The Contributions of Jose Carlos Mariategui to Revolutionary Theory

Author(s): Thomas Angotti

Source: Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 2, Perspectives on Left Politics (Spring,
1986), pp. 33-57
Published 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 at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may 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 at
http://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 printed
page 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 forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org
 The Contributions of
Jose Carlos Mariategui to Revolutionary Theory
by
ThomasAngotti*

Maestro, hermano,te seguiremoscantando,

seguiremosliamandote.Asi no estaran
solos nuestrospueblos en su dura ascension
a la libertady a la dignidad.
-Pablo Neruda, fromPoemas a Mariategui

JoseCarlos Mariaitegui is one of themostimportanttwentieth cen-

turyrevolutionary leadersin the Americas.The FrenchwriterHenri
Barbusse once remarked,"Do you know who Mariateguiis? He is
America'snewluminary. The prototype of thenewpersonof thatcon-
tinent" (see Del Prado, 1983: 179).
Now, 55 yearsafterhis untimelydeath,Mariaitegui'scontributions
to revolutionaryMarxism,both in theoryand practice,are finally
being acknowledgednot only in his native Peru but throughout
Latin Americaas well. Withthevictoryof Sandinismoin Nicaragua,
the democratic, anti-imperialistforces in Peru have adopted
"Mariateguismo" as theircommon referencepoint. Mariateguismo
now promisesto be thesymbolof thelargestand mostunifiedrevolu-
tionaryLeft in South America duringthe 1980s.
Perhapsone of themosttellingsignsof therichnessand complexi-
ty of Mariaitegui'sthinkingand the breadthof his work, is the way
Mariaiteguiis "claimed" by a broad spectrumof intellectualand
politicalforces,bothwithinand outsidetherevolutionary Left-much
as Gramsciin Italy.Mariaitegui'sprobinganalysesof Latin American
historyand culture,his literarycriticism, his meticulousdissectionof
classes and stratawithin Peruvian society,especiallythe indigenous
peasantry,have won admirationfroma wide range of intellectuals,
political figures,and culturalworkers.
*ThomasAngottiis a specialistin urbanand regionalplanningand has livedand worked
in Peru. He formerly
directedthePlanningProgramin DevelopingNations(P.P.D.N.)
at Columbia University.He receiveda Ph.D. fromRutgersUniversity.

LATINAMERICANPERSPECTIVES,Issue49,Vol.13No. 2, Spring198633-57
? 1986LatinAmerican
Perspectives

33
34 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

To some mainstreamobservers,Mariaitegui is just an independent-

minded intellectualwith a few (unfortunate)ideas about socialism
(MeseguerIllan, 1974); to revolutionary nationalistsand Maoists,like
the Sendero Luminoso guerrillas,he is an advocate of rural-based
peasant-ledrevolution;to some social democratsassociatedwiththe
APRA' partyhe is an advocate of gradualreformbased on a multi-
class party(likeAPRA); to otherson theLefthe is a nationalistdisillu-
sioned withthe internationalcommunistmovement(Flores Galindo,
1980) or an idealistwithonlya shallowgraspof historicalmaterialism
(Paris, 1981)or a "creative"Marxistwho was so uniquehe could never
be associated withan organizedpolitical force(Arico, 1978).
The mostconsistent,and perhapsmostcommon,interpretation of
Mariaiteguiconsidershima revolutionary Marxist-Leninist who made
a signalcontribution to the understanding of the centrality of the in-
digenousquestion to the Peruvian revolution, but was also convinced
of the leading role of the proletariatand closelytied to the interna-
tionalcommunistmovement.This assessmenthas been upheldmain-
ly by thecommuniststhemselves(forexample,Del Prado, 1972, and
1984; Levano, 1981; Falcon, 1978), but is shared by otherscholars
(Vanden, 1975; Basadre, 1981; Weisse, 1959). This assessmentoften
includesa sober acknowledgement of some of thecontradictions and
early vacillationsof Mariaitegui(Melis, 1971). However, from the
periodof his deathuntilthe 1960s,whentherewas an upsurgein sen-
timentfornationalindependence in Peru,therewas a markedtendency
among the communiststo downplaythe seminal contributionsof
Mariaitegui.Oftencitedis a critiqueof Mariaitegui by a Sovietauthor
(Miroshevski,1942) thatportrayedMariaitegui as a populistand pro-
ponentof peasant revolutionratherthan an advocate of the leading
role of the proletariat.
Of theseinterpretations, whichcomesclosestto accuratelysumming
up Mariaitegui?In the followingpages, I willtryto demonstratethat
the communistassessmentof Mariaiteguiis, despitesome tendencies
to deifyMariaiteguiand turnhis worksto dogma, generallycorrect.
The myriadinterpretations of Mariattegui are in part the resultof
his intellectualbreadth; his works cover a wide rangeof topics and
can be read on severaldifferentlevels.They are also, however,a func-
tion of his evolution as a Marxist. Mariaiteguibegan his trajectory
towardMarxismas a radicalintellectual mostlyabsorbedin journalistic
pursuits and literarycriticism.Over the years his thinking evolvedcon-
 Angotti/ MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 35

siderably,and he even came to repudiatesome of his earlierworks

once he had fullyadopted a Marxistworld outlook. Of course, this
makes any attemptto sum up Mariaiteguiin termsof the young
Mariaiteguialone a ratherone-sidedenterprise.It was not untilthe
last fiveyears of his life that Mariaitegui'stheoreticaland practical
work reached its pinnacle, with the publicationof his best-known
writingsand his catalyticrole in foundingthe Peruviantrade-union
and communistmovements.These were the years when Mariaitegui
thoroughlyembracedsocialism.
JoseCarlos Mariaitegui was no historicalanomaly.He was theprod-
uct of the rise of imperialismin the Americas. He reflectedthe
emergenceof thefledglingproletariatin the earlytwentiethcentury,
and itsstriving fora strategicalliancewiththeoppressedruralmasses,
made possible, and necessary,by the declineof the Latin American
oligarchiesand assertionof a newrulingclass organicallylinkedwith
theUnitedStates.He was, in short,a consciousexpressionof the ob-
jective motion towardsocialismin the Americas.
In this article, I will attemptto review Mariaitegui'scontribu-
tions to revolutionaryMarxism. This articlecould easily focus on
any one of the numerousaspectsof Mariaitegui'slife and work that
have become the subject of both scholarshipand political debate.
However, the purpose here is to synthesizethis work and develop
a pictureof the overall significanceof Mariaitegui-especiallygiven
that so littleis known about him in North America. As with any
synthesis,thistasknecessarilyexcludesmanydetailsand leaves many
questionsunanswered.
Mariaitegui'scontributions fallintothreemaincategories.The first
involvesthe role of thesubjectivefactorand consciouselement.This
includes Mariaitegui'sclassical critiqueof economism,his work in
culturalcriticismand philosophy,and his role in foundingthe Peru-
vian communistmovement.The second is a historical-materialist
analysisof classesand class strugglein Peru. This includesthecreative
analysisof "the IndigenousQuestion" as centralto theclass struggle
in Peru,regionaland culturaldifferences, and theleadingpoliticalrole
of the small,nascentproletariat.This is among the firstexamplesof
the applicationof the Marxistmethodto the concreteconditionsin
Latin America.Third,he developedthe internationalist approach to
the question of national democracy.This is expressednot only in
Mariaitegui'ssolidaritywiththeCuban and Nicaraguanrevolutionsof
36 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

his day,and theSovietUnion,butin an organicanalysisof imperialism

and the internationalworkingclass.
Before proceedingwith my analysis,it would be well to briefly
reviewMariaitegui'slife withinthe contextof the period in which
he lived.

PROFILE OF MARIATEGUI'S LIFE

Mariateguiwas born in 1895 into a poor provincialfamily.His

familymoved to the Lima area whenhe was stillyoung,and he soon
becameinvolvedin variousliteraryand publishingprojects.As he ad-
vancedin theworldof journalism,he ran up againsttheconservative
culturalbiasesbredbythemoribundPeruvianoligarchy, and developed
an inclinationtowardsocial criticism.In 1918,he cofoundedNuestra
Epoca, a newspaperdedicatedto social criticism;it lasted only two
issues,as Mariaiteguicame underheavyattackfor a criticismof the
PeruvianArmy'ssocial composition.In 1919,he cofoundedLa Razon,
a dailypapersquarelyin oppositionto theautocraticregimeof Augusto
Leguia, whose rule as Presidentbecame a model fordictatorshipsin
the twentiethcentury.
Under pressurefrom Leguia's government,Mariateguiwent to
Europewithhisclose associateJorgeFalcon, wherehe liveduntil1923.
His experiencesthere,especiallyin Italy,markeda turningpoint in
his developmentas a socialist.He witnessedand studiedthe revolu-
tionaryupsurgesin theEuropean workingclass and had contactwith
thenascentcommunist movement there;he gravitated
towardtheforces
associated withthe Third International,and developedan apprecia-
tionforthesignificance of theBolshevikRevolution(Mariategui,1969;
Nuinez,1978).
Whenhe returnedto Peru in 1923,he plungedinto politicalwork.
He taughtat the UniversidadPopular Gonza'lezPrada and became
itsrector,whileat thesame timehe continuedhisjournalisticactivities
in a numberof major Lima publications.His lecturesat the universi-
ty reflectedthe internationalistperspectivehe had consolidated in
Europe (Mariaitegui,1959c).
In 1926, Mariaiteguifoundedthejournal Amauta (Amauta means
teacherin Quechua, the most commonIndian language; MariaXtegui
 Angotti/ MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 37

has now come to be knownin Peru as "El Amauta"). The newjour-

nal brought togetherprogressiveintellectualsin the exploration
of a broad range of revolutionaryideas and was one of the most
excitingenterprisesin Peruvian history;to this day, it remainsone
of the most importantprojectsin forginga nationalidentityamong
Peruvian intellectuals.
Afterhe publishedan articlesupportingthe struggleof Augusto
Sandino in Nicaragua againstU.S. intervention, Mariaiteguiwas ar-
rested,probablyat thebehestof theUnitedStatesEmbassyin Lima.
In the face of Leguia's chargethatMariaiteguiwas part of a "com-
munistconspiracy"directedby Moscow, he insistedthathe was "a
triedand trueMarxist" who did not believein conspiracies,and for
whom Peruvian socialismcould not be "a carbon copy." With the
supportof a broad rangeof Peruvianintellectualsand the workers'
movement,Mariaiteguiwas releasedand soon resumedhis activities.
In 1928,Mariateguiformally brokewiththeattempts byVictorRauil
Haya de la Torre to found a Peruvianpartybased on APRA. Like
Haya de la Torre, Mariaiteguisought the unityof revolutionaries
around a single strategicconception, program, and organization
that encompassedthe particularitiesof the class strugglein Latin
America,and morespecifically in Peru. However,Mariateguirejected
APRA's notion that, unlike Russia and Europe, the transitionto
socialismin Peru would be essentiallya gradual, uninterrupted pro-
cess characterizedby the accumulationof reforms.He would not ac-
cept Haya's conscious attemptsto distancethe Peruvian revolution
fromthe revolutionary experiencesand movementsin otherpartsof
theworld.He rejectedAPRA's orientationtowardsa multiclassparty
based on the pettybourgeoisiein favorof a proletarianpartywhose
conceptionwas theforming
strategic of a worker-peasantalliance.That
same year, Mariaiteguiformedthe firstcell in what was to become,
in 1929,thePeruvianSocialistParty,and soon afterhis deaththePeru-
vian CommunistParty.
As mentionedabove, the last five years of Mariategui's life
(1925-1930)werehis most intellectually productive.Siete ensayosde
interpretacion de la realidadperuana (1928) is undoubtedlyhis best-
knownand mostoriginalwork,and perhapsthemostcomprehensive
analysisof the Peruvianclass struggle.Peruanicemosal Peru (1970),
a collectionof articlesspanningthe period 1924-1929,also focused
on the particularitiesof Peruvian reality.La defensadel Marxismo
(1959b), firstpublishedposthumouslyin 1934, was an incisivecri-
38 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

tique of revisionism
and defenseof revolutionary
Marxism.La escena
contemporanea (1976), firstpublishedin 1925, reflectedMariaitegui's
evaluationof a numberof European intellectuals and lessonsfromhis
European experience.
El Amauta died in 1930 of complicationsfroma childhoodinjury
thathad lefthim crippledand confinedto a wheel chair forthe last
yearsof his life. He was only 35 yearsold. To be sure, Mariattegui's
manysignificant contributions to the Peruvianrevolutioncould only
have multipliedhad he livedlonger.Still,it is noteworthy thatdespite
his shortlife,his brilliantleadershiphas been a source of inspiration
to thegenerations thatfollowedhim-in Peru and acrossthecontinent.

THE ROLE OF THE SUBJECTIVE FACTOR

AND THE CONSCIOUS ELEMENT

Mariaitegui'smost importantcontributionto the Latin American

revolutionis his focuson therole of humanconsciousnessas a reflec-
tion of historyand as a crucialforcein shapinghistory-thatis, the
subjectivefactor.This took the formof criticalanalysesof religion,
philosophy,art,ideology,and literature.His worksare filledwithan
appreciationfor,and critiqueof, the role of the subjectivefactorin
the class struggle,as concretizedin the individualswho broughtthat
consciousnessto bear in changinghistoricalreality-or, theconscious
element.He took up themajor intellectual trendsin Europe and Latin
Americaand analyzedtheirtheoreticalexpressionsin class terms.His
subjectsincludedboth culturaland politicalfigures:Lenin, Trotsky,
Tolstoy,and Gorkyin Russia; Croce, D'Annunzio, Pirandello,and
Marinettiin Italy; Zweig,Zola, Sorel, and Barbussein France; Diego
Riveraand Jose Vasconcelos in Mexico; Jose Marti in Cuba; and in
Peru, theartistJoseSabogal, thepoet JoseEguren,and writerMartin
Adain,and the ApristasHaya de la Torre and Luis AlbertoSainchez
(Mariaitegui1950, 1959a, 1970, 1976). To thislistmanymore can be
added. Mariaitegui'sintellectualvigorwas interminable, and he took
up everyexpressionof human consciousnesswith a characteristic
curiosityand concreteness,completelydevoid of dogmatism.This
enabled him to analyze the complex intellectualcurrentsall the
way from the philosophical handmaidens of fascism-such as
D'Annunzio-to the leadershipin socialist theory-such as Lenin,
 Angotti/ MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 39

Juares,and Liebknecht-touchingall themajorliberaland conservative

currents in betweenthetwo. Unliketheliterary gadfly,Mariaitegui dealt
withthese ideas in a concretefashion,withina relativelyconsistent
politicaland ideologicalframework.This was all partof his contribu-
tion to the processof buildingthe ideologicalcenterof the Peruvian
workingclass withan internationalist, revolutionary Marxistoutlook.
The main debatetodayover Mariaitegui is preciselyoverthisfocus
on the developmentand significanceof ideas. Some, such as Robert
Paris (1981), believethatMariaitegui was an inveterateidealist.On the
surface,one need only considerhis extensiveand sympathetic treat-
mentof Sorel, Gobetti,Croce, and otheridealists;his repeateduse
of the term"myth" to describecertainconcepts,such as socialism;
or his unitywithcontemporaries who put forththe precapitalistfor-
mationsof "Incan communism"as a model forPeruviansocialism.
Paris (1981: 8) states,forexample,that"if he had beena 'Leninist'
like manyof his contemporaries, Mariaiteguiwould not have written
'The Indian Question.' " In thisessay,Mariateguiassertsthatthekey
to an "Indian renaissance"liesnotin its"Westernization"butin "the
myth,theidea of socialistrevolution"(Mariattegui, 1928: 35). Is this,
as Paris claims, a classical inversionof materialistdialectics?
This example demonstratesthe dangersof basing any interpreta-
tion of Mariaitegui,or any otherindividual,on specificquotations
ratherthana comprehensive assessmentof hiswork. In theverysame
essay cited by Paris, Mariaiteguiclearlybeginsby framingthe ques-
tion in materialistterms:

The Indian questionstartswithour economy.It has its roots in the

regimeof land ownership.Any attemptto resolveit withadministrative
or police measures,by educationor road projects,amountsto super-
ficial and secondarylabor,as long as thefeudal ruleof the'gamonales'
exists[Mariategui,1928: 34].

Followingthisessayon the "Indian question," Mariaitegui getsto the

heartof his basic thesis:theland questionis thekeyto theemancipa-
tion of the indigenouspopulation, the basis for theirpolitical and
ideological transforination,and for their identificationwith the
historicalmission of the urban proletariat,socialism. Thus, "the
agrarian question is, above all, a question of the liquidation of
feudalismin Peru (1928: 51). It is hard to imaginea morematerialist
way to pose the question. It was not any innate culturalor psy-
40 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

chological "idea" of the Indians that made them strategicallies

of theproletariat,buttheoppressiveproperty relationsthatdominated
thecountryside. The continuingpresenceof thecollectivist institutions
in the Andes (in particular,the ayllu, a formof communalproduc-
tion)explainedtheprominenceof collectivistideas in theIndian com-
munities,and was the basis forthe worker-peasant alliance. In other
words,the "myth" of Indian communismwas thoroughlygrounded
in the materialand historicconditionsof the Indian community(see
discussion,in the next section,of the Indian question).
Apart fromMariahtegui's materialistanalysisof Peruviansociety,
we also have his explicitcritiquesof idealismin general,and all the
notable idealists of his time in particular.Defensa del Marxismo
(1959b) includesa fairlyorthodoxpresentationof the philosophical
preceptsof Marx, Engels, and Lenin and a directrepudiationof the
idealismof Croce and Sorel. Peruanicemosal Peru (1970: 80-87) con-
tainshiscritiqueof EdwinElmore'squixoticidealism.However,along
withhis critiqueswe alwaysfindan appreciationforthecontributions
of thesethinkerswithinthe nextcontextof theirclass position. For
example,Mariategui's admirationfor Croce (much like Gramsci's)
stemsfromCroce's abilityto articulateforthrightly the interestsof
the risingItalian bourgeoisiein oppositionto feudalism.Croce was
a sort of "organic" intellectual,who projectedthe necessityfor a
unifiednationovertheaggregateof provincialItalian interests, much
as Mariateguisaw the need fora unifiedPeru, only underworking-
class rule. Croce was a liberalintellectualin manyways farahead of
his class (whichto thisday has not fullyconsolidatedits rulein some
aspects of Italian societyand remainspoliticallyand ideologically
underdevelopedin comparisonwiththecapitalistsin otherEuropean
nations).Finally,Mariaitegui'sapproach is verymuchin the Marxist
tradition;afterall, Marx himselfadmiredHegel, and incorporated
manyof the advances he made in the Marxistphilosophicalmethod.
To some, the factthat Mariateguipaid so much attentionto the
culturalleaders of bourgeoissocietyis automaticproof of his own
ideologicalbackwardness;thathe could discoverany historically pro-
gressiveaspects to bourgeoiscultureis absolute evidenceof his cor-
ruption.However, Mariateguiclearlylocated his culturalcriticism
withinthecontextof historicaldevelopment. For example,hisapprecia-
tion of PeruvianwriterMartinAdatnstemsnot simplyfromAdain's
literaryskills, which were considerable,but his abilityto express
the nonconformist, antiestablishment sentimentsof a discontented
 Angotti/ MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 41

bourgeoisiefrustrated by the traditionalstraitjacketsof a declining

oligarchy. In typicallymaterialistfashion, Mariaiteguinotes how
Adainhimselfis not conscious of the historicalrole he was playing
(Mariaitegui,1970: 150-154).
Anothercrucialfactorin assessingMariaitegui is his evolutionfrom
a radicalizedliberalthinker,journalist,and literarycriticto a Marxist-
Leninistvia the philosophicalrebelliousnessof the "Risorgimento"
thinkers suchas Croce, anarcho-syndicalists suchas Sorel and radicals
such as GonzailezPrada (in Peru). Like Gramsci,Mariaiteguiwas of
humblebackgroundand gravitated towardtheintelligentsia duringhis
youth.Both absorbed the most dynamicideas accessibleto themat
thetime(muchas Marx and Engels absorbedHegel)-and ultimately
rejectedtheiridealistunderpinnings. They had a profoundapprecia-
tion for the contributionsof revolutionarybourgeois intellectuals,
especiallyin a settingin whicha chasmexistedbetweentheseintellec-
tuals and theirown rulingclass. They also identifiedwiththose in-
tellectualswho gravitatedtoward the revolutionaryworking-class
groundswellthat surroundedthem-like Sorel-even though their
systemof thoughtwas flawedby idealismand ambiguity.Mariaitegui
was impressedfor example, that Sorel was one of the few syndi-
calists of the time to defendthe BolshevikRevolution(see Garcia
Salvatecci, 1979).
To assessMariategui,or Gramscior Marx,based on hisearlyworks
necessarily yieldsa one-sidedpicture.It ignorestheprocessof matura-
tion (which,unfortunately, was incompleteeven at the time of his
death),and Mariaitegui's own repudiationof some of his earlierthink-
ing. It leads to an evaluationof Mariaiteguias a Marxisthumanist
(Kossok, 1971).
There is an opposite tendencyto treatMariaitegui'stheoryas a
uniform reaffirmationof Marxism-Leninism,without contradic-
tions,lapses and incompleteelements.(I believeDel Prado [1984]best
exemplifiesthis tendency.)2This approach is no less one-sided,
and no less a denigrationof Mariaitegui'sdynamiccontributionsto
Marxisttheory.
Especiallygiventhatso manyof Mariaitegui's books are collections
of manydiversearticles,it is necessaryto have a broad overviewof
the literatureand synthesizeitsmain elements.Any pedanticattempt
to prove the point withisolated quotationsmay give an impression
of authorityor logical consistency,but in actualitywill be deceptive
(see Luna Vegas, 1984). No less disarmingis the tendencyto relyon
42 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

anecdotesand personalreminiscences to portrayMari'ategui'sdevelop-

ment(see Del Prado, 1983).
Mariategui'sattractionto theEuropeanidealistsis also accompanied
by a profoundpolitical commitment-thestruggleagainstthe revi-
sionisttendenciesin thesocialistand working-class movements.In La
defensadel Marxismo(1959b), he directlycriticizesthe classicalrevi-
sionismof Eduard Bernstein,and severalcurrentversionssuch as that
of Henri De Man. His defenseof Marxismwas aimed specificallyat
thedistortionsof mechanicalmaterialismthatdownplayedtherole of
the conscious elementin history.3
However,Mariategui'scritiquegoes farbeyondtheexplicitexposure
of distortionsof Marxisttheory.The critiqueis implicitin all of his
work.It is to be foundin hispersistentpreoccupationwiththecreative
role of politicalleadershipand its abilityto utilizeeveryideological
instrumentat its disposal-every "myth"-to advance the revolu-
tionaryprocess.
Mariaitegui's understanding
materialist of theroleof consciousness
is not only to be foundin his own declarations;it is apparentin his
actions.The subjectivefactorwas not a self-indulgent or utopiancon-
cept; it was the centralfactorin attemptsto changematerialreality.
MariaiteguireturnedfromEurope to dedicatehimselfto the political
and ideologicaltrainingof the Peruvianworkingclass by startingat
the logical beginning-the formationof a conscious revolutionary
vanguard.To undertakethisenterprise, he turnedto theintelligentsia
and students,whose access to a worldviewcould open themup to
socialism'spromise,just as Mariateguihad seen thatpromisematur-
ing in Europe and the Soviet Union. However, far fromrestingall
his hopes on theeducatedelite,he soughtout, supportedand guided
thefirstmajor working-class organizationin Peru,thefirstconfedera-
tion of trade unions. These concreteprojectsreflectedthe fusionof
revolutionary theorywithpractice-hardlythe hallmarkof idealism.

A HISTORICAL-MATERIALIST ANALYSIS OF
CLASSES AND THE CLASS STRUGGLE IN PERU

If all Mariateguihad done was contributeto therevivalof revolu-

tionaryMarxismand refutationof mechanicalmaterialistand refor-
mistversionsof Marxism,he would stillhave leftan importantmark
 Angotti/ MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 43

on both the Peruvian and internationalworking-classmovements.

However, his most enduringcontributionwas in the application of
Marxisttheoryto the elaborationof a revolutionary strategyforna-
tional liberationin the concreteconditionsof Peru.
Mariategui'sSieteensayoswas and remainstodaya classicanalysis
of Peruviansocietyto all revolutionary sectorsof thepopulation.For
the nascentproletariat,it called attentionto the significantmass of
impoverishedIndians withoutwhose alliance no socialistrevolution
could be won or consolidated.For the Indians, it was a verification
of theirawakeningfromcenturiesof servitudeand a milestonein the
establishment of Indian cultureas a pillar of Peruvian society.For
the urban bourgeoisieand pettybourgeoisie,it presentedfor the
firsttime a clear and precise pictureof the economic and social
resiliencyof theprecapitalist relationsof productionin thecountryside
whose replacementwas directlylinkedto theirown ascendencyover
the rural oligarchy.
Through its probing class analysis, Siete ensayos captures the
particularityof Peru's underdevelopment and unlocksthedoors to its
nationalhistoryand culture.Whereasthis could bringsome impor-
tant lessons to all classes, it was an especiallycriticalrevelationfor
the Peruvian proletariat.Unfortunately,for many decades after
Mariattegui's death,the proletariat,giventhe weaknessof its leader-
ship,was miredin its own narrowtradeunion battles,and forgotthe
profoundlessonsof Siete ensayos; at timesit even cultivatedits own
criollo biases againstthe indigenouspopulation.
There are two main pointsin Siete ensayos. The firstis that the
Indian question is centralto Peruvian society.The second is that
thisquestionis expressedin everyrealmof Peru's politicaland social
life-Mariaitegui uses theexamplesof education,religion,government,
and literature.
Mariaitegui'sanalysisof the Indian questionstartsfromthe grow-
ingawarenessthatthevastmajorityof Peru's population-at thattime
about 80Wo-werestill wedded to a semifeudalagrarian systemof
productionand distribution, and livedin conditionsof utterpoverty
contrastedwiththeurbanpopulation.He saw Peru as a dual society-
one part was largelyrural,indigenousand oppressed,and the other
was urban,criollo,and relatively welloff.This did not mean thatthe
urbanproletariat oppressedtheruralIndians,butit did meanthatthey
enjoyeda positionof relativeeconomicand social privilege.In con-
cretepoliticalterms,thismeantthattherewereobjectivedivisionsbe-
44 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

tweenthe urban proletariatand its naturalally, the ruralindigenous

population; thesedivisionswerebased on theirdifferent relationsto
the dominantmode of productionand werereflectedin veryreal dif-
ferencesin standardof livingand economicopportunity.It was the
centraltask of the Peruvianrevolutionto go beyondthesedivisions
and forgea strategicalliancebetweenworkersand peasants-for such
an alliance did not appear spontaneouslybut had to be consciously
built by the proletarianparty.
Unlikefunctionalist sociologists,however,Mariaitegui's conceptof
dualismwas based on a class framework.Thus, theurbanproletariat
obviouslydid not enjoy the same degreeof privilegeas the urban
bourgeoisie;rather,itsrelationto productionand itsconditionsof life
werein generalmuchmoresimilarto thepeasantthanthebourgeoisie.
Because of the persistenceof collectiveforms of ownershipand
semifeudalrelationsof productionin the countryside,the Peruvian
peasantry,relativeto the peasantryin otherLatin Americannations,
was muchless rootedin smallpropertyownership,and therefore had
a strongbasis for unitywiththe urban proletariatin the missionof
bringingabout socialism.Likewise,theurbanproletariatin its strug-
glesagainstcapitalismforsocial ownershipof production,had a basis
forunitywiththe peasantryin resolvingthe questiondividingall of
Peruviansociety-the"Indian question."Thus the"Indian question"
was thekeyto thenationalquestion-theforging of a strongand united
nation-and the allianceof workersand Indianswas thekeypolitical
instrument in resolvingthis question.
Mariaitegui'sparticularcontributionto the analysisof the Indian
questionis to pointup thecentralimportanceof propertyownership;
a land question.It is bound up with
thatis, thiswas seen as essentially
the enduranceof manyaspectsof precapitalist,feudalmodes of pro-
ductionin the countryside,and the persistenceof Indian traditions
of communalownership.This corresponded withtherelativeweakness
of capitalismin Peru and the underdevelopment of its rulingclass.
Insofaras theconsolidationof a Peruviannationwas necessarily linked
to thedevelopment of capitalism,nationalformation was also stunted.
Mariaitegui'smaterialistanalysiscontrastssharplywiththeclassical
liberalattemptsto explaintheIndianquestionsimplyin termsof racial
or religiousdifferences,or as an ideological remnantof colonial
domination.Thus, Mariateguiasserted,
Thesystemof land ownershipdetermines thepoliticaland administrative
regimeof all nations. The agrarianproblem... dominatesall ourprob-
 Angotti/ MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 45

cannotprosperwhenbased on
lems.Democraticand liberalinStitutions
a semi-feudaleconomy[1928: 53].
The agrarianproblem is, above all, a problem of the eliminationof
feudalism in Peru. By now, thisshould have been carriedout by the
bourgeoisdemocraticregimeformallyestablishedin therevolution for
independence.But in 100 years of theRepublic in Peru, we have not
had a genuinebourgeoisclass. ... The old feudal class-camnouflaged
or dressedup as a Republicanbourgeoisie-has maintaineditspositions
[1928: 51].

Mariateguidoes not limithis discussionto thesemifeudaleconomy

inheritedfrom the Spanish, as do many criollo economists. He
underlinesthe durabilityof the prefeudalrelationsof production,or
"Indian communism."He pointsout that despitethe dominanceof
thesemifeudalproperty relationsintroducedby theSpanishduringthe
colonialperiod,theAndean people continueto exercisevariousforms
of association in productionthat approximatethe ancientayllu-a
communisticformationbased on sharingof the major means of pro-
ductionand distribution."Communism,"notedMariaitegui, "has con-
tinuedto be the Indian's only defense" from exploitation(1928: 33).
Mariateguisaw thisenduringsystem of cooperationnot as some quaint
relicto be enshrinedbut, in typicallypoliticalfashion,as a basis for
winningover the indigenouspopulationto the socialistrevolution:4

Faith in an indigenousrenaissancedoes not comefrom theprocess of

"Westernization ".... It is not thecivilizationand alphabetof thewhite
man thatraisesthespiritof theIndian.It is themyth,theidea ofsocialist
revolution[1928: 34].

Startingwiththisassessmentof the centrality of the Indian ques-

tion, Mariaiteguithengoes on to demonstratehis thesisby takingon
fournationalissues thatwereheatedlydebated at the time,and very
much the focus of the liberal and radical reformmovements-
education,religion,government decentralization, These
and literature.
movementsinspired many of the activistsand intellectualswho
gravitatedtoward the socialist movement,seekinga more scientific
analysisand strategyforsocial change.However,thespontaneousideas
fosteredby the liberalreformers stillexercisedconsiderableinfluence
withinthe revolutionarymovement-as well as criollo chauvinism
46 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

thatpreventedthesocialistsfromdevelopinga trulynationalstrategy
and democraticprogram.Mariateguiestablishedfor the firsttime
a clear alternativeto both the dominantliberal thinkingand the
reactionaryview of the oligarchy. It reflectedthe spontaneous
radicalismof thestudentand workers'movementsand the discontent
of the radicalized intelligentsia,which Mariategui gave a Marxist
foundationby groundingit in a concreteanalysisof Peruvianhistory
and political economy.

EDUCATION

Mariategui rejected the feeble attemptsat educational reform

fosteredby the liberalbourgeoisieon the groundsthattheyignored
the centralproblem-the educational impoverishment of the rural
population,most sharplymanifestedin the dramatic illiteracyrate.
"National education," he stated,". . does not have a nationalspirit;
insteadit has thespiritof colonialismand thecolonizer" (1928: 106).
The liberal reformsof the day reflectedthe influenceof North
Americanpragmatism, thebourgeoisie'sanswerto thefeudalidealism
so dearlycherishedby the oligarchy.To both theliberalreformsand
of thecolonialsystem,Mariateguicounterposed
thetraditionalrigidity
theproletarianprogram.This includedsuch importantdevelopments
as the "UniversidadPopular GonzailezPrada," a progressiveuniver-
sityat whichhe taughtand servedas rector.It includedsupportfor
the studentmovement'sdemandsforgenuinereformsabolishingthe
subservienceand elitismthat permeatedthe traditionaleducation
system.But above all, Mariateguibroughtto thesespontaneousalter-
nativesa moreprofoundobjective-to lay thebasis fora socialistPeru
capable of implementinga trulynational educational reformand
liquidatingruralbackwardness.

RELIGION

Mariateguiattemptedto go beyondthe radical anticlericalism that

enticedthe fledglingproletariat,but whose logical social base was
among the pettybourgeoisie.He also rejectedthe idealizationof the
Inca religionby demonstratingthematerialbasis forreligiousbeliefs
in theeconomicrelationsof society,and theclose connectionbetween
thestateand religion.For Mariategui,theproblemwas not organized
 Angotti/ MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 47

of theeconomicand class
religionper se; religionwas but a reflection
relationswithinsociety.The problemwas not the Catholic Church's
organicconnectionwiththeoligarchyeversincetheconquest,as many
liberalsmaintained,butthesocial orderupon whichtheoligarchy rests.

and religiousdoctrinesas par-

Socialism... considersecclesiasticalforms
ticularto and inherentin thesocioeconomicregimethatproducesand
sustainsthem.And it is concernedwithchangingthelatterand not the
former. Socialism considers mere anticlericalagitation as a liberal
bourgeoisdiversion[1928: 192].

GOVERNMENT DECENTRALIZATION

Peru is sharplydividedinto threedistinctgeographicaland social

areas-coast, sierraand jungle. The coast, especiallythe capital city
of Lima, was the cradle of criollo cultureand capitalism;the sierra,
relativelyisolated,was dependent-economicallyand politically-on
thecoastal cities;thejunglewas stilllargelyundevelopedand sparsely
populated. The chiefregionalcontradictionwas betweencoast and
sierra:"Coastal Peru, inheritorof Spain and theConquest,dominates
sierraPeru fromLima" (Mariaitegui,1928: 206). This testifiedto the
incompleteformation of thePeruviannationand theincapacityof both
colonialismand capitalismto forgean economicallyand politicallyin-
tegratednation, in whichcoast and sierrawould both be integrated
parts of a national whole.
In response to the divisions withinPeru, and the increasingly
dominantroleof Lima, variousproposalsfor"decentralization"were
launched.Mariaitegui criticized
thesereforms at heart,only
as centralist
aimed at tightening the controlof thecapital overthe hinterlands, or
relievingthe centralgovernment for
of responsibility financing local
services.They werebut superficialadministrative shufflesthatfailed
to address the central problem of the Indian question. Instead,
Mariateguiinsisted:

Beyond anyformal triumphof decentralization and autonomy,lie the

substantialdemands of the Indian cause, inscribedin the vanguard's
revolutionaryprogram[1928: 216].

In otherwords,the key to national integrationand decentralization

restedon the liberationof the rural population frompovertyand
48 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

discrimination-atask neitherthe oligarchynor theliberalreformers

could carryout withtheir"decentralization"schemes.Onlya power-
ful (centralized)systemof revolutionaryauthoritycould carryout a
successfuldecentralizationprogrambased on a policy of agrarian
reformand nationalunity.(For an excellentdiscussionof thisapparent
paradox, see Cesar Levano, 1969: 47-188.)

LITERATURE

In Siete ensayos, Mariaiteguilinks the historicaldevelopmentof

Peruvianliterature withthenation'seconomicand social development:
"The indigenousquestion,whichis so pervasivein politics,economy
and sociology,cannotbe absentfromliteratureand art" (1928: 328).
He reviewscolonial literatureas an importedproductdevoid of any
nationalspirit.Criollo culture"has not been able to prosperin our
literatureas a currentwitha national spiritfirstof all because the
criollodoes notyetrepresent our nationality"(Mariaitegui,
1928: 330).
The firststepstowarda trulynationalliteraryexpressionweretaken
by thecontemporaries who broughtto the forethe centralimagesof
indigenouslife-such as Cesar Vallejo and Luis Valcaircel.These were
the firstspontaneoussignsof a national consciousness,itselfbased
on the economic transformationof Peruvian society. The earlier
rebellionof urban nonconformistshad an anticolonial spirit,but
because it was apolitical it could not project a positive national
alternative(this trend-"colonida"-included GonzatlezPrada and
Valdelomar). The new indigenistaliteraturebore the firstsignsof a
partisanand explicitlynational stance,just as Mariategui'sanalysis
of literature
was based, in hisown words,on an "explicitrevolutionary
and socialistpartisanship."
In sum, Mariaitegui'sSiete ensayosis uncompromisingly partisan,
yet devoid of any dogmatictendencyto repeat the generalitiesof
socialisttheoryas a substituteforits creation.Mariategui'sworkre-
mainstheseminalscientific workon modernPeruviansocietyprecisely
because it focuseson Peru's historicalrealityand bringsMarxismto
bear to explain it in all its originalityand detail.

MARIATEGUI'S INTERNATIONALISM

Given the richnessof Mariategui's analysis of Peruvian society,

it is not difficultto understandhow he can be portrayedas merely
 Angotti/ MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 49

a nationalistor proponentof indigenousindependence.However,

if we are to take Mariateguias a whole, it becomes obvious that
his analysisof Peruvianrealityis directlyrelatedto, and based on,
a thoroughgoing internationalism.This can be demonstrated on several
different levels.
Firstof all, Mariategui'smaturityas a masterof Peruvianreality
paralleledhis developmentas an internationalist. In his mostproduc-
tiveyears,he correspondedand collaboratedwithrevolutionaries and
revolutionary-minded intellectualsthroughoutthe hemisphere,from
JuanMarinelloof Cuba to Waldo Frankin theUnitedStates.Amauta
declaredits solidaritywiththe Cuban and Nicaraguan revolutionary
movementsand the successfulBolshevikRevolution.In otherwords,
in additionto beingat thecenterof therevolutionary currentin Peru,
he was also the principalconduitto the internationalmovement.
Secondly,Mariategui'sEuropeanexperience, byhis own admission,
representeda turningpoint in his politicaldevelopment.Mariategui
witnessedtheItalianand Frenchworkingclass in a periodof dramatic
development, in largepartinspiredbytheBolshevikvictory.He began
to comprehendtheimmensepotentialof the organizedworkingclass
fortransforming society.He also saw firsthand the damagingeffect
of opportunism in themovement, and consistentlyunitedwiththecom-
munistsplitfromtheSecond International5 (forexample,Mariategui
attendedthe 1921 foundingcongressof the Italian communistsat
Livorno). Afterhis European experience,he returnedto Peru deter-
mined to take up his internationalist responsibilityand preparethe
political and ideological terrainfor the budding Peruvian socialist
movement.As any serious internationalist, he understood Peru-
vian socialismcould not be "a carbon copy" of European or Soviet
socialism,but thereis not a hintin his theoryor practicethat his
quest for originalitywas based on a rejectionof other experiences.
Third,Mariategui'sadherenceto the processof consolidatingthe
international working-class movementaroundthepoliticalline of the
ThirdInternational was fairlyconsistent.All attemptsto inferpolitical
differences or underlyingdisaffectionfromthe Third International,
and Leninism,relyon trivialpoints,speculationor remoteinference.
For example, many have implied that Mariategui's preferencefor
namingtheorganizationof thePeruvianrevolution"socialist" instead
of "communist" reflectsa principleddifferenceover the vanguard
party.To believethis,one only has to "forget" that Mariateguiex-
plicitlyrejectedthemulticlasspartybothin theoryand practicewhen
he rejectedtheSecond International, APRA, and therevisionist theses
50 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

theypropounded.Or, as JorgeFalcon (1970: 56) has pointedout, "The

discussionover the clothinghas overlooked. . . the anatomy."
Anotherapproach has been to tryto prove that Mariateguiwas
movingaway fromthe Comintern(the organizationof the Third In-
ternational)and towarda formalbreak withthe internationalcom-
munistmovement.The evidencefor this argumentrevolveslargely
around Mariaitegui'sdisagreements withthe leadershipof the Com-
intern at the 1929 Buenos Aires conferenceof Latin American
communists.The disputewas over the Comintern'sline calling for
nationalself-determination forthe Indian people, and the formation
of an Indian republic out of portionsof several South American
nations.This was based on an overallframework thatunderestimated
the extentto whichnationshad alreadydevelopedin Latin America
and failedto make any distinctions betweenLatin Americaand other
regionsof theformercolonialworld.The Cominternleadershipat the
conferenceequatedtheindigenousquestionin LatinAmericawiththe
nationalquestionin Europe and the Soviet Union. In fact,however,
the indigenouspeople of Latin America had never constituteda
separatenation,and 400 yearsof colonialdominationmade theLatin
Americancontinentone of themostdeveloped-in capitalistterms-
withinthe colonial world. Finally,Peru's collectivisttraditionswere
not the same as those of feudal Europe.
Marialteguiand the Peruvian delegationopposed the Comintern
leadershipat theconferenceand insistedthatitspositionhad no basis
in thehistoryand contemporary realityof Latin America.The Peru-
vians instead struggledfor a conception of the indigenousquestion
that placed the Indian regionsin the contextof the developmentof
the existingnationsin Latin America-and theirtransformation into
socialistnations.
Mariategui'sdifferences withtheCominternrepresentatives at this
conferenceweretherefore importantones. However,thereis no basis
forleapingfromtheconference to theconclusionof Mariategui'sdefec-
tion fromcommunism.In the firstplace, the debate over Indian na-
tions did not representat thattime,nor has it since,a major line of
demarcationwithinLatinAmericancommunism.Secondly,therewere
many dubious positions coming out of the Cominternduringthis
periodincludingmany,liketheone on Indian nations,thathave long
sincebeen dropped.Finally,no matterhow secondarythisdebatewas
in thebroaderhistoricalsense,thefactof thematteris thatMariategui
never once gave any indication-either during or after the con-
 Angotti/ MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 51

ference-thathe was reevaluating his internationalist

commitment. All
attemptsto prove that Mariateguiwas so inclinedare based on in-
ferencesand speculation,not on fact.6
All of theattempts to implya tiltbyMariaitegui away fromthecom-
munistmovementcorrespondwitheffortsto separate Mariategui's
theoriesfromLeninism.Perhapstheboldestefforthas been sponsored
by APRA, whichhas triedto appropriateEl Amauta (withsome pro-
visos) as theirown (Chang-Rodriguez,1983). To do this,theApristas
have to overlookMariaitegui'sdecisivebreak withHaya de la Torre
in 1928 when the lattermoved to found a Peruvianpartybased on
social democraticprinciplesand themiddleclass, in directopposition
to the principlesof the Third International,as well as the polemics
that precededthisbreak.
Mariategui's theoreticalbonds with Leninism have been well
documentedelsewhere(Choy et al., 1970; Luna Vegas, 1978; Del
Prado, 1972).Theseare evidentnotonlyin his directallusionsto Lenin
and the RussianRevolution,but in his fundamentaladherenceto the
Leninisttheoriesof imperialism,thestate,and theparty.Mariaitegui
did not simplynod approvalof Lenin,but in his own analysesof im-
perialism,thestateand partyverifiedthesame revolutionary principles
thatLenin had come to. Like Lenin, Mariaiteguiapplied the existing
body of Marxisttheoryto theconcreteconditionsin his own country
and took into accountthe qualitativechangesthatcapitalismunder-
went with the emergenceof imperialismin the twentiethcentury.
He also concluded that socialism would not be possible withouta
qualitativetransformation of the stateunderworking-classdirection
and a revolutionled by themostadvancedelementsof theproletariat.
In sum, a comprehensivepictureof Mariateguileads to the in-
escapable conclusionthathis abilityto piercetheessenceof Peruvian
reality,and intervene in it in a decisiveway, is inextricably
bound up
withhisinternationalistposture.His internationalism gavehimthecon-
fidencethatthePeruvianrevolution was butone componentof a broad
historicalprocess;his European experiencebroughthome to himthe
politicalcapacityof a matureproletariat,theterribleconsequencesof
opportunismin the working-class movement,the significanceof the
struggle againstfascism,and theneedto forgebroaddemocraticfronts.
He could see thatPeru's workingclass was stillin its earlieststages
of development,an understanding crucialto his own commitment to
partybuilding.Mariateguiwas struckbythecontrastsbetweenEurope
and Latin America and never tried to apply mechanicallythe ex-
52 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

periencesof European historyto Peru; on the contrary,he focused

on the particularitiesof the Peruvian class struggle-its economic
backwardness,undevelopednationalformation,the centrality of the
Indian question,theprecapitalistelementsin production.Despite the
obvious parallelsbetweenPeru and Italy,a countryalso dividedinto
two distinctgeoeconomiczones(theindustriallydevelopedurbanNorth
and the impoverishedrural South), Mariategui never argued by
analogy, but insteadanalyzed the concretePeruvian situation.This
was not a signof any "creative" or "Peruvian" Marxism;it was one
of thefirstapplicationsof Marxismto theconcreteconditionsin Latin
Americaduringthe age of imperialism-thatis, an applicationand
developmentof Leninism.
An exchangebetweenHaya de la Torre and Mariateguiin 1928,
citedby Cesar Levano in his "Lenin y Mariateguien NuestroTiempo"
(1970: 168-169), is revealing. Haya protestsagainst Mariategui's
constantattemptsto pose thePeruvianrevolutionas partof an inter-
nationalrevolutionary process,and his identification
withtherevolu-
tionaryprocessin Europe and theSovietUnion. Haya wantedto limit
thePeruvianrevolutionto theprojectof nationaldemocraticreform.
"We willmaketherevolutionwithoutmentioning socialism,"he said,
"but instead by distributingthe land and strugglingagainst im-
perialism."To whichMariaitegui responded:"We are revolutionaries
because we are Marxists,because againstcapitalismwe pose socialism
as an antagonisticsystemdestinedto succeedit." Thus, Mariaitegui's
nationalrevolutionwas seen as an integralpart of the international
process of proletarianliberationfromthe yoke of capitalism.

CONCLUSIONS

The purposeof thisarticlehas beento summarizethecontributions

of Jose Carlos Mariaiteguito revolutionarytheoryin general,parti-
cularlyin Latin America.I have onlytouchedon some of thenumer-
ous debates surroundingMariateguithat have assumed a growing
significancein recentyearsas his workhas become a referencepoint
in the strugglesfor national independenceand socialism. However,
giventhatMariategui'stheoriesthemselvesemergedin the heat of an
intenseideologicalstruggleamong revolutionary-minded forces,they
can reallybe understoodonlyin thatcontext.Mariattegui'smain con-
tributions theory,whichwe have triedto summarize,
to revolutionary
 Angotti/ MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 53

mustbe seen in thelightof a widerprocessof establishinga political

and ideological foundationfor socialismin Latin America. This re-
quired the developmentof conscious forceswithinsociety,based in
theworking-class and peasantmovements,groundedwithan interna-
tionalistperspective and a clearpoliticalunderstanding of thenational
democraticstruggle.While Mari'ateguiunderstoodthatthe twentieth
century was, in objectiveterms,theage of imperialism and socialism-
in thishe agreedwithLenin-he also understoodthatrevolutioncould
not happenwithoutthedecisiverole of theconsciouselement.In this
he also agreed withLenin.
The presentday significanceof Mariaitegui is therefore notjust his
brilliantanalysisof Peruviansociety,but his approach, his method,
and above all his dedicationto strengtheningtheconsciousforceswho
had to addressthe task of changingthatsociety.At a timewhenthe
Latin Americanrevolutionary movementis renewingits capacityfor
consciousleadership,witha renewedideologicalstruggle,El Amauta
has many lessons to offer.
Among Latin America's revolutionaryforces,Mariateguihas a
special significanceat present.The communistmovementin Latin
Americais undergoingan intenseprocessof struggleand reevaluation
of its line and practiceover the last severaldecades, spurredby the
realitythat the "official" communistparties were not the central
forcesleading the two successfulrevolutions-Cuba and Nicaragua
(Bollinger,forthcoming;Chervonni,1984). Mariateguirepresentsa
commonreferencepoint to whichall revolutionaries can turnin the
attemptto rectify past weaknesses.For communists,he represents the
cardinalimportanceof groundingrevolutionary practicein the most
advanced theory,the defense of revolutionaryMarxism, and the
repudiationof dogmatic and sectariansubstitutesfor Marxist or-
thodoxy.Outsidethecommunistmovement,he is a luminarybecause
he unravelledthecomplexrelationship betweennationalliberationand
theconcreteconditionsof oppressionunderwhichtheLatinAmerican
masses survive.As a leading intellectual,he waged the ideological
struggleagainst the culturaland intellectualczars of proimperialist
liberalism.He was able to synthesizethe nationaldemocraticaspira-
tionsof Latin Americawiththeinternational socialistmovementthat
flourishedin Europe and theSovietUnion. He coupled his conviction
thatthepeasantquestionwas centralto therevolutionary projectwith
a firmdefenseof the leading role of the proletariatin affectingthe
transitionto socialism.
54 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

NOTES

1. APRA stands forthe Alianza Popular RevolucionariaAmericana,foundedin

1924 by VictorRaul Haya de la Torreas a broad, Latin Americanrevolutionary, anti-
imperialistformation.In 1928, Haya de la TorreestablishedAPRA as a strictlyPeru-
vianparty(thePartidoApristaPeruano)and bythe1940sitshiftedto a reformist strategy
based on populism and a petty-bourgeois class base.
2. Del Prado is currentlyGeneralSecretaryof the PeruvianCommunistpartyand
one of the foremostauthoritieson Maridteguiin the communistmovement.Although
it is notwithinthescope of thisarticleto demonstrate this,I believeDel Prado's defense
of Mariategui'sMarxism-Leninism is both importantand politicallycorrect,but suf-
fersfroma dogmaticmethodologythatreliesheavilyon textualcitationsto "prove"
Mariategui'sdoctrinalorthodoxyratherthana theoreticalexaminationof Maridtegui's
ideas in theirown rightfromthepointof viewof historicaland dialecticalmaterialism.
Alternatively, Del Prado oftenrelieson personalanecdotesto make his case ratherthan
a systematictheoreticaland politicalanalysisof Maridtegui.
3. This goes far beyond Maridtegui'sexplicitcritiqueof the economistictheories
thathe was aware of in Peru and his forcefulrejectionof European social democracy.
Indeed, all of Maridtegui'swork is implicitlya repudiationof the stale, economistic
interpretation of Marx thatreducedthe struggleforsocialismto a seriesof economic
struggles forhigherwagesand betterworkingconditions.Comingas it did in thedecade
followingthe BolshevikRevolution,Maridtegui'sworkobjectivelyupheld the reaffir-
mationof theLeninistprinciplesunderlying theseizureof powerin Russia, whichwere
attackedthroughoutthe worldas eitheronlyapplicable to Russia or inconsistent with
proletarianintereststo begin with.
4. Maridtegui'spositionparallelsin manyways Lenin's viewson the mir-a form
of rural collectivismcommon in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution.
Maridtegui,like Lenin, also rejectedthe idea thatthe persistenceof such precapitalist
formsnecessitateda lengthyperiod of capitalistdevelopmentas a "prerequisite"for
socialism-as social democracy and Bukharin's followers in the Soviet Union
maintained-butinsteadconsideredthemas a foundationforthetransition to socialism.
It mightbe argued thatbecause today the ayllu is but a remnantof the past and the
majorityof Peru's ruralpopulationare eithersmallproperty ownersor ruralproletarians,
or a combinationof both,and because only40%oof Peru's populationis strictly rural,
the agrarianquestionis thereforeno longer-if it everwas-a centralone. This argu-
ment,however,mustrelyon a strictly quantitative approach to class analysisand fails
to take into account the qualitativeway in whichthe indigenousquestion continues
to dominateall Peruvianpolitics-urban and rural. It requiresthat one overlookthe
relativelytenuous hold of capitalistrelationseven in urban areas and the continual
emergence of newformsof cooperationand indigenousconsciousness, despitetheobvious
process of integrationin the imperialistsystemmost clearlyfeltin the metropolitan
centers.The persistenceof thisquestionexplains,in part, the insurgencyof Sendero
Luminoso(the "ShiningPath" guerrillaswhich,thoughbased in theisolatedAyacucho
region,have managedto stirsympathiesthroughoutthe nation). However, failingto
takethematerialist approachthatMaridtegui followedso assiduously,Senderohas chosen
to completelyignoretheprocessof transformation of the Peruviancountrysidein the
twentiethcentury-in particularthe sweepingagrarian reformof the Velasco era
 Angotti/ MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 55

(1968-1975)-and acts as if Peru was stilla nation of Incas occupied by the Spanish.
5. The Second International was a formation
of socialistand workers'parties,mostly
based in Europe. It was divided firstof all over the question of World War I. One
section,led by Karl Kautsky,leftthedoor open fortheindividualpartiesin each coun-
tryto supporttheirown nation's role in the war. The sectionled by Lenin and the
BolshevikPartycalled for workersto oppose the war as an imperialistone in which
theworkingclass could onlybecomecannonfodderdefending their"own" bourgeoisies.
Later, the decisive split in the Second Internationaloccurredover supportfor the
BolshevikRevolution.The Kautskysectionwithheldits supporton the basis that the
revolutionwas notdemocratic.The Bolsheviksspearheadedtheorganization of theThird
International,based on defenseof the BolshevikRevolutionand the consolidationof
a revolutionarywingof theworker'smovementin Europe and internationally. By 1921,
thissplithad resultedin the formationof separatepartiesin mostEuropean nations-
withthereformist partiesadheringto theSecond (Socialist)International
and therevolu-
tionarypartiesadheringto the Third (Communist)International.
6. Some historianshave triedto speculatethatMariateguiwas preparingto drop
out of the communistmovementjust beforehis death; the "evidence" forthisis that
he was planninga tripto Argentina,sponsorednot by the communistmovementbut
aided by two noncommunist intellectuals.
The purposeof thetripis not clear.But aside
fromthe purelyspeculativenatureof thisargument,it ignoresone importantlogical
explanationfor Mariategui'srelianceon noncommunistsfor assistance:at a timeof
heightened repressionof communistsin Peru and throughout Latin America,helpfrom
noncommunists in such a venturewould have been muchmorereliablethanassistance
fromcommunists.

REFERENCES

Aric6, Jose
1978Maridtegui y los originesdel marxismolatinoamericano.
MexicoCity:SigloXXI.
Basadre, Jorge
1981 "Introducciona los '7 Ensayos,"' pp. 19-39 in Emilio Romero et al., Siete
ensayos: 50 afios en la historia.Lima: Amauta.
Bollinger,William
"Learn fromothers,thinkforourselves:CentralAmericanrevolutionary strategy
in the 1980s." Rev. of AfricanPolitical Economy 32 (April): 56-63.
Chang-Rodriguez,Eugenio
1957La literaturapolfticade GonzdlezPrada, Maridtegui
y Haya de la Torre.Mexico
City: Ediciones de Andrea.
1983Poeiticae ideologfaen Jose'Carlos Maridtegui.Madrid: JosePorruaTuranzas.
Chervonni,Alexandr
1984 "No hay nada mas practicoque una buena teoria." Ame'ricaLatina 4 (April):
42-54.
Choy, Emilio et al.
1970 Lenin y Maridtegui.Lima: Amauta.
56 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Del Prado, Jorge

1972 Vigenciade Jose' Carlos Maridtegui.Lima: Campodonico Ediciones (with
others).
1983 En los afios cumbresde Maridtegui.Lima: Ediciones Unidad.
1984 "Nuevos Aportespara una comprensi6ncabal del legado Marxista-Leninista
de Mariategui." III SeminarioInternacionalsobre Mariategui,Lima (June 11-13).
Falc6n, Jorge
1970 "Lenin en Mariategui,"pp. 45-89 in Emilio Choy et al., Lenin y Maridtegui.
Lima: Amauta.
1978 Anatomia de los 7 ensayos de Maridtegui.Lima: Amauta.
Flores Galindo, Alberto
1980 La agonia de Maridtegui:La polk6micacon la Komintern.Lima: DESCO.
Garcia Salvatecci,Hugo
1979 Sorel y Maridtegui.Lima: E. Delgado Valenzuela.
Kossok, Manfred
1971 "Jose Carlos Mariateguiy su aporte al desarrollode las ideas Marxistasen
el Peru," pp. 111-147in Antonio Melis et al., Maridtegui:tres estudios. Lima:
Amauta.
Levano, Cesar
1969 "Mariategui: La voz del Peru integral,"pp. 47-188 in Emilio Romero and
Cesar Levano, Regionalismoy centralismo.Lima: Amauta.
1970 "Lenin y Mariateguien nuestrotiempo," in Emilio Choy et al., Lenin y
Maridtegui.Lima: Amauta.
1981 "Mariateguio la estrategiade masas," pp. 197-245in Emilio Romero et al.,
Siete ensayos: 50 afios en la historia.Lima: Amauta.
Luna Vegas, Ricardo
1978Maridtegui,Haya de la Torre,y la verdadhistorica.Lima: Retama Editorial.
1984 Sobre las ideas polfticasde Maridtegui.Lima: Ediciones Unidad.
Mariategui,Jose Carlos
1928 Siete ensayosde interpretacidn de la realidadperuana. Lima: Amauta. Also
publishedin 1971as SevenInterpretive Essayson PeruvianReality.Austin:University
of Texas Press.
1950 El alma matinal. Lima: Amauta.
1959a El artistay la e6poca.Lima: Amauta.
1959b La defensadel Marxismo. Lima: Amauta.
1959c Historia de la crisismundial. Lima: Amauta.
1969 Cartas de Italia. Lima: Amauta.
1970 Peruanicemosal Peru. Lima: Amauta.
1976 La escena contempordnea.Lima: Amauta.
Melis, Antonio et al.
1971 Maridtegui: tresestudios. Lima: Amauta.
MeseguerIllan, Diego
1974 Jose Carlos Mariateguiy su pensamientorevolucionario.Lima: Institutode
Estudios Peruanos.
Miroshevski,V. M.
1942 "El populismoen el Peru." Dialectica 1 (May-June):41-59.
 Angotti/ MARIATEGUI AND REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 57

Nufiez,Estuardo
1978 La experienciaeuropea de Jose' Carlos Maridteguiy otros ensayos. Lima:
Amauta.
Paris, Robert
1981La formacicinideolcgicade JoseiCarlos Maridtegui.Mexico City: Cuadernos
de Pasado y Presente(92), Siglo XXI.
Vanden, HarryE.
1975 Maridtegui,influenciasen su formaci6nideol6gica. Lima: Amauta.
Weisse, Maria et al.
1959 Jose'Carlos Maridtegui: Etapas de su vida. Lima: Amauta.