Peru: José Carlos Mariátegui and Latin Americanization of Marxism

Author Ling Zhehong is from the School of Marxism, Zhejiang Normal University, May 2022

Recently, Ling Zhehong, a 2020 graduate student of the School of Marxism at Zhejiang Normal University, published an academic paper titled “An Analysis of Mariategui’s Latin Americanization of Marxism” in Marxism Studies as an independent author, with Professor Zheng Xiangfu as his supervisor. The journal of Marxism Studies is sponsored by the Institute of Marxism of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

José Carlos Mariátegui La Chira  (1894-1930) was a Peruvian writer, sociologist, historian, journalist, politician, and Marxist philosopher.

The article points out that José Carlos Mariátegui, with his deep insight into Latin American society and dialectical understanding of Marxism, has foresightedly proposed the Latin Americanization of Marxism. His ideas include insisting on using the basic principles of Marxism to analyze local practical problems, taking the path of socialist localization struggle, and using local actual conditions to build a communist consensus. They cover guiding ideology, struggle lines, ideological mobilization and other propositions, and have played an important role in the development of Latin American Marxism and socialism. His ideas have brought new vitality to Marxism in Latin America during the “dogmatism” period, inspired the enthusiasm of the vast number of “third world” nations to engage in the exploration of socialist localization, and promoted the diversified development of world Marxism.

The original text is as follows:

An Analysis of Mariategui’s Thoughts on the Latin Americanization of Marxism

After the victory of the October Socialist Revolution in Russia, the establishment of the Soviet Union demonstrated the powerful charm of socialism. Under this circumstance, the world Marxist camp, including Latin America (hereinafter referred to as “Latin America”), was divided. Those who claimed to be “orthodox Marxists” gradually adopted a dogmatic understanding of Marxism and followed the Soviet model of socialism.

The socialist revolution and construction under the guidance of dogmatic theory developed slowly, which seriously dampened the enthusiasm of proletarian revolutionaries. At that time, the major issue of “Where is Latin American Marxism going?” lay before Latin Americans. José Carlos Mariálegui (1894-1930), born in Peru, relied on his profound insight into reality and dialectical understanding of Marxism, adhered to Marxist methodology, and promoted the Latin Americanization of Marxism from a localized perspective, exploring a socialist path with Latin American characteristics.

His pursuit of the cause of localizing socialism was accompanied by a struggle against a rough fate. He suffered from sarcoidosis when he was a child, and at the age of 8, his left leg was injured, which made him lame for life. He fought against the disease all his life, and this tenacious style was also reflected in the revolution. In 1926, he founded the proletarian magazine “Amauta” in Peru, leading the trend of civilian magazines in Latin America; in 1928, he wrote the fundamental work “Seven Essays on Peruvian Conditions” (hereinafter referred to as “Seven Essays on Peru”) based on the study of Peruvian reality, which is regarded as the manifesto of the Latin Americanization of Marxism; in October of the same year, he founded the Peruvian Socialist Party (renamed the Communist Party of Peru in 1930); in 1929, he established the first General Confederation of Workers in Peru; and he died in 1930. He dedicated his short life to the cause of Latin American socialism and was a model for Latin American Marxists.

1. The Latin Americanization of Marxism is an inevitable product of the development of Latin American society

The spread of Marxism in Latin America can be compared with that in Russia. Marxism was introduced to Latin America in the 1850s, which had a profound impact on the Latin American intellectual world. With the rise of the anti-colonial movement, Latin American countries faced the century-old question of where to go, and Mariátegui’s thought was a product of this era.

1. The spread of Marxism in Latin America has promoted the practice of socialism in Latin America

The leadership of the Latin American socialist movement was initially dominated by the petty bourgeoisie, and the revolutionary ranks were full of compromise. In the early 19th century, Haiti became the first independent country in Latin America, and many Latin American countries subsequently broke away from old colonial powers such as Portugal and Spain and established independent nation-states. However, due to the long period of colonial rule, it was difficult for independent Latin American countries to break free from the colonial system for a while. The development of productivity was highly dependent on foreign capital, the regime represented by “Caudillo” changed frequently, social reforms were difficult to carry out, and the status of indigenous residents declined, all of which constrained the development of Latin America. Latin American countries are looking for further solutions in the tug-of-war with European and American powers.

In the 1850s, Marxism was introduced to Latin America. In 1854, The Poverty of Philosophy first appeared on the streets of Chile. In the 1860s, The Communist Manifesto appeared in Cuba, Mexico and Chile. Subsequently, European and American immigrants brought more works of Marx and Engels to Latin America. Scientific socialist thought was initially spread in Latin America. In the 1870s, a group of members of the Paris Commune took refuge in Latin America, widely propagated socialist ideas in Latin America, mobilized socialist movements, and nurtured the first batch of socialist activists in Latin America, such as Juan B. Justo (1865-1928) and Manuel Ugarte (1875-1951) in Argentina, and Luis Emilio Recabarren Serrano (1876-1924) in Chile. Under their leadership, some countries took the lead in taking action. In 1870, Mexican socialists founded the “Center of Organized Workers”, in 1871 they founded the “Socialist Newspaper”, and in 1878 they established the Socialist Party. From 1872 to 1876, the First International branch in Argentina was established under the personal care and guidance of Marx; in 1896, the Argentine Socialist Party was established. In 1892, Cuba held its first congress of the working class and established the Cuban Revolutionary Party. In 1904, Uruguay established the socialist group “Karl Marx Center”. However, most of these nascent Latin American socialist organizations were led by progressive intellectuals from the petty bourgeoisie, and some European socialists participated in them. Most of them had bourgeois families as their backs, and had close contacts with the upper class in Latin America and white people in Europe and America. In addition, they had little revolutionary determination, lacked experience in struggle, and had weak armed forces. In the face of the strong suppression of imperialism and feudalism, they had a weak side. In addition, the socialist movement led by progressive intellectuals had a strong bookish atmosphere, many differences of opinion, and insufficient cohesion, and the leadership was not monolithic. Since the petty and middle bourgeoisie failed to represent the advanced class and lacked effective means of mobilization, most of the Latin American proletariat adopted a wait-and-see attitude towards the beautiful vision of socialism, causing the Latin American socialist movement at that time to be isolated in a corner.

2. The Latin American socialist movement was seriously divided, and Marxism gradually became dogmatic.

In the 1850s, while Marxism was spreading in Latin America, utopian socialism and anarchism also guided the socialist movement. At that time, Latin American thinkers expressed their own views by translating original works, writing articles, and giving speeches, and studied socialist thought as a general theory. Before the October Revolution in Russia, socialist thought had formed a variety of Latin American socialist thoughts such as social democracy and anarcho-syndicalism in the collision and integration with Latin American local thoughts for nearly half a century. While these thoughts enriched Latin American socialist theory, they also diverted the revolutionary forces of socialism, causing most Latin American socialist movements to appear in the form of small fights. The October Revolution in Russia made the status of Marxism unprecedentedly high, and Latin American countries also sought to use Marxism to solve their own practical problems and put it into practice. Subsequently, Latin American communist parties were established one after another, and struggles such as the “three strikes” movement and demonstrations flourished. However, after the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922, Latin America placed Marxist theory on the altar and gradually became dogmatic, resulting in repeated failures in socialist practice.

At the same time, two negative ideas were rampant, namely “Eurocentrism” and “Latin American exceptionalism”. “Eurocentrism” advocated that Latin America must copy the theoretical achievements of European revolutions in order to succeed, rejecting localization; “Latin American exceptionalism” believed that due to differences in history, geography, and current national conditions, Latin American countries could not establish a socialist system like Europe. These pessimistic and rigid ideas made the vibrant revolutionary movement in Latin America dogmatic.

3. Reformism prevails in Latin America, making it difficult to establish a proletarian regime

After the end of World War I and the establishment of the Soviet Union, the leadership of the Latin American socialist revolution clearly shifted to the proletariat, and a number of Latin American communist parties came into being. In 1918, Argentina established the International Socialist Party (renamed the Argentine Communist Party in 1920), followed by Mexico (1919), Uruguay (1921), Chile (1922), Brazil (1922) and other countries. These new proletarian parties expressed their support for the Communist International and vowed to follow the example of Russia and take the path of the October Revolution. However, the socialist revolutionary movement in full swing ended in bloody failure, and a number of leaders were exiled abroad, such as Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre and Mariátegui. In 1924, after a profound reflection on the failure of the Latin American revolution and an in-depth investigation of the European and American revolutions, a group of overseas exiled intellectuals led by Haya de la Torre formed the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana), also known as the APRA Party, in Mexico. They believed that the main reason for the failure of the Latin American revolution was that European and American imperialism colluded and supported the Latin American bourgeois government, so it was necessary to establish an anti-imperialist alliance with the entire Latin American continent as a united front. In the early days of its establishment, the alliance claimed to believe in Marxism and its goal was to establish a socialist country in Latin America, and Latin Americans had high hopes for this. However, since 1927, the alliance has shown a right-wing tendency and its struggle line has become increasingly conservative. In February 1927, when the leader of the alliance, Haya de la Torre, attended the First World Anti-Imperialist Congress in Brussels, he openly opposed Lenin’s theory of imperialism, believing that in the underdeveloped Latin American region, it should rely on developed capitalist countries to develop national capitalism, and then enter socialism after national capitalism is fully developed, and advocated the establishment of a “multi-class” party led by the petty bourgeoisie and united by workers, peasants and intellectuals. Subsequently, under the slogan of “multi-class alliance led by the national bourgeoisie”, the small and medium bourgeoisie of Latin America united with the working class and peasant class of their own country to form a powerful but short-lived national democratic movement, which effectively impacted the warlord oligarchy rule of landlords, soldiers and churches. In the 1930s, they further declared that on the premise of “not touching capitalist farms and plantations”, they would take a “constructive” stance with imperialism and establish a “non-dependent partnership” with it. This reformism not only failed to substantially solve the independence issue of the Latin American nations, but also deepened their dependence on Western capitalist countries.

Faced with the above difficulties, Mariátegui realized through his reflection on reality that the development stages, class conditions and national conditions of Latin American countries were different from those of Russia. He advocated combining Latin American reality and called for Latin Americanization of Marxism and localization of socialism. In particular, in response to the situation in Peru, he wrote “Seven Essays on Peru”, which created an example of combining Marxism with Peruvian reality. Mariátegui’s thought was born in the dissemination and development of Latin American Marxism and the practice and transformation of the socialist movement.

At the beginning of the 1920s, the newly established Latin American Communist parties generally faced a problem: they were guided by the dogma of the Soviet Union and the Communist International, mechanically implemented a line, and did not distinguish between the actual problems of various countries, which made the Latin American socialist movement stagnant. Some Latin American socialists were keen to claim that they were “orthodox socialists” and followed the Soviet socialist model. Facts soon proved that this practice of cutting one’s feet to fit the shoes was difficult to make a breakthrough in the Latin American revolution and dampened the enthusiasm of Latin American socialist revolutionaries. In 1926, Mariátegui happily joined the American People’s Revolutionary Alliance founded by Haya de la Torre, hoping to carry out the socialist movement through the anti-imperialist alliance and become a key member. However, due to differences of opinion on how to view imperialism, what kind of political party to establish, and whether to take the revolutionary or reformist route, he angrily withdrew from the increasingly conservative alliance in 1928. At this point, Mariátegui clearly realized that neither dogmatism nor reformism could liberate Latin America. Combining his dialectical understanding of Marx’s thoughts during his field research in Europe with his profound reflection on the Latin American revolution and reality, Mariátegui proposed that in order to establish socialism in Latin America, it is necessary to change the backward appearance by exposing the specific practical problems of Latin American countries and create a Latin American-style socialist country.

Mariátegui’s indigenization analysis method was inspired by Ezequiel Urviola, the “Indian agitator” from Puno, a southern Peruvian city. Urviola wrote “The Tempest in the Andes”, in which indigenous Indians appeared as historical subjects rather than objects of submission to the West. He fiercely refuted everything related to Western civilization, ruthlessly criticized the brutal tyranny of Peruvian latifundia owners and government gendarmes over the Peruvian proletariat, and announced the arrival of a “new indigenous era”. This extreme indigenist awakened Mariátegui’s Latin American cognition. Mariátegui appreciated what was written in “Poems of the Man of the Sun”: “This lyrical praise brings us closer to the truth of the natives than the cold criticism of neutral observers.” Mariátegui showed enthusiasm for native culture and contempt for the “criticism of neutral observers” in Europe. In the face of criticism from the Communist International, he used the courage of “approaching the truth of the natives” to open the precedent of the Latin Americanization of Marxism. He analyzed: “Everyone talks about Marxism, but very few people understand Marxism, especially the dialectical method, which is the foundation of Marxism. In other words, this method is completely based on facts and reality. It is not a compilation of rigid principles that are equally applicable to all times and all social forms. Some people are wrong to see it that way.” In Mariátegui’s view, dogmatists are just bookworms who understand the superficial aspects of Marxism. They cannot deeply understand the actual needs of Latin American society, and they cannot analyze Marxism with an open, inclusive and flexible perspective. In the era when dogmatism prevailed, he pioneered the idea of ​​Latin Americanization of Marxism and localization of socialism, becoming the first true Latin American Marxist thinker. He used localized analysis methods to fill the gap that Latin America’s “fanatical and superficial intellectuals” could not provide effective research methods to guide socialist practice. Mariátegui wrote: “The ‘new generation’ of Peruvians will use scientific research and wise interpretation of facts to clarify local manifestations… and assist in the process of making Peru truly belong to Peruvians.” In the foggy period of socialist development in the 1920s, Mariátegui grasped the Marxist dialectical thought and found the key to solving the problem of Latin American socialism.

2. Mariáteguira’s original contribution to the glorification of socialist thought

The Latin Americanization of Marxism inevitably faces the issue of combining socialist theory with the local reality of Latin America. People who stick to the old ways only see the conclusions of Marxism, but fail to see that Marxism only provides methods. During his exile in Europe, Mariátegui deeply understood the essence of Lenin’s localized socialist thought. After returning to his country in 1923, he declared himself to be “an avowed Marxist.” He believed that the European socialist revolutionary theory could not be copied, but localized creation should be carried out. With his dialectical understanding of Marxism and his deep insight into the reality of Latin America, he proposed a set of localized socialist theories that conform to the reality of Latin America.

1. Adhere to the basic principles of Marxism in analyzing local issues

Focusing on the basic principle of “playing a role according to the characteristics of each country and nation”, Mariátegui used Marxist positions, viewpoints and methods to analyze Latin American issues and developed revolutionary theories and strategies that conform to Latin American realities. In the 1920s, the Latin American socialist revolution under the guidance of dogmatic thought reached a dead end. Many people questioned whether the Marxist theory originated in Europe was suitable for Latin America. Mariátegui did not hesitate, but pioneered the idea of ​​Latin Americanization of Marxism, which was based on his previous research on Marxist theory and Latin American realities. Mariátegui took the lead in studying the national conditions of Peru in “Seven Essays on Peru”. He divided Peruvian history into three periods: the Inca Empire period, the Spanish colonial period, and the Republic of Peru period. The first is the Inca Empire period from the 11th to the 16th century. The center of Peru’s civilization is in the Andes, where the primitive communist lifestyle of indigenous Indians appeared. In tribal communes, land is publicly owned and managed by the council, and other public affairs are also decided by the council. When cultivating the land, the division of labor is carried out according to age and gender, and collective labor is carried out. The elderly and the village chief are the organizers and supervisors of production activities. The products of labor are distributed equally, and the elderly, the weak, or those who contribute more are taken care of. The atmosphere of equality, mutual assistance, friendship and unity is full of tribal members. Because of this, Mariátegui claimed that Peru could continue this primitive communist lifestyle and then develop Peru’s modern socialist system. Second, the Spanish colonial rule period from the 16th to the early 19th century. During this period, Latin America and North America began to diverge. Latin America was not as lucky as North America. Almost all of the nobles, priests and villains were sent to Latin America, and then there was the medieval spirit of Christianity. In the late colonial rule, Latin America became the “raw material factory” and “back garden” of Europe and the United States. In Mariátegui’s view, it was the brazen invasion of the Spanish colonists that blocked the original capitalist development process in Peru. Third, the period of the Independent Republic of Peru after 1821. During this period, Peru got rid of Spanish colonial rule, became an independent country, and embarked on a relatively independent development path. However, like other Latin American countries, Peru had been integrated with the colonial system for too long, so it was difficult to completely get rid of the old colonial rule. At the same time, the former feudal lords disguised themselves as the bourgeoisie of the Republic and continued to exploit the proletariat, which meant that there were still remnants of feudal forces in Peru. By the beginning of the 20th century, Mariátegui was faced with the national question of how to overthrow the two mountains of colonialism and feudalism.

“Seven Essays on Peru” is a manifesto of the Latin Americanization of Marxism. In the book, Mariátegui uses examples, quotations, data and other methods to try to use the materialist view of history to clarify the seven topics of Peru: “economic evolution, Indian issues, land issues, the progress of public education, religious factors, localism and centralism, and the trial of literature.” Among them, “economic evolution,” “Indian issues,” and “land issues” can be classified as economic foundation research, and “the progress of public education,” “religious factors,” “localism and centralism,” and “the trial of literature” can be classified as superstructure research. It should be pointed out that Mariátegui spent nearly half of the book on an in-depth explanation of “Indian literature,” expressing his great intention to revive local literature. He believes that the revival of Latin American localism cannot omit the cultural revival including literature, art, and entertainment, but in the independent Republic of Peru, its literature is still a echo of colonial literature, without any national characteristics. Mariátegui saw the important influence of culture on a country’s independence and called for cultural “decolonization”, emphasizing that Peruvian literature should be rooted in the country’s soil in order to achieve the independence and freedom of the national spirit.

After returning from exile in Europe in 1923, Mariátegui devoted himself to the socialist movement with great enthusiasm and went to González Prada Popular University, which was founded by Haya de la Torre for the working class and peasant class, to teach. During his teaching, he introduced his experiences in Europe to the young people and the people in China, specifically the European reforms after the First World War, the construction of communism in Soviet Russia, and Gandhi’s “non-violent non-cooperation” movement in India, in order to open up their world pattern, vision and wisdom and inspire their revolutionary enthusiasm. During his speech, he had a cordial conversation with the students to gain a deep understanding of Peruvian society. In 1925, he planned to launch a socialist violent revolution in Peru similar to that in Europe, but the movement was hit hard due to the lack of response from the working class and peasant class. In a series of subsequent practices, he realized the importance of “revolutionary consciousness” in carrying out the socialist revolutionary cause, that is, revolutionary action can only be achieved with the guidance of revolutionary theory. He wrote: “Even the most advanced and enlightened Peruvian workers need education and cultural preparation to participate effectively in a powerful movement.” As a young Marxist in the early 20th century, he had mastered Marxism-Leninism, skillfully applied Marxist standpoints, viewpoints and methods to expose and analyze local problems, and used Marxism as a guide to solve local problems.

2. Opening up the path of Latin American socialist revolution

Chilean philosopher Helio Gallardo said in his evaluation of Mariátegui that “he was one of the first to develop revolutionary socialist ideas from Latin American reality – ‘thinking Latin America'”. At the same time as Mariátegui, many Latin American thinkers rejected both capitalism and communism, and envisioned a “third way”: the reformist path, the “moderate path” of peacefully seizing power, and super-class alliances. These reformist paths were ruthlessly criticized by Mariátegui: “I am a revolutionary… I will never understand other political fields: those of mediocre reformers, tamed socialism and farcical democracy. In addition, if revolution requires violence, authority and discipline, then I am in favor of violence, authority and discipline.” To this end, he insisted on opening up a localized revolutionary path based on the violent seizure of power and combining the actual conditions of various countries.

Why choose socialist revolution? The answer given by Mariátegui is that Peru has tried the bourgeois revolution to establish the Republic of Peru. In form, decrees have been issued to protect the rights of the working class and peasant class, such as the distribution of land and the abolition of unpaid labor. However, because the right to speak is in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat is still oppressed by feudalism and capitalism. Mariátegui believes that whether it is a racial issue or an educational issue, it is ultimately an issue of “economic ownership”. If the economic system does not change, any solution will be scratching the surface. Mariátegui wrote: “The proletariat cannot carry out a huge historical creation if it only takes shortening the working day and raising wages a little as its ideal. It must not only stand higher than the crude pragmatism that only seeks to fill its stomach, but also stand higher than the nihilistic intentions and needs with adverse effects. The revolutionary spirit is the creative spirit.” In addition, the capitalist reform path led by Peruvian populist leader Haya de la Torre has proved that the proposition of realizing socialism through reform has limited effect, and Peruvian society calls for the arrival of a socialist revolution.

Mariátegui pointed the spearhead of the revolution directly at feudalism and imperialism. He believed that due to the collusion between imperialism and feudal forces, the feudal forces in the “cloak of the republic” were difficult to eliminate. First, the problem of “feudalism”. This problem is specifically manifested in the problem of land exploitation by large estate owners and the oppression of Indians, among which the oppression of Indians is attached to the land problem. Therefore, the most fundamental and effective means is land revolution to distribute land ownership to farmers. He pointed out: “The problem of indigenous peoples is caused by our country’s economy, and its root lies in land ownership. As long as the feudal nature of the “chief” (“gamonal”) still exists, any attempt to solve the problem by administrative measures or police means, by educational methods or by building transportation projects is only superficial or decorative work.” Secondly, the problem of “imperialism”. In history, Peru has been invaded by colonial countries such as Spain, Portugal, Britain and France, which controlled and plundered Peruvian property through political, economic and military means. Mariategui pointed out: “The best valleys along the coast are planted with cotton and sugarcane, not because these lands are only suitable for these crops, but simply because these crops are currently important to British and American businessmen.” Under the infiltration of the colonial power, the independent Republic of Peru is still at the mercy of imperialism. Mariategui believes that Peru urgently needs to carry out land revolution internally and abolish “imperialist” privileges externally in order to achieve true independence and freedom of Peruvian society.

So, who should we rely on for the revolution? Mariátegui was convinced that we should rely on the Peruvian proletariat, including the indigenous Indians. First of all, Mariátegui had realized that the road of relying on the petty bourgeoisie for the revolution was not feasible, and would only degenerate into a hypocritical bourgeois democratic revolution or reformism. He said that even if the petty bourgeoisie hated the big bourgeoisie for squeezing out their living space, their class nature determined that they could not do without collusion with capitalism. On the contrary, the indigenous Indians of Peru accounted for 2/3 of the total population, were deeply oppressed, and had strong revolutionary demands. Whether from the perspective of population size or class nature, they were the only choice for revolutionary forces. He said: “In Peru, the masses – the working class – accounted for 4/5 of the Indians. If our socialism is not united with the defense of the Indians – our socialism will not be the socialism of the Peruvians – nor will it be socialism.” Moreover, the indigenous Indians also have a natural communist complex. Their ancestors once lived in primitive communist villages, and this primitive communist sentiment will prompt the Indians to welcome and support the arrival of the socialist revolution.

Mariategui envisioned that the socialism in Peru after its establishment would preserve the traditional village communities of the original Indian people, eliminate the autocratic elements in the Inca “primitive communism”, integrate the achievements of modern civilization into the lives of the people, and ultimately build an “Indian American socialist country” where people would be hardworking, simple, disciplined, and enjoy collectivism and collective labor.

3. Use Latin American realities to build a communist consensus

In the process of putting theory into practice, Mariátegui gradually found that the unarmed Latin American proletariat could not compete with the materially rich bourgeoisie, and showed low morale and low cohesion in the battle. For this reason, he believed that it was urgent to find a mobilization strategy that was in line with the actual situation in Latin America. Although there is no definite evidence to prove that Mariátegui met Gramsci during his exile in Europe from 1919 to 1923, his practice did contain elements of Gramsci’s thoughts, and he was well versed in ideological (cultural) leadership.

Mariategui visited Italy and witnessed the failure of the Italian socialist revolution. He attributed one of the reasons to the failure of the Italian Communist Party to unite the domestic socialist forces. At that time, Latin America was facing the same dilemma. Especially after the Sixth Congress of the Communist International, due to the interference of the Communist International, the Latin Americanization of Marxism was in chaos, and some early Latin American Marxists slid into the populist camp. In this context, it was particularly urgent to establish a united front of proletarian revolution. Inspired by the education and propaganda mobilization methods of Recabarén, the leader of the Chilean workers’ movement, Mariategui took the lead in using cultural propaganda to prepare for the establishment of a united front (political party).

First, he founded a clear-cut proletarian newspaper. In his early years, Mariátegui had founded magazines such as “Reason”, “Labor” and “Lumina”. With the founding of “Amauta” in 1926, he achieved a true awakening in cultural leadership. His original intention in founding “Amauta” was to “raise, clarify and understand the Peruvian problem from a scientific and dogmatic point of view”. The content of “Amauta” covers politics, art, literature and scientific revolutionary movements, and it always stands in the camp of the Latin American proletariat to serve the socialist movement. In fact, Mariátegui had a more ambitious vision, trying to use “Amauta” to attract more Latin American intellectuals to join the “avant-garde movement represented by the magazine” and lead the trend of civilian progressive magazines. In 1928, when celebrating the second anniversary of the founding of “Amauta”, he wrote: “On our flag, we have inscribed a great and simple word: socialism… In the past two years, “Amauta” has been a magazine about the definition of ideology… For us, the work of defining ideology seems to have been completed.” “Amauta” has become an important publication that looks through the ideology of the Peruvian socialist movement in the early 20th century.

Second, support the establishment of proletarian schools and allow the proletariat to receive free education. As early as in “The Progress of Public Education” in “Seven Essays on Peru”, Mariátegui deeply analyzed the current situation of education in the Republic of Peru, believing that Peruvian education was monopolized by the bourgeoisie and was poisoned by three foreign cultures: “Spanish heritage, French and North American culture”. In order to break the barriers of the ruling class’s monopoly on education, after returning to his country in 1923, he went to González Prada People’s University to teach, publicize his experiences overseas to the working class and peasant class, inspire their revolutionary fighting spirit, and emphasize the importance of free education for the Latin American proletariat in various places such as the “Party Program of the Peruvian Socialist Party”.

Third, establish a vanguard party led by the Latin American proletariat. Faced with the argument that the Latin American working class and peasant class were still in ignorance and unable to lead the socialist revolution in the early 20th century, and the growing populist forces led by the petty bourgeoisie, Mariátegui realized that the time to prepare for the establishment of the Peruvian proletarian party could not be delayed. In October 1928, with the help of eight socialists including Julio Portocarrero, Avelino Navarro, and Hinojosa, Mariátegui announced the formal establishment of the Peruvian Socialist Party (renamed the Communist Party of Peru in May 1930) and was elected as the general secretary of the party. In Article 9 of the party’s founding program, he clearly stipulated that “the Peruvian Socialist Party is the vanguard of the proletariat. In the struggle to realize class ideals, it is a political force that shoulders the heavy responsibility of leading the proletariat”, thus defending the revolutionary leadership of the proletariat. Since then, in the face of the chaotic situation of the Latin Americanization of Marxism, Mariátegui has found the magic weapon of the united front for the Peruvian socialist revolution.

In the struggle to lead the united front, Mariátegui found that the Peruvian proletariat was not prepared for the arrival of communist society, and there were problems such as revolutionary slackness and fear. He believed that in order to achieve a complete victory in the Peruvian socialist revolution, it was necessary to find a good way for the Latin American proletariat to strengthen their communist ideals and beliefs. In 1926, when he wrote “Seven Essays on Peru”, he had already understood the possibility of Latin American traditions serving the cause of communism. Mariátegui pointed out that “we instinctively inherited socialist ideas from the Inca Empire”. Therefore, when the indigenous Indians understood socialism and communism, they would regard it as a continuation of their own way of life.

First, use the primitive Indian village community to awaken the Latin American people’s recognition of the value of “communism”. There was indeed a communist lifestyle in Latin America, and it was preserved during the colonial rule and the independent republic period. Latin American thinker Hildebrando Castro Pozo believes that “the Aylue or village community retains its natural characteristics, like a family organization, and its main components continue to exist after the Spanish conquest of the American continent.” Although the primitive communist model is different from the communism envisioned by Marx, this does not prevent Mariátegui from using the communist tradition to inspire the Indians to fight for their national traditions. In Mariátegui’s view, revolutionary consciousness may take some time to form, “but once the Indians take the socialist concept as their own concept, they will serve it with discipline, tenacity and strength.” He even believes that the remaining Indian village communities can be transformed into modern cooperatives.

Second, explore the Indians’ natural worship to achieve social change. Mariategui once quoted Balcazar’s words in his study of the economic life of Tawantinsuyo (the name of the Inca Empire), pointing out that “in the tradition of our inhabitants, the land is a common mother. Not only food, but also people are produced from its belly… Worshiping ‘Pacha Mama’ is exactly the same as worshiping the sun, and just as the sun does not belong to any individual, the earth does not belong to any individual.” Mariategui believes that for the Indians, the Republic of Peru is just a new exploiter who drives away the old colonists and occupies their land. For a nation like the Indians who stick to rural customs and peasant psychology, depriving them of their “Mother Land” has caused them both material and spiritual harm. In order to realize the Indians’ re-possession of land ownership, it is necessary to give them rationality in national emotions, awaken their ancient consciousness, and make them agree to the revolution to restore their land ownership.

Third, build spiritual power and tap the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. In order to enable Latin Americans to have the spiritual power to engage in socialist revolution, Mariátegui believes that it is necessary to dig deep into the revolutionary elements in Latin American traditions. Latin Americans have a primitive worship of mysterious power, which is a national opportunity. He pointed out: “Socialist materialism contains all possibilities for spiritual, ethical and philosophical improvement.” In his view, communism can be regarded as a belief that can guide people out of ignorance and toward the glorious shore of communism. As Georges Sorel said, the historical experience of the early 20th century showed that the current revolutionary myths or social myths may completely occupy people’s profound consciousness like ancient religious myths. This is an inevitable product of Latin America’s special national conditions.

Mariátegui always believed that the spiritual and intellectual preparation of the proletariat was a necessary condition for realizing the socialist revolution. Mariátegui has been trying to face up to the reality of Peru, hoping to use traditional culture, practice and special national conditions to find a way to realize the socialist revolution in Peru. Faced with the difficult transformation of theory into reality, Mariátegui was clear: “It is necessary to create a class consciousness. Organizers know that most workers have a spirit of cooperation and mutual assistance. This spirit should be developed and cultivated until it becomes a class spirit.” Therefore, with a deep understanding of Latin American history and reality, he made great creations in proletarian education, socialist newspapers, and using Latin American traditions to explore revolutionary potential, which promoted the Latin American socialist revolution from theory to reality.

3. The Historical Influence and Current Reflection on Mariátegui’s Latin Americanization of Marxism

Born in the same era as Gramsci and Mao Zedong, Mariátegui is the father of Latin American Marxism. The three have something in common in their thoughts. They all advocate combining the specific realities of their own countries, advocating the path of localization of socialism, and regarding “concrete analysis of concrete issues” as the “living soul” of Marxism. In the 20th century, the Sinicization, Latin Americanization, and Africanization of Marxism intertwined and presented themselves, pushing the nationalization of Marxism to a climax, and jointly giving new vitality to Marxism.

1. Historical influence

Mariátegui was the first to break through the dogmatic barriers of Marxism in Latin America and started the process of Latin Americanization of Marxism. A few months after Mariátegui’s death in 1930, the reactionary Legia government of Peru was overthrown, and his successors put the Indian issue, economic sovereignty and anti-imperialism on the agenda. Luis Manuel Sanchez Cerro realized that “the assimilation of the Indians is the fundamental issue of Peru” and allocated part of the land to the Indians and provided them with planting funds and technical support. At the same time, Oscar R. Benavides nationalized the Sechura oil field on the northern coast of Peru in an attempt to prevent imperialism from controlling Peru. After Mariátegui’s death, the Peruvian government did reform to a certain extent in accordance with his will, but it was far from enough. Unexpectedly, in the years after Mariátegui’s death, his localized socialist ideas took root in Cuba. During Mariátegui’s lifetime, Cuba’s Avant-Garde newspaper and Amauta magazine actively promoted Mariátegui’s socialist ideas, and the Seven Essays on Peru can be seen everywhere in Cuba. Among them, during his trip to Latin America, Che Guevara had in-depth exchanges with Hugo Pesce, one of the founders of the Communist Party of Peru, on Mariátegui’s ideas, forming an inclusive and open revolutionary thought. Fidel Castro, the father of Cuban socialism, read Mariátegui’s works many times within two years after he was imprisoned in 1953. He believed that Cuba should also take a non-dogmatic, flexible and open revolutionary route, emphasizing the revolutionary potential of farmers and the value of indigenous culture, and thinking about how to inspire the revolutionary enthusiasm of the country’s proletariat. These have prompted Cuba to become the first socialist country in Latin America and has developed to this day.

Mariátegui believed that “indigenous hope is absolutely revolutionary” and its motivation and soul are “mythical socialist ideas”. Only socialism can end feudalism and imperialism. At the same time, without the indigenous masses, Peruvian socialism has no future. These insightful and creative words still echo in Latin America. At a critical stage in the development of Latin American politics and thought, “Mariátegui was able to creatively combine a wide range of academic thoughts and political trends, using his profound knowledge and experience to ingeniously integrate the most dynamic trends in Marxist thought and European culture into the developing national and third world consciousness of Peru and Latin America.” This is his precious wealth left to future generations.

In the second half of the 20th century, the left, including the Latin American Communist Party, realized the contemporary value of Mariátegui’s localization proposition and reflected on it. “In the past, they (Latin American Communist Party – author’s note) formulated policies by copying foreign models, which were divorced from reality, with more empty words than real words. They neither reflected the long-term interests of the broad social classes nor reflected their current urgent demands in a timely manner. Therefore, it was difficult to attract more people to the party, resulting in the slow development or stagnation of the party’s power.” During the Cold War, the innovative move made by the Latin American Communist Party was to turn from dogmatic treatment of Marxism to nationalization of Marxism. In the 1960s, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia and other countries successively proposed to develop or innovate socialism. Since the second half of the 20th century, the independence consciousness of the indigenous Indian nations in Latin America has risen, and they have clearly stated that they want to take back the power that belongs to the Indian nation. They have repeatedly resisted the current ruling government through demonstrations, violent revolutions and other means. These movements are dominated by the proletariat, including the Indians, and demand changes to deep-seated issues such as land and education. Mariátegui’s thoughts provided spiritual nourishment for the Indian nation’s revolution and a theoretical model for the Latin Americanization of Marxism. Mariátegui is the well-deserved father of Latin American Marxism.

2. Realistic reflection

Since the initial emergence of Latin American localized socialist thought in the 1920s, the Latin American socialist movement has gone through nearly 100 years of exploration. Why have Latin American Communist Parties and the Latin American left failed to lead Latin America onto the road to socialism? This is worth reflecting on. First, the exploration of the localization of Marxism is a long and difficult process. Latin America has repeatedly proposed theoretical innovations in the Latin Americanization of Marxism, but under the influence of internal and external pressures, it is often not put into practice or abandoned halfway. It has not insisted on the localization research of Marxism that keeps pace with the times. This is the fundamental reason why Latin America missed Marxism. Second, the struggle between capitalism and socialism continues. Since the birth of Cuban socialism, Western countries led by the United States have always maintained a high-pressure situation on the Latin American socialist movement. Many Latin American proletarian revolutionaries have been brutally suppressed by reactionary forces in practice. This is an important reason for the decline of Marxism in Latin America. Third, in the process of developing Marxism, advanced Latin American intellectuals violated or denied the basic theories of Marxism, causing the Latin American socialist movement to become heretical, such as the Shine Path of Peru, which is the direct reason why Latin American Marxism is difficult to win the trust of the people. In this regard, Mariátegui’s thoughts have an important warning effect on future generations.

First, from the perspective of Mariátegui’s Latin Americanization of Marxism, the combination of Marxism with the specific realities of various countries is an inevitable law of the development of Marxism. As a “Leninist” Latin American Marxist, Mariátegui once again proved that for socialist practice under the guidance of Marxism to achieve victory, it is necessary to start from Marxist methodology, analyze the specific realities of various countries in detail, and form basic principles and policies to solve problems. Otherwise, it is impossible to achieve the final victory of socialist revolution and construction. In the October Revolution, Lenin used Marxist methodology to combine Marxism with the specific realities of Russia, formed the “one country victory theory”, and embarked on the socialist road. In the process of socialist construction, Lenin started from reality and formed policies such as “state capitalism”, “war communism” and “new economic policy”, and regarded Russian socialism as a form of transition to a higher stage of communism. Lenin said: “No Marxist has ever believed that Marx’s theory is a historical philosophical formula that must be universally followed, and it is something that goes beyond the explanation of a certain social and economic form.” Mariátegui quickly applied Leninism to Latin America after the October Revolution and Latinized Marxism. This is a model worthy of learning for communists all over the world.

Secondly, whether it is the nationalization of Marxism or the localization of socialism, it must be based on adhering to the basic principles of Marxism. Looking at the history of the development of Marxism and the history of the socialist movement, it is not difficult to draw a basic conclusion that only by studying Marxism and socialism in practice can we truly practice Marxism and promote the in-depth development of socialism. Similarly, the transformation of socialism in Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa at the end of the 20th century also shows that only by adhering to Marxist methodology and the leadership of the proletarian vanguard organization can we continue to move forward on the socialist road. Lenin once said: “Only a party guided by advanced theory can play the role of an advanced fighter.” The socialist movement must be guided by Marxism as a theory, and Marxism must also play its methodological role in practice. Therefore, the issue of socialist localization must not transcend the basic principles of Marxism. If the basic principles are abandoned and practice is allowed to develop recklessly, it is to abandon Marxism. At the same time, the socialist revolution must be led by the vanguard organization of the proletariat. “Only a party that organizes truly nationwide exposure work can become the vanguard of the revolutionary force.” If the leadership of the proletarian vanguard organization is abandoned, it means abandoning socialism. Therefore, the vanguard of the proletariat must represent the interests of the entire people and serve the people wholeheartedly, otherwise it will lose its position and original intention. The primary reason why many former socialist countries failed to continue on the socialist path or their socialism ultimately failed is that they abandoned the leadership of the Communist Party.

Thirdly, socialism must be studied in practice. Lenin once believed that “all nations will inevitably move towards socialism, but not all nations will move in exactly the same way. In this or that form of democracy, in this or that form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the speed of socialist transformation in all aspects of social life, each nation will have its own characteristics.” This means that scientific socialism must be localized in practice and must be combined with the actual conditions of each nation. Socialism is an unprecedented cause. Every step forward requires us to study its political, economic, cultural and other aspects, put forward corresponding strategies in a timely manner, and timely change the focus and central tasks of the party’s work. After the consolidation of the socialist regime, we will fully develop democracy, let all working people participate in state management, fully mobilize the enthusiasm of the broad masses of the people, develop socialist productivity, and improve the living standards of the working people.

Finally, the localization of socialism must always fight against capitalism. Socialism grew up on the basis of capitalism. Although socialism and capitalism are contradictory parties that influence and restrict each other, capitalism is the enemy of socialism. We must never forget to guard against the interference, sabotage and obstruction of capitalism (for example, the United States has blockaded Cuba for more than 50 years). Since the first socialist country in human society, Western capitalist countries have never stopped curbing and obstructing socialism. They always wield the big stick of “democracy” and “freedom”, whitewash their “universal values”, take all means to divide the political forces of socialist countries, and incite the people to fight against the government. In Latin America and Africa, many socialist countries have moved towards a multi-party system. On the surface, it is their own choice, but in fact it is the result of manipulation by Western countries. Our country is a socialist country of people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. All state power belongs to the people. The people being the masters of the country is the essence and core of socialist democratic politics. In the world, there will never be a universal democracy, and there will never be a value that can be imposed on countries. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Democracy is not an ornament or a decoration, but is used to solve the problems that the people need to solve.” Democracy is not the patent of a few countries, but the right of all people. “To evaluate whether a country’s political system is democratic and effective, it mainly depends on whether the national leadership can be replaced in an orderly manner according to law, whether all people can manage state affairs and social affairs, economic and cultural undertakings according to law, whether the people can express their interests freely, whether all sectors of society can effectively participate in the country’s political life, whether national decision-making can be scientific and democratic, whether talents from all walks of life can enter the national leadership and management system through fair competition, whether the ruling party can lead state affairs in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and laws, and whether the exercise of power can be effectively restricted and supervised.”

On the 75th anniversary of Mariátegui’s death, the Venezuelan National Assembly held a series of commemorative activities and pointed out in relevant documents that “Mariátegui’s thought is still the source of understanding the world’s workers’ movement and the socialist movement, and is the source of eternal thought and guide to action for Latin American revolutionaries.” Entering the 21st century, the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America survey report pointed out that as of 2020, there are about 200 million poor people in Latin America, accounting for 1/3 of the total population of Latin America, of which nearly 80 million are in extreme poverty, with a huge gap between the rich and the poor and serious social problems. From April 8 to 10, 2018, representatives from 11 Communist parties from 9 Latin American countries held the “Latin American Communist Party Meeting” in Lima, the capital of Peru, and believed that “socialism is still full of vitality and is the hope of mankind both now and in the future” and is “the only choice for the Latin American people.” In recent years, from the recovery of the ruling left-wing parties in Latin America and the friendly interactions with the Communist parties of other countries, it is not difficult to see that the left-wing parties in Latin America are still working hard to realize the socialist ideal. Mariátegui’s thought has great practical significance in Latin America in the 21st century.

Mariategui’s Latin Americanized Marxist thought is a dialectical unity of Marxist theory and reality, universality and particularity. As early as 1928, Mariategui pointed out with foresight: “Although socialism may have been born in Europe, like capitalism, it is not a clear or special European socialism. It is a global movement. In this movement, no country operating within the orbit of Western civilization is excluded.” Socialism is the universal future of mankind. Due to the different national conditions of various countries, we have to give socialism a localized life, which will be a more specific socialism. Standing today, 100 years later, looking back at Mariategui’s thought, the most precious wealth he left to future generations is to treat socialism with the “living soul” of Marxism.