Mariategui - An assessment

8/9/2019 Mariategui - An assessment

1/26

The Contributions of Jose Carlos Mariategui to Revolutionary TheoryAuthor(s): Thomas AngottiSource: Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 2, Perspectives on Left Politics (Spring,1986), pp. 33-57Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2633646

Accessed: 28/08/2010 15:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin AmericanPerspectives.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2633646?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2633646?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/26

The Contributions ofJose Carlos Mariategui to Revolutionary Theory

byThomasAngotti*

Maestro, hermano, e seguiremos antando,seguiremos iamandote. Asi no estaran

solos nuestros pueblos en su dura ascensiona la libertad y a la dignidad.-Pablo Neruda, from Poemas a Mariategui

Jose Carlos Mariaitegui s one of the most mportant wentieth en-tury evolutionary eaders n the Americas. The French writer HenriBarbusse once remarked, Do you know who Mariategui s? He isAmerica'snew uminary. he prototype f the newperson f that on-tinent" see Del Prado, 1983: 179).

Now, 55 years fter his untimely eath, Mariaitegui's ontributionsto revolutionary arxism, both in theory nd practice, re finallybeing acknowledged not only in his native Peru but throughoutLatin America s well. With he victory f Sandinismo n Nicaragua,the democratic, anti-imperialist orces in Peru have adopted"Mariateguismo" as their ommon reference oint. Mariateguismonow promises o be the symbol f the argest nd most unified evolu-tionary Left in South America during he 1980s.

Perhaps one of the most elling igns of the richness nd complexi-ty of Mariaitegui's hinking nd the breadth f his work, s the wayMariaitegui s "claimed" by a broad spectrum f intellectual ndpolitical orces, oth within nd outside herevolutionary eft-muchas Gramsci n Italy. Mariaitegui's robing nalyses f Latin Americanhistory nd culture, is iterary riticism, is meticulous issection fclasses and strata within eruvian society, specially he indigenouspeasantry, ave won admiration rom wide range of intellectuals,political figures, nd cultural workers.

*ThomasAngotti s a specialist n urban nd regional lanning nd has ived nd workedin Peru. He formerly irected hePlanning rogram n DevelopingNations P.P.D.N.)at Columbia University. e received Ph.D. from Rutgers University.

LATINAMERICANERSPECTIVES,ssue 9,Vol.13No.2,Spring 986 3-57? 1986 atinAmericanerspectives

33


3/26

34 LATIN AMERICANPERSPECTIVES

To some mainstream bservers,Mariaiteguis ust an independent-minded ntellectual with a few (unfortunate) deas about socialism(Meseguer llan, 1974); to revolutionary ationalists nd Maoists, ikethe Sendero Luminoso guerrillas, e is an advocate of rural-basedpeasant-led evolution; o some social democrats ssociated with heAPRA' party he is an advocate of gradual reform ased on a multi-classparty like APRA); to others n the Left he s a nationalist isillu-sioned with he nternational ommunistmovement Flores Galindo,1980)or an idealistwith nly shallowgrasp of historical materialism(Paris, 1981)or a "creative" Marxistwho was so unique he could neverbe associated with an organized political force Arico, 1978).

The most consistent, nd perhaps most common, nterpretation fMariaitegui onsiders ima revolutionary arxist-Leninist ho madea signal contribution o the understanding f the centrality f the n-digenous uestion o the Peruvian revolution, ut was also convincedof the eading role of the proletariat nd closely ied to the nterna-tional communist movement. his assessment as been upheld main-ly by the communists hemselvesfor example,Del Prado, 1972,and1984;Levano, 1981;Falcon, 1978),but is shared by other cholars(Vanden, 1975;Basadre, 1981;Weisse, 1959).This assessment ftenincludes sober acknowledgement f some of the contradictions ndearly vacillations of Mariaitegui Melis, 1971). However, from theperiod of his death until he 1960s,when herewas an upsurge n sen-timent ornational ndependencen Peru, therewas a marked endencyamong the communists o downplay the seminal contributions fMariaitegui. ften ited s a critique f Mariaitegui y a Soviet author(Miroshevski, 942)that portrayed Mariaitegui s a populist nd pro-ponent of peasant revolution ather han an advocate of the eadingrole of the proletariat.

Of these nterpretations, hich omes losest o accurately ummingup Mariaitegui? n the following ages, will try o demonstrate hatthe communist ssessment f Mariaitegui s, despite ome tendenciesto deify Mariaitegui nd turn his works to dogma, generally orrect.

The myriad nterpretations f Mariattegui re in part the result fhis intellectual readth; his works cover a wide range of topics andcan be read on several ifferent evels.They re also, however, func-tion of his evolution s a Marxist. Mariaitegui egan his trajectorytoward Marxism s a radical ntellectual ostly bsorbed n ournalisticpursuits nd literary riticism. ver the yearshis thinking volved on-


4/26

Angotti / MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARYTHEORY 35

siderably, nd he even came to repudiate ome of his earlier worksonce he had fully dopted a Marxist world outlook. Of course, thismakes any attempt o sum up Mariaitegui n terms of the youngMariaitegui lone a rather ne-sided nterprise. t was not until thelast five years of his life that Mariaitegui's heoretical nd practicalwork reached its pinnacle, with the publication of his best-knownwritings nd his catalytic ole in founding he Peruvian trade-unionand communist movements. hese were the years when Mariaiteguithoroughly mbraced ocialism.

Jose CarlosMariaitegui as no historical nomaly. He was the prod-uct of the rise of imperialism n the Americas. He reflected heemergence f the fledgling roletariat n the early wentieth entury,and its triving or strategic lliancewith heoppressed uralmasses,made possible, and necessary, y the decline of the Latin Americanoligarchies nd assertion f a new ruling lass organically inked withthe United States. He was, in short, conscious xpression f the ob-jective motion toward socialism n the Americas.

In this article, will attempt o review Mariaitegui's ontribu-tions to revolutionary arxism. This article could easily focus onany one of the numerous spects of Mariaitegui's ife and work thathave become the subject of both scholarship nd political debate.However, the purpose here is to synthesize his work and developa picture f the overall significance f Mariaitegui-especially iventhat so little s known about him in North America. As with anysynthesis, his ask necessarily xcludesmany details nd leavesmanyquestions unanswered.

Mariaitegui's ontributions all nto three main categories. he firstinvolves he role of the subjective actor nd conscious element. Thisincludes Mariaitegui's lassical critique of economism, his work incultural riticism nd philosophy, nd his role n founding he Peru-vian communist movement. The second is a historical-materialistanalysis f classes nd classstruggle n Peru. This ncludes hecreativeanalysis f "the IndigenousQuestion" as central o the class strugglein Peru, regional nd cultural ifferences, nd the eading political oleof the small, nascent roletariat. his is among the first xamplesofthe application of the Marxist method o the concrete onditions nLatin America. Third, he developed he nternationalist pproach tothe question of national democracy. This is expressed not only inMariaitegui's olidarity ith heCuban and Nicaraguan evolutions f


5/26

36 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

his day, and the SovietUnion,but n an organic nalysis f mperialismand the international orking lass.

Before proceeding with my analysis, t would be well to brieflyreview Mariaitegui's ife within he context of the period in whichhe lived.

PROFILE OF MARIATEGUI'SLIFE

Mariategui was born in 1895into a poor provincial family. Hisfamilymoved to the Lima area when he was still young, nd he soonbecame nvolved n various iterary nd publishing rojects. As he ad-vanced n the world of ournalism, he ran up against he conservativecultural iases bred by the moribund eruvian ligarchy, nd developedan inclination oward ocial criticism. n 1918,he cofounded NuestraEpoca, a newspaper dedicated o social criticism; t lasted only twoissues, as Mariaitegui ame under heavy ttack for a criticism f thePeruvianArmy's ocial composition. n 1919,he cofounded a Razon,a dailypaper quarely n opposition othe utocratic egime f AugustoLeguia, whose rule as President ecame a model for dictatorships nthe twentieth entury.

Under pressure from Leguia's government, Mariategui went toEuropewith his closeassociateJorge alcon, where e iveduntil 1923.His experiences here, specially n Italy, marked turning oint nhis development s a socialist. He witnessed nd studied he revolu-tionary psurges n the European working lass and had contact withthe nascent ommunist ovement here; egravitated oward he forcesassociated with the Third nternational, nd developedan apprecia-tion for he ignificance f the Bolshevik evolution Mariategui, 969;Nuinez,1978).

When he returned o Peru in 1923,he plunged nto political work.He taught t the Universidad Popular Gonza'lez Prada and becameits rector, while t the ame time he continued is ournalistic ctivitiesin a number f major Lima publications. His lectures t the universi-ty reflected he internationalist erspective e had consolidated nEurope (Mariaitegui, 959c).

In 1926,Mariaitegui ounded he ournal Amauta (Amauta meansteacher n Quechua, the most common ndian language; MariaXtegui


6/26


has now come to be known n Peru as "El Amauta"). The new our-nal brought together progressive ntellectuals n the explorationof a broad range of revolutionary deas and was one of the mostexciting nterprises n Peruvian history; o this day, it remains neof the most mportant rojects n forging national dentity mongPeruvian ntellectuals.

After he published n article upporting he struggle f AugustoSandino in Nicaragua against U.S. intervention, ariaitegui as ar-rested, robably t the behest of the United States Embassy n Lima.In the face of Leguia's charge that Mariaitegui as part of a "com-munist onspiracy" directed y Moscow, he insisted hat he was "atried nd true Marxist" who did not believe n conspiracies, nd forwhom Peruvian socialism could not be "a carbon copy." With thesupport f a broad range of Peruvian ntellectuals nd the workers'movement, Mariaitegui as released and soon resumed his activities.

In 1928,Mariategui ormally roke with he ttempts y Victor RauilHaya de la Torre to found a Peruvian party based on APRA. LikeHaya de la Torre, Mariaitegui ought the unity of revolutionariesaround a single strategic onception, program, and organizationthat encompassed the particularities f the class struggle n LatinAmerica, nd more pecifically n Peru. However,Mariategui ejectedAPRA's notion that, unlike Russia and Europe, the transition osocialism n Peru would be essentially gradual, uninterrupted ro-cess characterized y the accumulation f reforms. e would not ac-cept Haya's conscious attempts o distance the Peruvian revolutionfrom he revolutionary xperiences nd movements n other parts ofthe world. He rejectedAPRA's orientation owards multiclass artybased on the petty ourgeoisie n favor of a proletarian arty whosestrategic onception asthe forming f a worker-peasant lliance.Thatsame year, Mariaitegui ormed he first ell in what was to become,in 1929, hePeruvian ocialist arty, nd soon after is death he Peru-vian Communist arty.

As mentioned above, the last five years of Mariategui's life(1925-1930)were his most ntellectually roductive. iete ensayosdeinterpretacion e la realidad peruana (1928) is undoubtedly is best-known nd most originalwork, nd perhaps hemost comprehensiveanalysis f the Peruvian lass struggle. eruanicemos l Peru (1970),a collection of articles panning he period 1924-1929, lso focused

on the particularities f Peruvian reality. a defensa del Marxismo(1959b), first ublished posthumously n 1934,was an incisive cri-


7/26


tique of revisionism nd defense f revolutionary arxism. La escenacontemporanea (1976),first ublished n 1925, reflected Mariaitegui'sevaluation f a number f European ntellectuals nd lessons from hisEuropean experience.

El Amauta died n 1930 of complications rom childhood njurythat had left him crippled nd confined o a wheel chair for the astyears of his life. He was only 35 years old. To be sure, Mariattegui'smany ignificant ontributions o the Peruvian revolution ould onlyhave multiplied ad he lived onger. Still, t s noteworthy hat despitehis short ife, his brilliant eadership as been a source of inspirationto the generations hat followed im-in Peru and across he continent.

THE ROLE OF THE SUBJECTIVEFACTORAND THE CONSCIOUS ELEMENT

Mariaitegui'smost mportant ontribution o the Latin Americanrevolution s his focus on the role of human consciousness s a reflec-tion of

history nd as acrucial force n shaping history-that s, the

subjective actor. This took the form f critical nalyses of religion,philosophy, rt, deology, nd literature. is works re filledwith nappreciation or, and critique f, the role of the subjective actor nthe class struggle, s concretized n the ndividuals who brought hatconsciousness o bear n changing istorical eality-or, the consciouselement.He took up the major ntellectual rends n Europe and LatinAmerica nd analyzed heir heoretical xpressions n classterms. Hissubjects ncluded both cultural nd political figures: enin, Trotsky,Tolstoy, and Gorky n Russia; Croce, D'Annunzio, Pirandello, and

Marinetti n Italy; Zweig,Zola, Sorel, and Barbusse n France; DiegoRivera and Jose Vasconcelos n Mexico; Jose Marti n Cuba; and inPeru, the rtist Jose Sabogal, the poet Jose Eguren, nd writerMartinAdain, nd the Apristas Haya de la Torre and Luis Alberto Sainchez(Mariaitegui 950, 1959a, 1970, 1976).To this ist many more can beadded. Mariaitegui's ntellectual igor was interminable, nd he tookup every expression of human consciousness with a characteristiccuriosity nd concreteness, ompletely evoid of dogmatism. Thisenabled him to analyze the complex intellectual urrents ll theway from the philosophical handmaidens of fascism-such as

D'Annunzio-to the leadership n socialist theory-such as Lenin,


8/26

Angotti / MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 39

Juares, nd Liebknecht-touching ll the major iberal nd conservativecurrents n between he wo. Unlike he iterary adfly,Mariaitegui ealtwith these deas in a concrete ashion, within relatively onsistentpolitical nd ideologicalframework. his was all part of his contribu-tion to the process of building he deological center f the Peruvianworking lass with n internationalist, evolutionary arxist utlook.

The main debate today over Mariaiteguis precisely ver this focuson the development nd significance f ideas. Some, such as RobertParis 1981), believe hat Mariaitegui as an inveterate dealist.On thesurface, ne need only consider his extensive nd sympathetic reat-ment of Sorel, Gobetti, Croce, and other dealists; his repeated useof the term myth" to describe ertain oncepts, uch as socialism;or his unity with ontemporaries ho put forth he precapitalist or-mations of "Incan communism" s a model for Peruvian ocialism.

Paris 1981: 8) states, or xample, hat if he had beena 'Leninist'like many of his contemporaries, ariaitegui ould not have written'The Indian Question.' " In this ssay, Mariategui sserts hat he keyto an "Indian renaissance" iesnot n ts "Westernization" ut n "themyth, he dea of socialist evolution" Mariattegui, 928:35). Is this,as Paris claims, a classical inversion f materialist ialectics?

This example demonstrates he dangers of basing any interpreta-tion of Mariaitegui, r any other ndividual, n specific uotationsrather han a comprehensive ssessment f his work. n the very ameessay cited by Paris, Mariaitegui learly begins by framing he ques-tion in materialist erms:

The Indian question tarts with our economy. t has its roots in theregime f land ownership. ny attempt o resolve t with dministrativeor police measures, by education or road projects, amounts to super-ficial and secondary abor, as long as the eudal rule of the gamonales'exists Mariategui, 928:34].

Following his ssayon the "Indian question," Mariaitegui ets o theheart f his basic thesis: he and question s the key to the emancipa-tion of the indigenous population, the basis for their political andideological transforination, nd for their identification with thehistorical mission of the urban proletariat, ocialism. Thus, "theagrarian question is, above all, a question of the liquidation offeudalism n Peru (1928: 51). It is hard to imagine more materialist

way to pose the question. It was not any innate cultural or psy-


9/26


chological "idea" of the Indians that made them strategic lliesof the proletariat, ut the oppressive roperty elations hatdominatedthe countryside. he continuing resence f the ollectivist nstitutionsin the Andes (in particular, heayllu, a form of communal produc-tion) explained heprominence f collectivist deasin the ndian com-munities, nd was the basis for the worker-peasant lliance. In otherwords, he "myth" of Indian communismwas thoroughly roundedin the material nd historic onditions f the ndian community seediscussion, n the next section, of the Indian question).

Apart from Mariahtegui's aterialist nalysis of Peruvian society,we also have his explicit ritiques f idealism n general, nd all thenotable idealists of his time in particular. Defensa del Marxismo(1959b) includes fairly rthodox presentation f the philosophicalprecepts f Marx, Engels, and Lenin and a direct epudiation f theidealism f Croce and Sorel. Peruanicemos l Peru (1970:80-87) con-tains hiscritique f EdwinElmore's quixotic dealism. However, longwith his critiqueswe alwaysfind n appreciation or hecontributionsof these thinkers within he next context f their lassposition. Forexample, Mariategui's admiration or Croce (much like Gramsci's)stems from Croce's ability o articulate orthrightly he interests fthe rising talian bourgeoisie n opposition o feudalism. Croce wasa sort of "organic" intellectual, who projected the necessity or aunified ation over the aggregate f provincial talian nterests, muchas Mariategui aw the need for a unified Peru, only under working-class rule. Croce was a liberal ntellectual n many ways far ahead ofhis class which o this day has not fully onsolidated ts rule n someaspects of Italian society and remains politically nd ideologicallyunderdeveloped n comparisonwith he capitalists n other Europeannations). Finally, Mariaitegui's pproach s very much n the Marxisttradition; fter ll, Marx himself dmired Hegel, and incorporatedmany of the advances he made in the Marxist philosophicalmethod.

To some, the fact that Mariategui paid so much attention o thecultural eaders of bourgeois ociety s automatic proof of his ownideologicalbackwardness; hat he could discover ny historically ro-gressive spects to bourgeois culture s absolute evidenceof his cor-ruption. However, Mariategui clearly ocated his cultural criticismwithin he ontext f historical evelopment. or example, is apprecia-tion of Peruvian writer Martin Adatn tems not simply romAdain'sliterary kills, which were considerable, but his ability to expressthe nonconformist, ntiestablishment entiments f a discontented


10/26


bourgeoisie rustrated y the traditional traitjackets f a decliningoligarchy. n typically materialist ashion, Mariaitegui otes howAdainhimself s not conscious of the historical ole he was playing(Mariaitegui, 970: 150-154).

Another rucial factor n assessingMariaiteguis his evolution roma radicalized iberal hinker, ournalist, nd literary ritic o a Marxist-Leninist via the philosophical ebelliousness f the "Risorgimento"thinkers uch as Croce, anarcho-syndicalists uch as Soreland radicalssuch as GonzailezPrada (in Peru). Like Gramsci, Mariaitegui as ofhumble ackground nd gravitated oward he ntelligentsia uring isyouth. Both absorbed the most dynamic deas accessible to them tthe time much s Marx and Engelsabsorbed Hegel)-and ultimatelyrejected heir dealist underpinnings. hey had a profound pprecia-tion for the contributions f revolutionary ourgeois ntellectuals,especially n a setting n which chasm existed etween hese ntellec-tuals and their wn ruling lass. They also identified with those n-tellectuals who gravitated oward the revolutionary working-classgroundswell hat surrounded hem-like Sorel-even though theirsystem f thought was flawedby dealism nd ambiguity. Mariaiteguiwas impressed for example, that Sorel was one of the few syndi-calists of the time to defend the Bolshevik Revolution see GarciaSalvatecci, 1979).

To assessMariategui, r Gramsci r Marx, based on his early worksnecessarily ields one-sided icture. t ignores he process f matura-tion (which, unfortunately, as incomplete ven at the time of hisdeath), nd Mariaitegui's wn repudiation f some of his earlier hink-ing. It leads to an evaluation of Mariaitegui s a Marxist humanist(Kossok, 1971).

There is an opposite tendency o treat Mariaitegui's heory s auniform reaffirmation f Marxism-Leninism, without contradic-tions, apses and incomplete lements. I believeDel Prado [1984]bestexemplifies his tendency.)2 This approach is no less one-sided,and no less a denigration f Mariaitegui's ynamic ontributions oMarxist heory.

Especially iven hat o many f Mariaitegui's ooks are collectionsof many diverse rticles, t is necessary o have a broad overview fthe iterature nd synthesize ts main elements. Any pedantic ttemptto prove the point with solated quotations may give an impressionof authority r logical consistency, ut in actuality will be deceptive(see Luna Vegas, 1984). No less disarming s the tendency o rely n


11/26


anecdotes nd personal eminiscenceso portray Mari'ategui's evelop-ment see Del Prado, 1983).

Mariategui's ttraction othe European dealists s also accompaniedby a profound political commitment-the truggle gainst the revi-sionist endencies n the ocialist nd working-class ovements. n Ladefensa del Marxismo 1959b),he directly riticizes he classical revi-sionism f Eduard Bernstein, nd several urrent ersions uch as thatof Henri De Man. His defense f Marxism was aimed specifically tthe distortions f mechanicalmaterialism hat downplayed herole ofthe conscious element n history.3

However,Mariategui's ritique oesfar beyond he xplicit xposureof distortions f Marxist heory. he critique s implicit n all of hiswork. t is to be found n his persistent reoccupation ith hecreativerole of political eadership nd its ability o utilize very deologicalinstrument t its disposal-every "myth" to advance the revolu-tionary process.

Mariaitegui's aterialist nderstanding f the role of consciousnessis not only to be found n his own declarations; t is apparent n hisactions. The subjective actorwas not a self-indulgent r utopian on-cept; it was the central actor n attempts o changematerial eality.Mariaitegui eturned rom Europe to dedicate himself o the politicaland ideologicaltraining f the Peruvian working lass by starting tthe logical beginning-the formation f a conscious revolutionaryvanguard. To undertake his nterprise, e turned o the ntelligentsiaand students, whose access to a worldview ould open them up tosocialism's promise, ust as Mariateguihad seen that promise matur-ing in Europe and the Soviet Union. However, far from resting llhis hopes on the educated elite, he sought ut, supported nd guidedthe first major working-class rganization n Peru, the first onfedera-tion of trade unions. These concrete rojects reflected he fusion ofrevolutionary heorywith practice-hardly hehallmark f idealism.

A HISTORICAL-MATERIALISTANALYSISOFCLASSESAND THE CLASS STRUGGLEIN PERU

If all Mariateguihad done was contribute o the revival f revolu-tionary Marxism nd refutation f mechanical materialist nd refor-mist versions f Marxism, he would still have left n important mark


12/26


on both the Peruvian and international working-classmovements.However, his most enduring ontribution as in the application ofMarxist heory o the elaboration f a revolutionary trategy or na-tional iberation n the concrete onditions f Peru.

Mariategui's iete ensayoswas and remains oday classic analysisof Peruvian ociety o all revolutionary ectors f the population. Forthe nascent proletariat, t called attention o the significant mass ofimpoverished ndians without whose alliance no socialist revolutioncould be won or consolidated. For the ndians, t was a verificationof their wakening rom enturies f servitude nd a milestone n theestablishment f Indian culture s a pillar of Peruvian society. Forthe urban bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, t presented for thefirst ime a clear and precise picture of the economic and socialresiliency f the precapitalist elations f production n the countrysidewhose replacement as directly inked o their wn ascendency verthe rural oligarchy.

Through its probing class analysis, Siete ensayos captures theparticularity f Peru's underdevelopment nd unlocks hedoors to itsnational history nd culture. Whereas this could bring ome impor-tant essons to all classes, it was an especially ritical evelation orthe Peruvian proletariat. Unfortunately, or many decades afterMariattegui's eath, the proletariat, iven he weakness of its leader-ship, was mired n its own narrow rade union battles, nd forgot heprofound essons of Siete ensayos; at times t even cultivated ts owncriollo biases against the indigenous opulation.

There are two main points n Siete ensayos. The first s that theIndian question s central o Peruvian society. The second is thatthis question s expressed n every ealmof Peru's political nd sociallife-Mariaitegui ses the examples f education, eligion, overnment,and literature.

Mariaitegui's nalysis f the ndian question tarts rom he grow-ing wareness hat he vastmajority f Peru's population-at that imeabout 80Wo-were till wedded to a semifeudal grarian system fproduction nd distribution, nd lived n conditions f utter overtycontrasted ith he urban population. He saw Peru as a dual society-one part was largely ural, ndigenous nd oppressed, nd the otherwas urban, riollo, nd relatively ell off. This did not mean that heurban proletariat ppressed he rural ndians, but t did mean that hey

enjoyeda

positionf relative conomic and social

privilege.n con-

crete olitical erms, hismeant hat herewereobjectivedivisions e-


13/26


tween he urban proletariat nd its natural lly, the rural ndigenouspopulation; these divisionswere based on their ifferent elations othe dominant mode of production nd were reflected n very eal dif-ferences n standard of living nd economic opportunity. t was thecentral ask of the Peruvian revolution o go beyond these divisionsand forge strategic lliancebetweenworkers nd peasants-for suchan alliance did not appear spontaneously ut had to be consciouslybuilt by the proletarian arty.

Unlike functionalist ociologists, owever,Mariaitegui's oncept fdualismwas based on a class framework. hus, the urban proletariatobviously did not enjoy the same degree of privilege s the urbanbourgeoisie; ather, ts relation o production nd its conditions f ifewere n generalmuch more imilar o the peasant han he bourgeoisie.Because of the persistence f collective forms of ownership ndsemifeudal elations f production n the countryside, he Peruvianpeasantry, elative o the peasantry n other Latin American nations,was much ess rooted n small property wnership, nd therefore ada strong asis for unity with he urban proletariat n the mission ofbringing bout socialism.Likewise, heurban proletariat n its strug-gles against apitalism or ocial ownership f production, ad a basisfor unity with he peasantry n resolving he question dividing ll ofPeruvian ociety-the "Indian question." Thus the "Indian question"was the key o the national uestion-the forging f a strong nd unitednation-and the alliance of workers nd Indians was the key politicalinstrument n resolving his question.

Mariaitegui's articular ontribution o the analysis of the Indianquestion s to point up the central mportance f property wnership;that s, this was seen as essentially land question. t is bound up withthe endurance f many spects of precapitalist, eudalmodes of pro-duction n the countryside, nd the persistence f Indian traditionsof communal wnership. his corresponded ith herelativeweaknessof capitalism n Peru and the underdevelopment f its ruling lass.Insofar s the consolidation f a Peruvian ationwasnecessarilyinkedto the development f capitalism, ational ormation as also stunted.

Mariaitegui's aterialist nalysis ontrasts harplywith heclassicalliberal ttempts oexplain he ndian question imply n terms f racialor religious differences, r as an ideological remnant f colonialdomination. Thus, Mariategui sserted,

Thesystem f and ownership etermines he olitical nd administrativeregime f all nations. The agrarian roblem... dominates ll ourprob-


14/26


lems.Democratic nd liberal nStitutions annot rosper whenbasedona semi-feudal conomy 1928: 53].The agrarian problem s, above all, a problem of the elimination ffeudalism n Peru. By now, this hould have been carried out by thebourgeoisdemocratic egime ormally stablished n the revolution orindependence. ut in 100years of the Republic n Peru, we have nothad a genuine bourgeois lass. ... The old feudal class-camnouflagedor dressed up as a Republicanbourgeoisie-has maintained tspositions[1928: 51].

Mariategui oesnot imithis discussion othe emifeudal conomyinherited from the Spanish, as do many criollo economists. Heunderlines he durability f the prefeudal elations f production, r"Indian communism." He points out that despite he dominance fthe emifeudal roperty elations ntroduced y the Spanishduring hecolonialperiod, heAndean people continue o exercise ariousformsof association n production hat approximate he ancient yllu-acommunistic ormation ased on sharing f the major means of pro-

duction nd distribution. Communism," noted Mariaitegui,has con-

tinued o be the ndian's only defense" from xploitation 1928: 33).Mariategui awthis nduring ystem f cooperation ot as somequaintrelic to be enshrined ut, n typically olitical fashion, s a basis forwinning ver the indigenous population to the socialist revolution:4

Faith in an indigenous enaissance oes not come from the process of"Westernization .... It is not the ivilization nd alphabet f the whiteman that aises he pirit f the ndian. t is the myth, he dea of socialistrevolution 1928: 34].

Starting with this ssessment f the centrality f the Indian ques-tion, Mariaitegui hengoes on to demonstrate is thesis by taking nfour national ssuesthat were heatedly ebated at the time, nd verymuch the focus of the liberal and radical reform movements-education, eligion, overnment ecentralization, nd literature. hesemovements nspired many of the activists and intellectuals whogravitated oward the socialist movement, eeking more scientificanalysis nd strategy or ocial change.However, he pontaneous deas

fostered y the iberal reformers till xercised onsiderable nfluencewithin he revolutionary movement-as well as criollo chauvinism


15/26


that prevented he ocialists rom eveloping truly ational trategyand democratic program. Mariategui established for the first imea clear alternative o both the dominant iberal thinking nd thereactionary view of the oligarchy. t reflected he spontaneousradicalism f the tudent nd workers' movements nd the discontentof the radicalized ntelligentsia, hich Mariategui gave a Marxistfoundation y grounding t n a concrete nalysis f Peruvian historyand political economy.

EDUCATION

Mariategui rejected the feeble attempts t educational reformfostered y the iberal bourgeoisie n the grounds hat they gnoredthe central problem-the educational mpoverishment f the ruralpopulation, most sharply manifested n the dramatic lliteracy ate."National education," he stated, . . does not have a national pirit;instead t has the pirit f colonialism nd the colonizer" 1928: 106).The liberal reforms f the day reflected he influence of NorthAmerican ragmatism, hebourgeoisie's nswer o the feudal dealismso dearly herished y the oligarchy. o both the iberal reforms ndthe traditional igidity f the colonial ystem,Mariategui ounterposedthe proletarian rogram. This included uch mportant evelopmentsas the "Universidad Popular Gonzailez rada," a progressive niver-sity t which he taught nd served s rector. t included upport forthe student movement's emands for genuine eforms bolishing hesubservience nd elitism that permeated the traditional ducationsystem. ut above all, Mariategui rought o these pontaneous lter-natives moreprofound bjective-to lay the basis for socialist eru

capable of implementing truly national educational reform ndliquidating ural backwardness.

RELIGION

Mariategui ttempted ogo beyond he radical anticlericalism hatenticed the fledgling roletariat, ut whose logical social base wasamong the petty ourgeoisie.He also rejected he dealizationof theInca religion y demonstrating hematerial asis for religious eliefsin the economic elations f society, nd the close connection etweenthe tate nd religion. or Mariategui, heproblem was not organized


16/26


religion er se; religion was but a reflection f the economic nd classrelations within ociety. The problem was not the Catholic Church'sorganic onnection with he oligarchy ver ince heconquest, s manyliberalsmaintained, ut the ocial order pon which he oligarchy ests.

Socialism... considers cclesiasticalforms nd religious octrines s par-ticular o and inherent n the ocioeconomic regime hat produces andsustains hem. And it s concerned with hanging he atter nd not theformer. Socialism considers mere anticlerical gitation as a liberal

bourgeois diversion 1928: 192].

GOVERNMENT DECENTRALIZATION

Peru is sharply ivided nto three distinct eographical nd socialareas-coast, sierra nd jungle. The coast, especially hecapital cityof Lima, was the cradle of criollo culture nd capitalism; he sierra,relatively solated, was dependent-economically nd politically-onthe coastal cities; he ungle was still argely ndeveloped nd sparselypopulated. The chief regional contradiction as between oast andsierra: Coastal Peru, nheritor f Spain and the Conquest,dominatessierra Peru from Lima" (Mariaitegui, 928:206).This testified o theincomplete ormation f the Peruvian ation nd the ncapacity f bothcolonialism nd capitalism o forge n economically nd politically n-tegrated nation, n which coast and sierra would both be integratedparts of a national whole.

In response to the divisions within Peru, and the increasinglydominant ole of Lima, variousproposalsfor decentralization" werelaunched.Mariaitegui riticized hese eforms s centralist t heart, nlyaimed at tightening he control f the capital over the hinterlands, rrelieving he central overnment f responsibility or financing ocalservices.They were but superficial dministrative huffles hat failedto address the central problem of the Indian question. Instead,Mariategui nsisted:

Beyond any formal triumph f decentralization nd autonomy, ie thesubstantial demands of the ndian cause, inscribed n the vanguard'srevolutionary rogram 1928: 216].

In other words, the key to national ntegration nd decentralizationrested on the liberation f the rural population from poverty nd


17/26


discrimination-a askneither heoligarchy or the iberal reformerscould carry ut with heir decentralization" chemes.Only a power-ful centralized) ystem f revolutionary uthority ould carry ut asuccessful decentralization rogram based on a policy of agrarianreform nd national nity. For an excellent iscussion f this pparentparadox, see Cesar Levano, 1969:47-188.)

LITERATURE

In Siete ensayos, Mariaitegui inks the historical development fPeruvian iterature ith henation's conomic nd socialdevelopment:"The indigenous uestion, which s so pervasive n politics, conomyand sociology, annot be absent from iterature nd art" (1928:328).He reviews olonial iterature s an imported roduct devoid of anynational pirit. Criollo culture has not been able to prosper n ourliterature s a current with a national spirit first f all because thecriollodoesnot yet epresent ur nationality" Mariaitegui, 928:330).The first teps toward truly ational iterary xpressionwere takenby the contemporaries ho brought o the fore he central magesofindigenous ife-such as Cesar Vallejo and Luis Valcaircel. hese werethe first pontaneous igns of a national consciousness, tself basedon the economic transformation f Peruvian society. The earlierrebellion of urban nonconformists ad an anticolonial spirit, butbecause it was apolitical it could not project a positive nationalalternative this trend-"colonida"-included GonzatlezPrada andValdelomar). The new indigenista iterature ore the first igns of apartisan nd explicitly ational stance, ust as Mariategui's analysisof iterature as based, n his own words, n an "explicit evolutionaryand socialist partisanship."

In sum, Mariaitegui's iete ensayos s uncompromisingly artisan,yet devoid of any dogmatic tendency o repeat the generalities fsocialist heory s a substitute or ts creation. Mariategui's work re-mains he eminal cientific ork n modern eruvian ociety reciselybecause it focuses on Peru's historical eality nd brings Marxism obear to explain t in all its originality nd detail.

MARIATEGUI'S INTERNATIONALISM

Given the richness f Mariategui's analysis of Peruvian society,it is not difficult o understand ow he can be portrayed s merely


18/26


a nationalist r proponent of indigenous ndependence. However,if we are to take Mariategui as a whole, it becomes obvious thathis analysis of Peruvian reality s directly elated o, and based on,a thoroughgoing nternationalism. his can be demonstrated n severaldifferent evels.

First of all, Mariategui's maturity s a master f Peruvian realityparalleledhis development s an internationalist. n his most produc-tiveyears, he corresponded nd collaborated with evolutionaries ndrevolutionary-minded ntellectuals hroughout he hemisphere, romJuan Marinello f Cuba to Waldo Frank n the United tates. Amautadeclared ts solidarity with he Cuban and Nicaraguan revolutionarymovements nd the successful olshevik Revolution. n other words,in addition o being t the center f the revolutionary urrent n Peru,he was also the principal onduit to the international movement.

Secondly,Mariategui's uropean experience, y his own admission,represented turning oint n his political development. Mariateguiwitnessed he talian nd French working lass n a period of dramaticdevelopment, n largepart nspired y the Bolshevik ictory. e beganto comprehend he mmense otential f the organized working lassfor transforming ociety. He also saw first and the damaging ffectof opportunism n the movement, nd consistently nitedwith he om-munist plit from he Second International5 for example, Mariateguiattended he 1921 founding ongress of the Italian communists tLivorno). After his European experience, e returned o Peru deter-mined to take up his internationalist esponsibility nd prepare thepolitical and ideological terrain or the budding Peruvian socialistmovement. As any serious internationalist, e understood Peru-vian socialismcould not be "a carbon copy" of European or Sovietsocialism, but there s not a hint n his theory r practice that hisquest for originality as based on a rejection f other experiences.

Third, Mariategui's dherence o the process of consolidating heinternational orking-class ovement round the political ine of theThird nternational as fairly onsistent. ll attempts o infer oliticaldifferences r underlying isaffection rom he Third International,and Leninism, ely n trivial oints, peculation r remote nference.For example, many have implied that Mariategui's preference ornaming heorganization f the Peruvian evolution socialist" insteadof "communist" reflects principled ifference ver the vanguardparty. To believe his, one only has to "forget" that Mariategui x-plicitly ejected hemulticlass arty oth n theory nd practice whenhe rejected he Second nternational, PRA, and the revisionist heses


19/26


they ropounded. r, as Jorge alcon 1970:56) has pointed ut, "Thediscussion over the clothing has overlooked . the anatomy.

Another pproach has been to try o prove that Mariategui wasmoving way from he Comintern the organization f the Third n-ternational) nd toward a formal break with he nternational om-munist movement. The evidence for this argument evolves argelyaround Mariaitegui's isagreements ith the eadership f the Com-intern at the 1929 Buenos Aires conference f Latin Americancommunists. he dispute was over the Comintern's ine calling fornational elf-determination orthe ndian people, and the formationof an Indian republic out of portions of several South Americannations. This was based on an overall framework hatunderestimatedthe extent o which nations had already developed n Latin Americaand failed o make any distinctions etween atin America nd otherregions f the former olonialworld. The Comintern eadership t theconference quated the ndigenous uestion n Latin Americawith henational question n Europe and the SovietUnion. In fact, however,the indigenous people of Latin America had never constitutedseparate nation, nd 400years f colonial dominationmade the LatinAmerican ontinent ne of the most developed-in capitalist erms-within he colonial world. Finally, Peru's collectivist raditions werenot the same as those of feudal Europe.

Marialtegui nd the Peruvian delegation opposed the Cominternleadership t the conference nd insisted hat ts positionhad no basisin the history nd contemporary eality f Latin America. The Peru-vians instead struggled or a conception f the indigenous uestionthat placed the Indian regions n the context f the development fthe existing ations n Latin America-and their ransformation ntosocialist nations.

Mariategui's differences ith he Comintern epresentatives t thisconference ere herefore mportant nes. However, here s no basisfor eaping rom he onference othe onclusion f Mariategui's efec-tion from ommunism. n the first lace, the debate over ndian na-tions did not represent t that time, nor has it since, major line ofdemarcation ithin atin American ommunism. econdly, hereweremany dubious positions coming out of the Comintern uring hisperiod ncludingmany, ike the one on Indian nations, hat have ongsincebeen dropped. Finally, no matter owsecondary hisdebate was

in the broader historical ense, hefact f the matter s that Mariateguinever once gave any indication-either during or after the con-


20/26


ference-that e was reevaluating is nternationalist ommitment. llattempts o prove that Mariategui was so inclined re based on in-ferences nd speculation, not on fact.6

Allof the ttempts o imply tilt y Mariaiteguiway from he com-munist movement orrespond with efforts o separate Mariategui'stheories rom eninism. erhaps he boldest ffort as been sponsoredby APRA, which has tried o appropriate l Amauta with ome pro-visos) as their wn Chang-Rodriguez, 983). To do this, he Apristashave to overlook Mariaitegui's ecisivebreak with Haya de la Torrein 1928 when the atter moved to found a Peruvian party based onsocialdemocratic rinciples nd the middle lass, n direct ppositionto the principles f the Third nternational, s well as the polemicsthat preceded hisbreak.

Mariategui's theoretical bonds with Leninism have been welldocumented lsewhere Choy et al., 1970; Luna Vegas, 1978; DelPrado, 1972). These re evident ot only n his direct llusions o Leninand the Russian Revolution, ut n his fundamental dherence o theLeninist heories f imperialism, he state, nd the party. Mariaiteguidid not simply od approval of Lenin, but n his own analyses f im-perialism, he tate nd party erified he ame revolutionary rinciplesthat Lenin had come to. Like Lenin, Mariaitegui pplied the existingbody of Marxist heory o the concrete onditions n his own countryand took into account the qualitative hanges hat capitalism nder-went with the emergence f imperialism n the twentieth entury.He also concluded that socialism would not be possible withoutqualitative ransformation f the state under working-class irectionand a revolution edby the most dvanced lements f the proletariat.

In sum, a comprehensive icture of Mariategui eads to the in-escapableconclusion hat his ability o pierce heessenceof Peruvianreality, nd intervene n it n a decisiveway, s inextricably ound upwith is nternationalist osture.His internationalism ave him he on-fidence hat he Peruvian evolution as but one component f a broadhistorical rocess; his European experience rought ome to him thepolitical apacity f a mature roletariat, heterrible onsequences fopportunism n the working-classmovement, he significance f thestruggle gainst ascism, nd the needto forge road democratic ronts.He could see that Peru's working lass was still n its earliest tagesof development, n understanding rucial o his own commitment oparty uilding. Mariateguiwas struck y the contrasts etween uropeand Latin America and never tried to apply mechanically he ex-


21/26


periences f European history o Peru; on the contrary, e focusedon the particularities f the Peruvian class struggle-its economicbackwardness, ndevelopednational formation, he centrality f theIndian question, heprecapitalist lements n production. espite theobvious parallels between eru and Italy, country lso divided ntotwo distinct eoeconomic ones the ndustrially eveloped rban Northand the impoverished ural South), Mariategui never argued byanalogy, but instead analyzed the concrete eruvian situation. Thiswas not a sign of any "creative" or "Peruvian" Marxism; t was oneof the first pplications f Marxism o the concrete onditions n LatinAmerica during he age of imperialism-that s, an application nddevelopment f Leninism.

An exchangebetween Haya de la Torre and Mariategui n 1928,citedby CesarLevanoin his "Lenin y Mariategui n Nuestro iempo"(1970: 168-169), is revealing. Haya protests against Mariategui'sconstant ttempts o pose the Peruvian evolution s part of an inter-national revolutionary rocess, nd his dentification ith herevolu-tionary rocess n Europe and the SovietUnion. Haya wanted o limitthe Peruvian revolution o the project f national democratic eform."We willmake the revolution ithoutmentioning ocialism," he said,"but instead by distributing he land and struggling gainst im-perialism." To whichMariaitegui esponded: We are revolutionariesbecausewe are Marxists, ecauseagainst apitalismwe pose socialismas an antagonistic ystem estined o succeed t." Thus, Mariaitegui'snational revolution was seen as an integral art of the internationalprocess of proletarian iberation rom he yoke of capitalism.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this rticle as been to summarize he contributionsof Jose Carlos Mariaitegui o revolutionary heory n general, parti-cularly n Latin America. have only ouchedon some of the numer-ous debates surrounding Mariategui that have assumed a growingsignificance n recent years s his work has become a reference ointin the struggles or national ndependence nd socialism. However,given hat Mariategui's heories hemselves merged n the heat of anintense deological truggle mong revolutionary-minded orces, heycan really e understood nly n that ontext. Mariattegui's aincon-tributions orevolutionary heory,whichwe have tried o summarize,


22/26


must be seen n the ight f a wider processof establishing politicaland ideologicalfoundation or socialism n Latin America. This re-quired the development f conscious forces within ociety, ased inthe working-class nd peasant movements, roundedwith n interna-tionalist erspective nd a clear political nderstanding f the nationaldemocratic truggle.While Mari'ategui nderstood hat the twentiethcentury as, n objective erms, heage of mperialism nd socialism-in this he agreed with enin-he also understood hat revolution ouldnot happen without he decisive oleof the consciouselement. n thishe also agreed with Lenin.

The present ay significance f Mariaiteguis therefore ot ust hisbrilliant nalysis of Peruvian ociety, ut his approach, his method,and above all his dedication o strengthening heconsciousforceswhohad to address the task of changing hat ociety. At a time when theLatin American evolutionary ovement s renewing ts capacity forconscious eadership,with renewed deological truggle, l Amautahas many essons to offer.

Among Latin America's revolutionary orces, Mariategui has aspecial significance t present. The communist movement n LatinAmerica s undergoing n intense rocess f struggle nd reevaluationof its line and practice ver the ast several decades, spurred y thereality hat the "official" communist arties were not the centralforces eading the two successful evolutions-Cuba and Nicaragua(Bollinger, forthcoming; hervonni, 1984). Mariategui representscommon reference oint to which ll revolutionaries an turn n theattempt orectify ast weaknesses. or communists, e represents hecardinal mportance f grounding evolutionary ractice n the mostadvanced theory, he defense of revolutionary Marxism, and therepudiation of dogmatic and sectarian substitutes or Marxist or-thodoxy. Outside he communist movement, e is a luminary ecausehe unravelled hecomplex elationship etween ational iberation ndthe concrete onditions f oppression nder which heLatin Americanmasses survive. As a leading intellectual, e waged the ideologicalstruggle gainst the cultural nd intellectual zars of proimperialistliberalism.He was able to synthesize he national democratic spira-tions of Latin Americawith he nternational ocialistmovement hatflourished n Europe and the SovietUnion. He coupledhis convictionthat he peasant questionwas central o the revolutionary roject with

afirm

efense fthe

eadingrole of the proletariat n affecting he

transition o socialism.


23/26


NOTES

1. APRA stands for the Alianza Popular RevolucionariaAmericana, founded n1924 by Victor Raul Haya de la Torre as a broad, Latin American evolutionary, nti-imperialist ormation. n 1928,Haya de la Torre stablished APRA as a strictly eru-vianparty the Partido Aprista eruano) nd by the 1940s t shifted oa reformist trategybased on populism and a petty-bourgeois lass base.

2. Del Prado is currently eneral Secretary f the Peruvian Communist arty ndone of the foremost uthorities n Maridtegui n the communistmovement. Althoughit s not within he cope of this rticle o demonstrate his, believeDel Prado's defense

of Mariategui's Marxism-Leninism s both important nd politically orrect, ut suf-fers from dogmatic methodology hat relies heavily n textual itations o "prove"Mariategui's octrinal rthodoxy ather han a theoretical xamination f Maridtegui'sideas in their wn right rom hepoint of view of historical nd dialecticalmaterialism.Alternatively, el Prado often elies n personal necdotes o make his caserather hana systematic heoretical nd political analysis of Maridtegui.

3. This goes far beyond Maridtegui's xplicit ritique f the economistic heoriesthat he was aware of in Peru and his forceful ejection f European social democracy.Indeed, all of Maridtegui's work s implicitly repudiation f the stale, economisticinterpretation f Marx that reduced he struggle or socialism o a series of economicstruggles or higherwages nd better working onditions. oming s it did n the decadefollowing he Bolshevik Revolution, Maridtegui's work objectively pheld the reaffir-

mation f the Leninist rinciples nderlying he eizure f power n Russia, which wereattacked hroughout he world s either nly applicableto Russia or inconsistent ithproletarian nterests o begin with.

4. Maridtegui's osition parallels n many ways Lenin's views on the mir-a formof rural collectivism ommon in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution.Maridtegui, ike Lenin, also rejected he dea that the persistence f such precapitalistforms necessitated lengthy eriod of capitalist evelopment s a "prerequisite" forsocialism-as social democracy and Bukharin's followers in the Soviet Unionmaintained-but nstead onsidered hem s a foundation or he transition o socialism.It might e argued that because today the ayllu s but a remnant f the past and themajority f Peru's rural opulation re either mall property wners r rural roletarians,or a combination f both, nd becauseonly 40%o f Peru's population s strictly ural,the agrarian uestion s therefore o longer-if it ever was-a central ne. This argu-ment, however,must rely n a strictly uantitative approach to class analysis nd failsto take into account the qualitative way in which he indigenous uestion continuesto dominate ll Peruvian politics-urban and rural. t requires hat one overlook therelatively enuous hold of capitalist relations ven in urban areas and the continualemergence f new forms f cooperation nd ndigenous onsciousness, espite heobviousprocess of integration n the imperialist ystem most clearly felt n the metropolitancenters. The persistence f this question explains, n part, the nsurgency f SenderoLuminoso the "ShiningPath" guerrillas hich, hough asedin the solated Ayacuchoregion, have managed to stir ympathies hroughout he nation). However, failing otake he materialist pproach hat Maridtegui ollowed o assiduously, enderohas chosento completely gnore he processof transformation f the Peruvian ountryside n thetwentieth entury-in particular he sweeping agrarian reform of the Velasco era


24/26


(1968-1975)-and acts as if Peru was still nation of Incas occupied by the Spanish.5. The Second nternational as a formation f socialist nd workers' arties, mostly

based in Europe. It was divided first f all over the question of World War I. Onesection, ed by Karl Kautsky, eft hedoor open for he ndividual arties n each coun-try o support heir own nation's role in the war. The section ed by Lenin and theBolshevikParty called for workers o oppose the war as an imperialist ne in whichthe working lass couldonlybecome annon fodder efending heir own" bourgeoisies.Later, the decisive split n the Second International ccurred over support for theBolshevikRevolution. The Kautsky ection withheld ts support n the basis that therevolution as not democratic. he Bolsheviks pearheaded he organization f the ThirdInternational, ased on defense f the Bolshevik Revolution nd the consolidation fa revolutionary ing f the worker's movement n Europe and internationally. y 1921,this plit had resulted n the formation f separate parties n most European nations-with he reformist arties dhering o the Second Socialist) nternational nd the revolu-tionary arties dhering o the Third Communist) nternational.

6. Some historians ave tried o speculate hat Mariategui was preparing o dropout of the communist movement ust before his death; the "evidence" for his s thathe was planning trip o Argentina, ponsored not by the communist movement utaided by two noncommunist ntellectuals. he purpose f the rip s not clear. But asidefrom he purely peculative ature of this argument, t ignores ne important ogicalexplanation for Mariategui's reliance on noncommunists or assistance: at a time ofheightened epression f communists n Peru and throughout atin America,help fromnoncommunists n such a venture would have been much more reliable han ssistancefrom ommunists.

REFERENCES

Aric6, Jose1978Maridtegui los origines el marxismo atinoamericano. exico City: iglo XXI.

Basadre, Jorge1981 "Introduccion los '7 Ensayos,"' pp. 19-39 n Emilio Romero et al., Siete

ensayos: 50 afios en la historia. Lima: Amauta.Bollinger, William"Learn from thers, hink for ourselves:Central American evolutionary trategyin the 1980s." Rev. of African Political Economy 32 (April): 56-63.

Chang-Rodriguez, ugenio1957La literatura olftica e Gonzdlez rada, Maridtegui Haya de la Torre. MexicoCity: Ediciones de Andrea.1983Poeitica ideologfa n Jose' Carlos Maridtegui. Madrid: Jose Porrua Turanzas.

Chervonni, Alexandr1984 "No hay nada mas practico ue una buena teoria." Ame'rica atina 4 (April):42-54.

Choy, Emilio et al.

1970 Lenin y Maridtegui. Lima: Amauta.


25/26


Del Prado, Jorge1972 Vigenciade Jose' Carlos Maridtegui. Lima: Campodonico Ediciones (withothers).1983 En los afios cumbres de Maridtegui. Lima: Ediciones Unidad.1984 "Nuevos Aportes para una comprensi6n abal del legado Marxista-Leninistade Mariategui." III Seminario nternacional obre Mariategui, ima (June 11-13).

Falc6n, Jorge1970"Lenin en Mariategui," pp. 45-89 n Emilio Choy et al., Lenin y Maridtegui.Lima: Amauta.1978 Anatomia de los 7 ensayos de Maridtegui. Lima: Amauta.

Flores Galindo, Alberto1980 La agonia de Maridtegui: a polk6mica on la Komintern. ima: DESCO.

Garcia Salvatecci,Hugo1979 Sorel y Maridtegui. Lima: E. Delgado Valenzuela.

Kossok, Manfred1971 "Jose Carlos Mariategui y su aporte al desarrollo de las ideas Marxistas nel Peru," pp. 111-147 n Antonio Melis et al., Maridtegui: res estudios. Lima:Amauta.

Levano, Cesar1969 "Mariategui: La voz del Peru integral," pp. 47-188 n Emilio Romero andCesar Levano, Regionalismo y centralismo. ima: Amauta.1970 "Lenin y Mariategui en nuestro tiempo," in Emilio Choy et al., Lenin yMaridtegui. Lima: Amauta.1981"Mariategui o la estrategia e masas," pp. 197-245 n Emilio Romero et al.,Siete ensayos: 50 afios en la historia. Lima: Amauta.

Luna Vegas, Ricardo1978Maridtegui, aya de la Torre, y la verdad historica. ima: Retama Editorial.1984Sobre las ideas polfticas de Maridtegui. Lima: Ediciones Unidad.

Mariategui, Jose Carlos1928Siete ensayos de interpretacidn e la realidad peruana. Lima: Amauta. Alsopublished n 1971 s Seven nterpretive ssayson PeruvianReality.Austin:Universityof Texas Press.1950 El alma matinal. Lima: Amauta.1959a El artista y la e6poca.Lima: Amauta.

1959b La defensa del Marxismo. Lima: Amauta.1959c Historia de la crisis mundial. Lima: Amauta.1969Cartas de Italia. Lima: Amauta.1970Peruanicemos l Peru. Lima: Amauta.1976La escena contempordnea. ima: Amauta.

Melis, Antonio et al.1971Maridtegui tres studios. Lima: Amauta.

Meseguer llan, Diego1974Jose Carlos Mariategui y su pensamiento evolucionario. ima: Instituto eEstudios Peruanos.

Miroshevski, . M.1942 "El populismo en el Peru." Dialectica 1 (May-June): 1-59.


26/26


Nufiez,Estuardo1978 La experiencia uropea de Jose' Carlos Maridtegui y otros ensayos. Lima:Amauta.

Paris, Robert1981La formacicin deolcgicade Josei arlos Maridtegui. Mexico City: Cuadernosde Pasado y Presente 92), Siglo XXI.

Vanden, Harry E.1975 Maridtegui, nfluencias n su formaci6n deol6gica. Lima: Amauta.

Weisse, Maria et al.1959 Jose' Carlos Maridtegui: Etapas de su vida. Lima: Amauta.

Documents

Mariategui - An assessment