stratum should not be seen from a multi-class and generic perspective, but from a class perspective, visualizing working youth, proletarian youth, youth as part of the working class and its struggles.

The current demagogue, President Claudia Sheinbaum, has announced that she will continue and integrate the "Youth Building the Future" program into the Constitution, adding more beneficiaries to offer job training; but it is clear that this is just a distraction that will not solve the situation of hidden unemployment (underemployment and informality) that afflicts the Mexican working class in general and youth in particular.

It is therefore pointless to talk about the figures presented by the government and organizations such as the National Minimum Wage Commission (CONASAMI) in relation to the “reduction of poverty”.

In Mexico, there is not, nor will there ever be, a salary that allows workers to meet all their needs, and there will not be enough formal, stable, and healthy jobs for everyone of working age. This situation will not change as long as Mexico and the world remain subject to the capitalist system. In fact, to be even more emphatic, workers will not liberate themselves (or society as a whole) unless they demand the elimination of the exploitation of wage labor, which is the foundation of current society and the accumulation of wealth by a minority: the bourgeoisie, the capitalists.

Migration and Drug Trafficking: Economic Spaces that Also Exploit Workers

Migration has historically offered a safety valve for Latin American workers seeking higher wages and benefits, and for the Mexican bourgeois state, which now has to contend with a smaller pool of unemployed workers; it also benefits from remittances, which constituted 3.6% of Mexico’s GDP in 2024. Those who cannot migrate or find work with sufficient wages turn to the cartels as a lumpenproletariat and go on to exploit, for the most part, their former class brethren (the proletariat) and the petty bourgeoisie. Cartels like the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) have extended their operations beyond illicit drug dealing, kidnapping, extortion, and human trafficking. Over the past few decades, these “businessmen” have carved their way into more acceptable forms of capital accumulation, such as the oil and agricultural industries.

The recent assassination of Carlos Manzo, the mayor of Uruapan in the state of Michoacán, exemplifies the brutal response that characterizes the cartels’ dealings with their opponents. In fact, in 2024 alone, more than 30 candidates were murdered during the election campaign, the highest level of violence since 2018. Manzo, elected in 2024, had adopted a hardline stance against the cartels, impacting the local agricultural bourgeoisie, which has a strong presence in Michoacán and is subject to cartel control over agricultural products. This comes on top of increased competition from large agricultural corporations, both foreign and domestic, following the elimination of state subsidies under AMLO (Andrés Manuel López Obrador), which included low-interest loans for farmers, free fertilizer, and cash transfers that benefited small producers with less than 10 hectares. SEGALMEX, an agency under AMLO’s administration, also pretended to help producers by buying corn above market prices, but it has been shown to have operated as a vehicle for corruption, benefiting bureaucratic managers who embezzle money with the few companies colluding to win contracts. In fact, the agricultural sector demanded that the Mexican government guarantee the price of corn, wheat, and sorghum in 2023, under AMLO, in response to falling international prices that forced them to sell at a loss. In other words, they were asking for a subsidy for a low-yield capital firm. However, this has been an ongoing trend that began with the 1994 NAFTA agreement, which eliminated tariffs on cheap U.S. agricultural imports that utilize more productive methods thanks to their capital.

A few days earlier, a representative of these agricultural companies, who also intended to launch a defense against the cartels, was murdered. Sheinbaum ’s federal government was being pressured, even by the mayor, to provide an adequate response, as he had requested bodyguards before his assassination. However, the Sheinbaum administration continues its predecessor’s "hugs and kisses" strategy, combined with a military response to address the situation. The United States has been involved in the "fight" against the cartel since the establishment of the Mérida Initiative in 2007 under the Bush administration, which has included $3.5 billion in US government aid to bolster Mexican security forces through the purchase of military equipment. During Felipe Calderón’s six-year term, the highest homicide rate occurred under this more militarized approach.

However, despite the occasional televised raids, cartel activity shows no signs of slowing down. But as many Mexicans know, the links between the bourgeoisie and its representatives with the cartels have been a mainstay of Mexican politics since at least the 1970s. Thus, the violence perpetrated by the cartels affects all levels of society, with the most brutal violence occurring between rival cartels and spilling over into the working class and segments of the petty bourgeoisie.

Historically, the bourgeoisie under Vicente Fox’s PAN administration attempted to deal with these appendages of capitalist society by trying to violently suppress the cartels. However, this proved futile, as for every cartel head cut off, more sprang up in its place, like a hydra. The reason for this lies not in the cartel’s immediate organizational structure, or in its "head", so to speak, but in the economic and social foundations of class society that fuel its development. This development is fostered by the lucrative illicit drug market so beloved by Americans, which finds an abundant supply of labor among impoverished workers. If the cartels cannot avoid emulating the dealings of capitalists, it is because they are founded on the same premises of this class society: markets, profits, and wage labor.

Inter-Bourgeois Confrontation

The mobilizations of November 15th became a scene of direct confrontation between bourgeois factions.

Bourgeois opposition parties exploited the protests, seeking to capitalize on social discontent to flex their political muscle. Their discourse focused on defending “democratic institutions” (which are supposedly threatened by the current government) and denouncing government ineffectiveness in the face of violence and corruption. Their real objective is to weaken the current administration and regain control of the state in the next elections.

The government (the bourgeoisie and opportunists in power) responded by dismissing the protest as a movement orchestrated by its opponents, the “conservatives” and “neoliberals” who had lost their privileges. The government downplays the magnitude and underlying causes of the discontent, reinforcing its narrative of a binary confrontation between a “good” people and a “corrupt” oligarchy, while continuing to implement policies that support large corporations and key infrastructure projects for its faction. Through media outlets at its disposal, it promotes the discourse of the threat of a “color revolution” or a coup d’état supported by the United States. It is in their interest and advantage to present these events as an attack by the conservative bloc of the bourgeoisie, represented by the PRI and the PAN, which are currently small and insignificant political actors, as the face of this mobilization.

Within the context of the inter-bourgeois clash, the narrative of a threatening US military intervention has been promoted, an intervention supposedly aimed at installing a US-backed government in Mexico. But it is necessary to investigate: why would US intervention in Mexico be necessary at this stage? Capital on both sides of the border is already so economically intertwined that it cannot do without the other. Mexico is already capitulating to US demands (such as increasing border control with Guatemala to support the reduction of Latin American immigration), and at this moment, the best course for Latin American capitalism is to don the mask of left-wing populism in order to harness the energies of the proletariat for the benefit of capital. MORENA represents the best state of affairs for capital at this time, even if it means that a section of the bourgeoisie opposes them. Furthermore, while it might be beneficial to certain sectors of capital that would profit from the mining and oil industries, it would come at the cost of potential social instability in a country crucial to the production of intermediate goods that supply US industries, particularly the automotive sector. In other words, US finance capital already has Mexico under its thumb. Recent US threats to Latin American countries, including Colombia and Mexico, following the attack on Venezuela, serve to intimidate the Latin American bourgeoisies into aligning themselves with US imperialism against China. Moreover, it cannot be denied that in the future, the US will use the pretext of fighting drug trafficking to assist the Mexican bourgeoisie against the Mexican proletariat if it is unable to do so on its own.

These street protests and the dominant media campaign created a smokescreen to once again confuse the workers, who have historically been kept from understanding their true demands and their true enemies. The real social problems that plague the Mexican working class, subjected to high rates of exploitation of wage labor that swell the coffers of large capitalist corporations, remain invisible this time, hidden behind demands against corruption and criminal violence (which, incidentally, have their origins in capitalism) and behind the multi-class figures of "the people", "citizens", or "Generation Z".

Even without realizing it, the masses took to the streets fueled by the pent-up rage of decades of low wages and unemployment, by unmet needs that their salaries couldn’t cover, while a small elite of business owners, politicians, and mobsters lived in abundance, luxury, and impunity. And it was this discontentment of the exploited working class—not of "the people”, "citizens", "Generation Z", or "influencers"—that various politicians seized upon to instigate mobilizations, using slogans that masked the underlying problems of Mexican workers.

The Evolution of the Current Situation

The situation is trending toward increasing polarization in the Mexican political landscape. The clash between the elites intensifies as elections approach. Demonstrations like those of November 15th will be repeated, serving as a barometer of the state of the bourgeois dispute and as a mechanism of pressure and destabilization. It is a chess game where the pieces are the working class and those segments of the population whose living conditions have deteriorated, mobilized under slogans that reflect the economic and political interests of their true promoters: the capitalists and their connections to imperialism. The main factor to watch is whether the working class manages to overcome its disorganization, political confusion, and subordination to burst onto the scene with its own class demands, free from the control of the bourgeois factions that are driving the current political polarization.

The workers who attended these demonstrations responded with their class hatred against the existing conditions, despite Sheinbaum ’s calls for peace. Once again, it became clear that the bourgeois state offers no meaningful solutions to their economic and social problems, despite the leadership of the left-wing populism of the MORENA 4T movement. Slogans like “PRI, PAN, MORENA, it’s all the same shit” expressed this sentiment. However, lacking an independent workers’ movement and its international communist party, the mobilization remained open to the interclass interests of the bourgeoisie and detached from its own class interests. Like other spontaneous demonstrations in the past, this one failed to strengthen the workers’ movement. In response to these events, the Sheinbaum administration arrested suspects associated with the murder of Mayor Carlos Manzo as a way to appease the masses. She has offered scapegoats to quell discontent without actually putting pressure on the drug cartels, but, more importantly, without addressing the clamor hidden by the media and social networks: the need for a significant increase in wages and stable jobs for the vast mass of unemployed and those working in the informal sector. However, these stratagems can only appease the masses for a time, as many workers are growing restless about the worsening economic situation while global capitalism hurtles toward its next crisis.

In a resumption of the class struggle in Mexico, with a multiplication, coordination, and integration of mobilizations and strikes, the labor movement must form a broad and participatory United Class-Based Trade Union Front, with a local, regional, and national presence, integrating formal and informal workers, both employed and unemployed, from the public and private sectors, and workers of all nationalities and genders, promoting unity of action and raising the following as its main demands:

A significant and general increase in wages and pensions. It is not enough for the increase to exceed the inflation rate; it must be an amount that allows working families to meet all their needs.
     - Payment of full wages to unemployed workers.
     - Reduction of working hours and retirement age. In education: reduction of the number of students per teacher and per classroom. In healthcare: reduction of the number of patients per nurse and per ward. All these measures would free up jobs.
     - Against overtime work.
     - All should have hygienic and safe working conditions
     - For services that free women from the constraints of the family economy.

None of these will be definitive solutions, and the working class must constantly fight for these and other demands, until it takes its struggles to a higher level, to the level of revolutionary struggle, against the bourgeoisie and capitalism, for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Communism.

Debunking “Generation Z” and Reaffirming the Relevance of the Class Struggle

The label “Generation Z” has become a media and sociological catchphrase used globally to explain social uprisings in different parts of the world (Chile, Hong Kong, Lebanon, etc.). This generational explanation is a way of obscuring the true cause of these social and political crises. By reducing the protests to an age-related or cultural phenomenon, the existence of material contradictions is denied, and the historical engine of social change — the class struggle— is obscured. And in capitalism, this class struggle is summarized as the confrontation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

In Mexico, as in the rest of the world, political crises and mass demonstrations are expressions of irresolvable contradictions within the capitalist system. Even when the proletariat does not appear on the scene with a clearly defined class profile, and its actions are dominated by political confusion, disorganization, division, and subordination to multi-class, petty-bourgeois, or bourgeois-democratic movements, the fundamental interpretation should not be distorted.

All political crises that arise in capitalist society, without exception, must be interpreted from the perspective of class struggle: the conflict between the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (those who sell their labor power), or, more clearly, the conflict between the defenders of preserving capitalism (which includes opportunists who speak of democratic socialism, the Fourth Transformation, 21st-Century Socialism, etc.) and the defenders of communist social transformation, the seizure of power, and the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The November 15th protests in Mexico are no exception; they are, in essence, another chapter in the clash of bourgeois factions that use the discontent of the wage-earning and oppressed masses as a weapon in their struggle for control of the bourgeois state, leaving the structure of exploitation of the working class intact.

The Mexican working class, like that throughout the world, must find its own path, outside the control of the bourgeoisie and opportunism, towards the struggle for demands, outside of parliamentarism, organized in true class unions that promote the general strike, paving the way for revolutionary action, which can only be carried out to its ultimate consequences by the international communist party.