Ling Zhehong: An Analysis of Mariátegui's Thought on the Latin Americanization of Marxism
Following the victory of the Russian October Socialist Revolution and the subsequent establishment of the Soviet Union, the powerful allure of socialism was manifested on a global scale. Under these circumstances, the world Marxist camp—including Latin America (hereafter "LatAm")—underwent a process of differentiation. Those who proclaimed themselves "orthodox Marxists" gradually adopted a dogmatic understanding of Marxism, following the Soviet model of socialism step-by-step. Under the guidance of dogmatic theory, the cause of socialist revolution and construction progressed slowly, seriously dampening the enthusiasm of proletarian revolutionaries. At that time, a major question loomed before Latin Americans: "Whither Latin American Marxism?" José Carlos Mariátegui (1894–1930), born in Peru, relied on his profound insight into reality and his dialectical understanding of Marxism to uphold Marxist methodology. Starting from a localization perspective, he propelled the Sinicization [N] of Marxism in Latin America (hereafter "Latin Americanization") and explored a path toward socialism with Latin American characteristics.
His pursuit of the cause of localizing socialism was accompanied by a struggle against a tragic fate. He contracted tuberculosis as a child, and an injury to his left leg at age eight left him with a lifelong limp. He fought against illness throughout his life, and this resilient style was equally reflected in his revolutionary work. In 1926, he founded the proletarian magazine Amauta [1] in Peru, leading the trend of "plebeian" magazines in Latin America. In 1928, he wrote his foundational work based on research into Peruvian reality, Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality (hereafter "Seven Essays"), which is regarded as the manifesto of Latin Americanized Marxism. In October of the same year, he founded the Socialist Party of Peru (renamed the Communist Party of Peru in 1930). In 1929, he established Peru's first General Confederation of Workers, before passing away in 1930. He dedicated his short life to the cause of Latin American socialism and serves as a model for Latin American Marxists.
I. The Latin Americanization of Marxism as an Inevitable Product of Latin American Social Reality
The dissemination of Marxism in Latin America began nearly as early as it did in Russia; Marxism entered Latin America around the 1850s and had a profound impact on the region's intellectual circles. With the rise of anti-colonial movements, Latin American countries faced the century-defining question of which direction to take. Mariátegui’s thought was precisely the product of this era.
1. The dissemination of Marxism in Latin America propelled Latin American socialist practice
The leadership of the Latin American socialist movement was initially dominated by the petty and middle bourgeoisie, and the revolutionary ranks were prone to compromise. In the early 19th century, Haiti became the first independent nation in Latin America, followed by many other nations breaking free from old colonial metropoles such as Portugal and Spain to establish independent nation-states. However, due to the protracted duration of colonial rule, it was difficult for independent Latin American countries to break away from the colonial system immediately. The development of productive forces remained highly dependent on foreign capital. Regimes represented by caudillos [2] changed frequently, social reform was stalled, and the status of Indigenous populations declined—all of which shackled Latin American development. Latin American nations sought further solutions amidst the tug-of-war with European and American powers.
In the 1850s, Marxism entered 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 by Marx and Engels into the region. Scientific socialist thought began its initial spread. In the 1870s, a group of Paris Commune members sought refuge in Latin America, extensively propagating socialist ideas and mobilizing socialist movements. This nurtured the first generation of Latin American socialist activists, such as Juan B. Justo (1865–1928) and Manuel Ugarte (1875–1951) of Argentina, and Luis Emilio Recabarren Serrano (1876–1924) of Chile. Under their leadership, several countries took the lead in taking action. Mexican socialists established the "Organized Labor Center" in 1870, founded El Socialista in 1871, and established a Socialist Party in 1878. Between 1872 and 1876, a branch of the First International was established in Argentina under the personal concern and guidance of Marx; the Socialist Party of Argentina was founded in 1896. In 1892, Cuba held its first working-class congress and established the Cuban Revolutionary Party. In 1904, Uruguay established the "Karl Marx Center," a socialist group. However, most of these nascent Latin American socialist organizations were led by progressive intellectuals from the petty and middle bourgeoisie, with some European socialists participating. They mostly came from bourgeois families and maintained close contact with upper-class Latin American forces and white Europeans/Americans. Combined with a lack of revolutionary resolve, a dearth of struggle experience, and weak armed forces, they exhibited a soft side when faced with powerful suppression from imperialism and feudalism. Furthermore, socialist movements led by progressive intellectuals were often overly academic, plagued by divergent opinions, and lacked cohesion; the leadership was by no means a monolithic bloc. Because the petty and middle bourgeoisie failed to represent the advanced class and lacked effective means of mobilization, the majority of the Latin American proletariat adopted a wait-and-see attitude toward the beautiful vision of socialism, causing the socialist movement in Latin America at the time to remain localized and marginal.
2. The Latin American socialist movement was severely fragmented, and Marxism gradually became dogmatized
While Marxism was spreading in Latin America in the 1850s, the socialist movement was also guided by utopian socialism, anarchism, and other ideologies. At that time, Latin American thinkers expressed their views by translating original works, writing articles, and giving speeches, studying socialist thought as a general theory. Before the Russian October Revolution, through nearly half a century of collision and fusion with indigenous Latin American thought, various socialist trends emerged, such as social democracy and anarcho-syndicalism. While these trends enriched Latin American socialist theory, they also diverted revolutionary socialist forces, causing most movements to appear in the form of minor skirmishes. The "cannon fire of the October Revolution" caused the status of Marxism to rise to unprecedented heights; Latin American countries also sought to solve their domestic practical problems using Marxism and put it into practice. Subsequently, Latin American communist parties were established one after another, and struggles such as the "three strikes" [3] movement and street demonstrations flourished. However, after the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922, Latin America placed Marxist theory on a pedestal, gradually moving toward dogmatization, which led to repeated failures in socialist practice.
At the same time, two negative ideologies were gaining ground: "Eurocentrism" and "Latin American Exceptionalism." Eurocentrism preached that Latin America must copy European revolutionary theoretical achievements to succeed, rejecting localization; Latin American Exceptionalism argued that due to differences in history, geography, and actual national conditions, Latin American countries could not establish a socialist system like Europe. These ideas, characterized by pessimism and rigidity, caused the once-vibrant revolutionary movement in Latin America to fall into dogmatism.
3. Latin American reformism prevailed, making it difficult to establish proletarian regimes
After the end of World War I and the establishment of the Soviet Union, the leadership of the Latin American socialist revolution shifted significantly toward the proletariat, and a group of Latin American communist parties emerged. In 1918, the International Socialist Party was established in Argentina (renamed the Communist Party of Argentina in 1920), followed by the establishment of communist parties in Mexico (1919), Uruguay (1921), Chile (1922), and Brazil (1922). These nascent proletarian parties declared their support for the Comintern and vowed to emulate Russia by following the path of the October Revolution. However, these vigorous socialist revolutionary movements all ended in bloody defeat, and a group of leaders were exiled abroad, such as Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre and Mariátegui. In 1924, through profound reflection on the failure of the Latin American revolution and in-depth study of European and American revolutions, a group of 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 the primary reason for the failure of the Latin American revolution was the collusion and support of European and American imperialism for bourgeois Latin American governments; therefore, it was necessary to establish an anti-imperialist alliance with the entire Latin American continent as a united front. In its early days, the alliance claimed to believe in Marxism and aimed to establish socialist states in Latin America, and Latin Americans held high hopes for it. However, from 1927 onward, the alliance showed a rightist trend, and its line of struggle became increasingly conservative. In February 1927, while attending the first Congress of the League Against Imperialism in Brussels, the alliance leader Haya de la Torre openly opposed Lenin's theory of imperialism. He argued that in underdeveloped Latin America, one should rely on developed capitalist countries to develop national capitalism, and only enter socialism after national capitalism was fully developed. He also advocated for the establishment of a "multi-class" party led by the petty and middle bourgeoisie, uniting workers, peasants, and intellectuals. Subsequently, under the slogan of a "multi-class alliance led by the national bourgeoisie," the Latin American petty and middle bourgeoisie united with the domestic worker and peasant classes, forming a powerful but short-lived national democratic movement that effectively challenged the rule of military oligarchies—an alliance of landlords, the military, and the church. In the 1930s, they further declared a "constructive" stance toward imperialism, seeking to establish a "non-dependent partnership" on the premise of "not touching capitalist farms and plantations." Rather than substantively solving the issue of Latin American national independence, this reformism deepened dependence on Western capitalist countries.
Faced with these dilemmas, Mariátegui, through his reflections on reality, saw that the development stages, class conditions, and national circumstances of Latin American countries differed from those of Russia. He advocated for combining Marxism with Latin American reality and called for the Latin Americanization of Marxism and the localization of socialism. Especially regarding the situation in Peru, he wrote Seven Essays, creating a paradigm for combining Marxism with Peruvian reality. Mariátegui’s thought was precisely born out of the dissemination and development of Marxism in Latin America 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 subject to the dogmatic guidance of the Soviet Union and the Comintern. The practice of mechanically executing a single line without distinguishing between the actual problems of different countries caused the Latin American socialist movement to fall into stagnation. Some Latin American socialists were keen to declare themselves "orthodox socialists" and followed the Soviet socialist model step-by-step. Facts soon proved that this "fitting the feet to the shoes" [4] approach made it difficult for the Latin American revolution to achieve breakthroughs and dampened the enthusiasm of Latin American socialist revolutionaries. In 1926, Mariátegui gladly joined the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance founded by Haya de la Torre, hoping to carry out the socialist movement through an anti-imperialist alliance, and became a key member. However, due to disagreements over how to view imperialism, what kind of party to establish, and whether to follow a revolutionary or reformist line, he indignantly withdrew from the increasingly conservative alliance in 1928. By this point, Mariátegui clearly recognized that neither dogmatism nor reformism could liberate Latin America. Combining his dialectical understanding of Marxist thought from his field observations in Europe with his profound reflection on the Latin American revolution and reality, he proposed that establishing socialism in Latin America required exposing the specific practical problems of each Latin American country to change its backward state and create Latin American-style socialist states.
Mariátegui’s method of localized analysis was inspired by Ezequiel Urviola, the "Indian agitator" from the southern Peruvian city of Puno. Urviola wrote The Tempest in the Andes (Tempestad en los Andes), in which the indigenous Indians appear as historical subjects rather than objects subjected to the West. He vehemently rejected everything associated with Western civilization, ruthlessly criticized the savage despotism of the Peruvian large estate owners and government gendarmes [5] against the Peruvian proletariat, and announced the arrival of a "New Indigenous Era." This radical indigenist [6] awakened Mariátegui's Latin Americanized cognition. Mariátegui appreciated what was written in Poems of the Sun People: "This lyrical praise brings us closer to the indigenous truth than the cold criticism of the neutral observer." Mariátegui showed great passion for indigenous culture and contempt for the "criticisms of neutral observers" from Europe. Facing attacks from the Comintern [7], he used the courage of "approaching indigenous truth" to clearly pioneer the Latin Americanization of Marxism. He analyzed: "Everyone talks about Marxism, but very few understand Marxism—especially those who understand the dialectical method that is the foundation of Marxism. In other words, this method is entirely based on facts and proceeds from reality. It is not a collection of rigid principles equally applicable to all eras and social formations, as some mistakenly see it." In Mariátegui's view, dogmatists were merely bookworms who understood only the surface of Marxism; they could not gain deep insight into the actual needs of Latin American reality, nor could they analyze Marxism with an open, inclusive, and flexible vision. In an era when dogmatism prevailed, he pioneeringly proposed the ideas of Latin Americanizing Marxism and localizing socialism, becoming the first true Latin American Marxist thinker. With his method of localized analysis, he filled the void left by Latin America’s "fanatical and superficial intellectuals" who were unable to provide research methods for effectively guiding socialist practice. Mariátegui wrote: "The 'new generation' of Peruvians will use scientific research and the intellectual interpretation of facts to illuminate the indigenous manifestation... and assist the process of making Peru truly belong to Peruvians." During the 1920s, a period when the development of socialism was shrouded in mist, Mariátegui grasped Marxist dialectical thought and discovered the key to solving the problems of Latin American socialism.
II. The Original Contributions of Mariátegui’s Thought on Latin Americanized Socialism
The Latin Americanization of Marxism inevitably faces the task of combining socialist theory with the local realities of Latin America. Those who stick to old conventions only see the conclusions of Marxism but fail to see that Marxism provides only a method. During his exile in Europe, Mariátegui deeply grasped the essence of Lenin’s ideas on localizing socialism. After returning home in 1923, he proclaimed himself a "professed Marxist." He believed that one cannot mechanically copy European theories of socialist revolution but must engage in localized creation. Relying on a dialectical understanding of Marxism and deep insight into Latin American reality, he proposed a set of localized socialist theories consistent with Latin American reality.
1. Persisting in Using the Basic Principles of Marxism to Analyze Local Problems
Centering on the basic principle of "functioning according to the characteristics of each country and nation," Mariátegui utilized the Marxist standpoint, viewpoint, and method to analyze Latin American problems and formulate revolutionary theories and strategies consistent with Latin American reality. In the 1920s, the Latin American socialist revolution under the guidance of dogmatic thought reached a dead end. Many people questioned whether Marxist theory, which originated in Europe, was suitable for Latin America. Mariátegui, however, did not hesitate; rather, he pioneeringly proposed the Latin Americanization of Marxism based on the extensive research he had previously conducted on Marxist theory and Latin American reality. Mariátegui was the first to study Peru’s national conditions in Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality (Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana). He divided Peruvian history into three periods: the Inca Empire, the Spanish colonial period, and the Republic of Peru.
First, the Inca Empire from the 11th to the 16th century. Peru’s center of civilization was in the Andean mountains, where a primitive communist mode of life for the indigenous Indians had emerged. In the tribal communes, land was under public ownership and managed unifiedly by a council; other public affairs were also decided by the council. Labor was divided by age and gender for collective cultivation. The elderly and village chiefs were the organizers and supervisors of production activities. Products of labor were distributed equally, while care was given to the elderly, the infirm, or those who contributed more. An atmosphere of equality, mutual aid, affection, and solidarity permeated the tribal members. Because of this, Mariátegui claimed that Peru could continue this primitive communist mode of life and further develop a modernized Peruvian socialist system.
Second, the Spanish colonial rule from the 16th to the early 19th century. During this period, Latin America and North America began to diverge. Latin America was not as fortunate as North America; what was sent to Latin America consisted almost entirely of aristocrats, clergy, and rogues, along with the medieval spirit of Christianity. In the late colonial period, Latin America became the "raw material factory" and "backyard" of Europe and the United States. In Mariátegui’s view, it was precisely due to the Spanish colonizers' brash invasion that the original process of Peruvian capitalist development was interrupted.
Third, the period of the independent Republic of Peru after 1821. During this period, Peru shook off Spanish colonial rule, became an independent state, and embarked on a path of relatively autonomous development. However, like other Latin American countries, because it had been integrated with the colonial system for so long, it was difficult to completely break away from the old colonial rule's development patterns overnight. At the same time, the former feudal lords disguised themselves as the bourgeoisie of the republican era and continued to exploit the proletariat, which meant that remnants of feudal forces still existed in Peru. By the beginning of the 20th century, Mariátegui faced the national question of how to overthrow the two great mountains [8] of colonialism and feudalism.
Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality is the manifesto of the Latin Americanization of Marxism. In the book, Mariátegui used methods such as evidentiary examples, citations of classics, and statistical explanations to attempt to clarify seven issues of Peru through the lens of historical materialism: "The Evolution of the Economy," "The Problem of the Indian," "The Problem of the Land," "The Process of Public Education," "The Religious Factor," "Regionalism and Centralism," and "Literature on Trial." Among these, "The Evolution of the Economy," "The Problem of the Indian," and "The Problem of the Land" can be categorized as research into the economic base, while "The Process of Public Education," "The Religious Factor," "Regionalism and Centralism," and "Literature on Trial" can be categorized as research into the superstructure. It should be specifically noted that Mariátegui spent nearly half of the book elaborating deeply on "Indigenous Literature," expressing a great intention to revive indigenous literature. He believed that the revival of Latin American indigenism could not omit cultural revival, including literature, art, and entertainment. In the post-independence Republic of Peru, literature still acted as a mere echo of colonial literature, lacking any national character. Mariátegui saw the important influence of culture on a nation’s independence and called for the "decolonization" of culture, emphasizing that Peruvian literature should be rooted in the nation's own soil to achieve the independence and freedom of the national spirit.
After returning from exile in Europe in 1923, Mariátegui threw himself into the socialist movement with high enthusiasm, going to teach at the González Prada Popular University, founded by Haya de la Torre for the worker and peasant classes. During his tenure, he introduced what he had seen and heard in Europe to the domestic youth and the masses, specifically involving European reforms after World War I, Soviet Russian communist construction, and Gandhi’s "non-violent non-cooperation" movement in India, in order to open their world perspective, horizons, and intelligence, and to stimulate their revolutionary passion. In his lectures, he conversed cordially with students, using the opportunity to gain a deep understanding of Peruvian society. In 1925, he planned to launch a European-style violent socialist revolution in Peru, but because the response from the worker and peasant classes was insufficient, the movement suffered a heavy blow. In the series of practices that followed, he realized the importance of "revolutionary consciousness" for carrying out the cause of socialist revolution—that is, there must be revolutionary theory as a precursor to revolutionary action. He wrote: "Even the most advanced and enlightened Peruvian workers need education and cultural preparation to effectively participate in a powerful movement." As a young Marxist, by the early 20th century, he had already masterfully grasped Marxism-Leninism, skillfully applying the Marxist standpoint, viewpoint, and method to expose and analyze local problems, using Marxism as a guide to solve them.
2. Opening a Path for Latin Americanized Socialist Revolution
When evaluating Mariátegui, the Chilean philosopher Helio Gallardo stated that "he was one of the first people to develop revolutionary socialist thought from Latin American reality—'thinking Latin America'." During Mariátegui’s time, many Latin American thinkers rejected capitalism while also denying communism, envisioning a "third way": a path of reform, a "moderate route" to peacefully seize power, or supra-class alliances. Mariátegui ruthlessly criticized these reformist paths: "I am a revolutionary... I will never understand other political spheres: those of mediocre reformers, domesticated socialism, and farcical democracy. Furthermore, if the revolution requires violence, authority, and discipline, then I approve of violence, authority, and discipline." To this end, he insisted on opening a localized revolutionary path based on the violent seizure of power combined with the actual conditions of each country.
Why choose socialist revolution? Mariátegui’s answer was that Peru had already tried a bourgeois revolution to establish the Republic of Peru and had formally promulgated decrees to protect the rights of the worker and peasant classes, such as land distribution and the abolition of unpaid labor. However, because the power of discourse remained in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat was still oppressed by feudalism and capitalism. Mariátegui believed that whether it was the racial issue or the educational issue, at its root, it was a problem of "economic ownership." If the economic system did not change, any solution would be like "scratching an itch through one's boot" [9]. Mariátegui wrote: "The proletariat cannot carry out a great historical creative undertaking if it only takes shortening the workday and a slight wage increase as its ideal. It must not only stand higher than coarse pragmatism that merely pursues filling the belly, but also higher than nihilistic intentions and needs that have negative influences. The revolutionary spirit is the spirit of creation." Furthermore, the path of capitalist reform led by the Peruvian populist leader Haya de la Torre had already proven that the advocacy of achieving socialism through reformist means had limited effects. Peruvian society was calling for the arrival of a socialist revolution.
Mariátegui pointed his revolutionary spearhead directly at feudalism and imperialism. He believed that due to the collusion between imperialism and feudal forces, the chronic malady of feudal forces wearing the "cloak of the Republic" was difficult to eliminate. First, the "feudalism" problem. This issue was manifested specifically in the problem of land exploitation by large estate owners (latifundistas) and the oppression of Indians, with the latter being subordinate to the land problem. Therefore, the most fundamental and effective means was a land revolution to distribute land ownership to the farmers. He pointed out: "The indigenous problem arises from our country's economy; its root lies in the land ownership system. As long as the feudal nature of the 'Gamonal' [10] persists, any attempt to solve the problem with administrative measures or police means, or through educational methods or the construction of transportation projects, is merely superficial or decorative work." Second, the "imperialism" problem. Historically, Peru had been successively invaded by colonial countries such as Spain, Portugal, Britain, and France; these countries controlled and plundered Peruvian wealth through political, economic, and military means. Mariátegui pointed out: "The best valleys along the coast are all planted with cotton and sugarcane, not because these lands are only suitable for these crops, but only because these crops currently hold important significance for British and American merchants." Under the penetration of the suzerain states, the independent Republic of Peru remained at the mercy of imperialism. Mariátegui believed that Peru urgently needed to carry out a land revolution internally and abolish "imperialist" privileges externally to achieve the true independence and freedom of Peruvian society.
Who, then, was to be relied upon for the revolution? Mariátegui was convinced that reliance must be placed on the Peruvian proletariat, which included the indigenous Indians. First, Mariátegui had realized that the path of relying on the middle and petty bourgeoisie for revolution was a dead end; it would only degenerate once again into a hypocritical bourgeois-democratic revolution or reformism. He argued that even if the middle and petty bourgeoisie resented the big bourgeoisie for crowding out their living space, their class nature determined that they could not exist without collusion with capitalism. Conversely, the indigenous Indians of Peru accounted for two-thirds of the total population; they were heavily oppressed and possessed strong revolutionary aspirations. Whether viewed by population size or class nature, they were the only choice for a revolutionary force. He stated: "In Peru, the masses—the working class—are four-fifths Indian. If our socialism is not united with the defense of the Indian—our socialism would not be Peruvian socialism—it would not even be socialism." Furthermore, the indigenous Indians possessed an innate "communist complex." Their ancestors lived in primitive communist communal villages; these primitive communist sentiments would drive the Indians to welcome and support the arrival of the socialist revolution.
Mariátegui envisioned that the established Peruvian socialism would preserve the traditional indigenous ethnic communal villages while stripping away the despotic elements of Incan "primitive communism." It would integrate the achievements of modern civilization into national life, ultimately building an "Indo-American socialist state" that was industrious, simple, disciplined, and enjoyed collectivism and communal labor.
3. Utilizing Latin American Reality to Forge a Communist Consensus
In the process of putting theory into practice, Mariátegui gradually discovered that the unarmed Latin American proletariat was hard-pressed to match the well-resourced bourgeoisie and exhibited low morale and cohesion in battle. Consequently, he believed there was an urgent need to find a mobilization strategy consistent with Latin American realities. Although there is no exact documentation proving that Mariátegui met Gramsci during his exile in Europe from 1919 to 1923, his practice indeed contained elements of Gramscian thought, showing a deep understanding of ideological (cultural) hegemony.
Mariátegui had visited Italy and witnessed the failure of the Italian socialist revolution, attributing one of the reasons to the Italian Communist Party’s failure to unite the domestic socialist forces. At that time, Latin America faced the same dilemma. Particularly after the Sixth World Congress of the Comintern, influenced by Comintern intervention, the Sinicization of Marxism was mired in ideological confusion, and some early Latin American Marxists drifted toward the populist camp. In this context, establishing a proletarian revolutionary united front appeared particularly urgent. Inspired by the educational and propaganda mobilization methods of the Chilean labor movement leader Recabarren, Mariátegui took the lead in using cultural propaganda to prepare for the establishment of a united front (political party).
First, he founded proletarian periodicals with clear-cut stances. In his early years, Mariátegui had already founded magazines such as La Razón (Reason), Labor, and La Luz (The Light). The founding of Amauta [11] in 1926 marked his true awakening regarding cultural hegemony. His original intent for founding Amauta was "to pose, clarify, and understand Peruvian problems from a scientific and dogmatic viewpoint." Its content touched upon politics, art, literature, and scientific revolutionary movements, always standing with the Latin American proletarian camp to serve the socialist movement. In fact, Mariátegui had a more ambitious vision, attempting to use Amauta to attract more Latin American intellectuals to join the "vanguard movement represented by the magazine" and lead the trend of progressive plebeian journals. In 1928, celebrating the second anniversary of its founding, he wrote: "On our banner, we have inscribed a great and simple word: Socialism... In these two years, Amauta has been a magazine of ideological definition... to us, the work of ideological definition seems to have been completed." Amauta became a vital publication for perceiving the ideology of the Peruvian socialist movement in the early 20th century.
Second, he supported the opening of proletarian schools so that the proletariat could receive free education. As early as the "Process of Public Education" section in Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality, Mariátegui had deeply analyzed the state of education in the Peruvian Republic, arguing it was monopolized by the bourgeoisie and poisoned by three foreign cultures: "the Spanish heritage, and French and North American culture." To break down the barriers of the ruling class's monopoly on education, after returning home in 1923, he went to the González Prada Popular University [12] to teach, disseminating what he had seen and heard abroad to the worker-peasant classes to stimulate their revolutionary spirit. He emphasized the importance of free education for the Latin American proletariat in various places, including the Program of the Socialist Party of Peru.
Third, he founded a vanguard party led by the Latin American proletariat. Facing the rhetoric that the Latin American worker-peasant classes of the early 20th century were still too ignorant to lead a socialist revolution—while populist forces led by the middle and petty bourgeoisie were growing daily—Mariátegui realized that the preparations for a 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 Socialist Party of Peru (renamed the Communist Party of Peru in May 1930) and was elected General Secretary. In Article 9 of the party platform, he clearly stipulated: "The Socialist Party of Peru is the vanguard of the proletariat. In the struggle to realize class ideals, it is the political force tasked with the heavy responsibility of leading the proletariat," thereby defending proletarian revolutionary leadership. From then on, faced with the ideological confusion of Latin American Marxism, Mariátegui found the "magic weapon" [13] of the united front for the Peruvian socialist revolution.
In leading the struggle of the united front, Mariátegui discovered that the Peruvian proletariat was not prepared for the arrival of a communist society, exhibiting problems such as revolutionary lethargy and trepidation. He believed that for the Peruvian socialist revolution to achieve total victory, a prescription had to be found to strengthen the Latin American proletariat's communist ideals and convictions. By 1926, while writing the Seven Essays, he had already grasped the possibility of Latin American traditions serving the communist cause. Mariátegui pointed out, "We have instinctively inherited socialist ideas from the Inca Empire." Therefore, once the indigenous Indians understood socialist-communism, they would view it as a continuation of their own way of life.
Firstly, he used the Indian primitive communal village to awaken the Latin American masses' value identification with "communism." A communist lifestyle model did indeed exist in Latin America and was preserved through the colonial and independent republican periods. The Latin American thinker Hildebrando Castro Pozo argued: "The ayllu [14] or communal village has preserved its natural characteristics; like a family organization, its primary constituent elements continued to exist after the Spanish conquest of the American continent." Although the primitive communist model differed from the communism envisioned by Marx, this did not prevent Mariátegui from utilizing communist tradition to inspire the Indians to fight for their national traditions. In Mariátegui’s view, revolutionary consciousness might take time to form, "but once the Indian makes the socialist idea his own, he will serve it with a discipline, tenacity, and strength." He even believed that the surviving Indian communal villages could be transformed into modern cooperatives.
Secondly, he excavated the Indians' nature worship to achieve social transformation. Mariátegui once quoted Valcárcel’s research on the economic life of Tawantinsuyu (the name of the Inca Empire), noting: "In the traditions of our inhabitants, the land is the common mother; not only food, but even human beings are produced from her womb... the worship of 'Pachamama' [15] and the worship of the Sun are exactly the same, and just as the Sun belongs to no individual, the Earth belongs to no individual." Mariátegui believed that for the Indians, the Peruvian Republic was merely a new exploiter that had driven out the old colonizers only to occupy their land. For a people like the Indians who adhered so firmly to rural customs and a peasant psychology, depriving them of their "Mother Earth" caused both material and spiritual harm. To realize the Indians' re-appropriation of land ownership, it was necessary to grant it emotional legitimacy and awaken their ancient consciousness, making them favor a revolution to restore their land rights.
Thirdly, he constructed spiritual power to tap into the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. To provide Latin Americans with the spiritual strength to engage in socialist revolution, Mariátegui believed it necessary to dig deep into the revolutionary elements within Latin American tradition. Latin Americans held a primitive worship of mystical powers; this was the "national opportunity." He pointed out: "The materialism of socialists contains all the possibilities for spiritual, ethical, and philosophical elevation." In his view, communism could be seen as a faith that could guide people out of ignorance toward the glorious shore of communism. As Georges Sorel stated, the historical experience of the early 20th century showed that modern revolutionary myths or social myths could take complete possession of people's deep consciousness, just as ancient religious myths did. This was an inevitable product of Latin America's unique national conditions.
Mariátegui consistently believed that the spiritual and intellectual preparation of the proletariat was a necessary condition for achieving socialist revolution. He worked hard to face Peruvian reality squarely, hoping to use traditional culture, practice, and unique national conditions to find a thoroughfare for the realization of Peruvian socialist revolution. Facing the difficult transformation of theory into reality, Mariátegui was clear: "It is necessary to create a class consciousness. Organizers know well that most workers have a spirit of cooperation and mutual aid. This spirit should be utilized and nurtured until it becomes a class spirit." Thus, with a deep understanding of Latin American history and reality, he undertook great creations in areas such as proletarian education, socialist periodicals, and the use of Latin American tradition to excavate revolutionary potential, prompting the Latin American socialist revolution to move from theory to reality.
III. The Historical Influence and Realistic Reflections on Mariátegui’s Thought on the Latin Americanization of Marxism
Mariátegui, born in the same era as Gramsci and Mao Zedong, is the father of Latin American Marxism. The thoughts of these three figures share commonalities: all advocated for integration with their country’s specific realities, championed the indigenous path to socialism, and regarded "seeking truth from facts" and "concrete analysis of concrete conditions" as the "living soul" of Marxism. In the 20th century, the Sinicization, Latin Americanization, and Africanization of Marxism intertwined, pushing the nationalization of Marxism to a climax and collectively radiating new vitality for Marxism.
1. Historical Influence
Mariátegui was the first in Latin American to break through the barriers of dogmatic Marxism, initiating the process of the Latin Americanization of Marxism. In the months following Mariátegui’s death in 1930, the reactionary Leguía government in Peru was overthrown, and successors put the Indian problem, economic sovereignty, and anti-imperialism on the agenda. Luis Manuel Sánchez Cerro recognized that "the problem of the assimilation of the Indian is the fundamental problem of Peru," distributing some land to the Indians and providing them with funds and technical support for cultivation. Meanwhile, Oscar R. Benavides nationalized the Sechura oil fields on the northern coast of Peru in an attempt to thwart imperialist control over the country. After Mariátegui’s death, the Peruvian government did, to a certain extent, carry out reforms according to his will, though far from enough. Unexpectedly, in the years after Mariátegui’s death, his indigenous socialist ideas took root in Cuba. During Mariátegui’s lifetime, the Cuban magazine Avance had collaborated with Amauta to actively promote his socialist propositions; Seven Essays could be found everywhere in Cuba. Notably, during his travels in Latin America, Che Guevara engaged in deep exchanges regarding Mariátegui’s thought with Hugo Pesce, one of the founders of the Peruvian Communist Party, forming an inclusive and open revolutionary ideology. Fidel Castro, the father of Cuban socialism, read Mariátegui’s works many times during the two years following his imprisonment in 1953. He believed that Cuba must also follow a non-dogmatic, flexible, and open revolutionary line, emphasizing the revolutionary potential of the peasantry and the value of indigenous culture while considering how to stimulate the revolutionary enthusiasm of his own country’s proletariat. These factors prompted Cuba to become the first socialist state in Latin America, continuing to this day.
Mariátegui believed that "indigenous hope is absolutely revolutionary," and that its motivation and soul comprise a "mythic socialist idea" [16]; only socialism could end feudalism and imperialism. At the same time, without the indigenous masses, Peruvian socialism would have no future. These highly insightful and creative words still echo across the Latin American continent today. At a critical stage in the development of Latin American politics and thought, "Mariátegui was able to creatively combine a broad range of academic trends and political tendencies. Utilizing his profound knowledge and experience, he originally integrated Marxist thought and the most dynamic currents of European culture into the developing national and Third World consciousness of Peru and Latin America." This is the precious legacy he left to posterity.
In the second half of the 20th century, the Left—including Latin American Communist Parties—realized the epochal value of Mariátegui's indigenization proposals and engaged in reflection. "In the past, they [the Latin American Communist Parties—Ed.] formulated policies by copying foreign models, which were divorced from reality and heavy on theory but light on substance. They neither accurately reflected the long-term interests of the masses across broad social strata, nor did they opportunely reflect their current urgent demands. Consequently, they found it difficult to attract more of the masses to the Party, resulting in the slow growth or stagnation of Party strength." During the Cold War, the innovative step taken by Latin American Communist Parties was to shift from a dogmatic treatment of Marxism toward the nationalization of Marxism. In the 1960s, countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia successively proposed the development or innovation of socialism. Since the second half of the 20th century, the independent internal consciousness of Latin American indigenous nations has surged. They have explicitly stated their intent to take back the power belonging to indigenous peoples, resisting current ruling governments multiple times through demonstrations and violent revolution. These movements take the proletariat—including indigenous peoples—as their main subject, demanding changes to deep-seated issues such as land and education. Mariátegui’s thought provided spiritual nourishment for indigenous nations to launch revolutions and offered a theoretical paradigm for Latin-Americanized Marxism. Mariátegui is the well-deserved father of Latin American Marxism.
2. Realistic Reflections
From the first appearance of indigenous socialist thought in Latin America in the 1920s to the present day, the Latin American socialist movement has undergone nearly 100 years of exploration. Why have the Latin American Communist Parties and the Latin American Left failed to lead Latin America onto the "broad road" [17] of socialism? This warrants our reflection. First, the exploration of the domestication of Marxism within a country is a long and arduous process. Latin America has frequently proposed theoretical innovations for the Latin-Americanization of Marxism, but under the influence of internal and external pressures, these have often not been put into practice or were abandoned halfway. The failure to persist in the indigenized study of Marxism—to advance with the times—is the fundamental reason Latin America missed its Marxist opportunity. Second, the struggle between capitalism and socialism has never ceased. Since the birth of the Cuban socialist state, Western countries led by the United States have maintained a high-pressure stance against Latin American socialist movements. Many Latin American proletarian revolutionaries were brutally suppressed by reactionary forces in practice; this is a major reason for the decline of Marxism in Latin America. Third, in the process of developing Marxism, some advanced Latin American intellectuals violated or denied basic Marxist theories, causing the Latin American socialist movement to drift toward heterodoxy—such as the Shining Path in Peru. This is the direct reason why Latin American Marxism has found it difficult to win the people's trust. In this regard, Mariátegui's thought serves as an important warning to later generations.
First, from the perspective of Mariátegui's tendency toward the Latin-Americanization of Marxism, the integration of Marxism with the specific realities of various countries is an inevitable law of Marxist development. As a "Leninist" Latin American Marxist, Mariátegui proved once again that for socialist practice under the guidance of Marxism to achieve victory, one must proceed from Marxist methodology, specifically analyze the concrete realities of each country, and form basic principles and policies to solve problems. Otherwise, the final victory of socialist revolution and construction cannot be achieved. In the October Revolution, Lenin applied Marxist methodology to integrate Marxism with Russia's specific realities, forming the theory of "victory in one country" and embarking on the socialist path. In the process of socialist construction, Lenin proceeded from reality to form policies such as "State Capitalism," "War Communism," and the "New Economic Policy," viewing Russian socialism as a form of transition toward the higher stage of communism. Lenin stated: "No Marxist has ever regarded Marx's theory as some universally compulsory philosophical-historical formula, as anything more than an explanation of a particular social-economic formation." Mariátegui rapidly applied Leninism to Latin America following the October Revolution, Latin-Americanizing Marxism—a paradigm worthy of study by communists worldwide.
Second, whether it is the nationalization of Marxism or the indigenization of socialism, it must be based on upholding the basic principles of Marxism. Throughout the history of Marxist development and the socialist movement, it is not difficult to draw a fundamental conclusion: only by studying Marxism and socialism in practice can one truly implement Marxism and push socialism toward deeper development. Similarly, the transformation of socialist states in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa at the end of the 20th century also demonstrates that only by adhering to Marxist methodology and the leadership of the proletarian vanguard can one continue forward on the socialist path. Lenin once said, "The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory." The socialist movement must take Marxism as its theoretical guide, and Marxism must fulfill its methodological role through practice. Therefore, the issue of socialist indigenization must never transcend the basic principles of Marxism. To discard basic principles and allow practice to develop haphazardly is to abandon Marxism. Meanwhile, the socialist revolution must be led by the vanguard organization of the proletariat. "Only a party that organizes real all-national exposures can become the vanguard of the revolutionary forces." To abandon the leadership of the proletarian vanguard is to abandon socialism. Therefore, the proletarian vanguard must represent the interests of all the people and serve the people whole-heartedly; otherwise, it loses its stance and its original aspiration and founding mission. The primary reason many former socialist countries failed to continue on the socialist path, or why their socialism ultimately failed, is that they rejected the leadership of the Communist Party.
Furthermore, socialism must be studied in practice. Lenin believed: "All nations will arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, but all will do so in not exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life." This means that scientific socialism must be indigenized in practice and integrated with the specific conditions of each nation. As socialism is an unprecedented undertaking, every step forward requires us to study its political, economic, and cultural aspects, proposing timely response strategies and shifting the Party’s focus and central tasks accordingly. After the consolidation of socialist political power, it is necessary to fully develop democracy, allow all working people to participate in state management, fully mobilize the labor enthusiasm of the masses, develop productive forces, and improve the living standards of the working people.
Finally, the indigenization of socialism must always involve a struggle against capitalism. Socialism grows on the foundation of capitalism. Although socialism and capitalism are two sides of a contradiction that influence and constrain each other, capitalism is the enemy of socialism. We must never forget to guard against capitalist interference, sabotage, and obstruction (such as the U.S. blockade of Cuba for over 50 years). Since the first socialist state appeared in human society, Western capitalist countries have never ceased their containment and obstruction of socialism. They always wave the big stick of "democracy" and "freedom," beautify their so-called "universal values," and use every means to divide the political forces of socialist countries and incite the masses to oppose their governments. In Latin America and Africa, many socialist countries moved toward multi-party systems; on the surface, this appeared to be their own choice, but in substance, it was the result of manipulation by Western countries. Our country is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants, where all power of the state belongs to the people. The people being masters of the country is the essence and core of socialist democratic politics. There is no such thing as a "one-size-fits-all" democracy in the world, nor can any single set of values be imposed on all countries. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Democracy is not an ornament to be used for decoration; it is to be used to solve the problems that the people need to solve." Democracy is not the private preserve of a few countries, but a right of the people of all countries. "To evaluate whether a country's political system is democratic and effective, one should mainly look at whether the succession of the state's leadership is orderly and according to law; whether all the people can manage state affairs, social affairs, and economic and cultural undertakings according to law; whether the masses can smoothly express their demands for their interests; whether all sectors of society can effectively participate in the country's political life; whether national decision-making can achieve scientific and democratic ends; whether talents in all fields can enter the national leadership and management system through fair competition; whether the governing party can achieve leadership over state affairs in accordance with the Constitution and laws; and whether the exercise of power can be effectively restrained and supervised."
On the 75th anniversary of Mariátegui's death, the National Assembly of Venezuela carried out a series of commemorative activities and noted in relevant documents: "Mariátegui's thought remains a source for understanding the world labor movement and the socialist movement; it is an eternal source of thought and a guide for action for Latin American revolutionaries." Entering the 21st century, a research report by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean pointed out that as of 2020, there were approximately 200 million people living in poverty in Latin America, accounting for one-third of the total population, with nearly 80 million in extreme poverty. The gap between the rich and the poor is vast, and social problems are serious. From April 8 to 10, 2018, representatives from 11 Communist Parties of 9 Latin American countries held the "Meeting of Communist Parties of Latin America" in Lima, the capital of Peru. They concluded that "socialism remains full of vitality and is the hope of humanity both now and in the future," and is the "only choice for the Latin American people." In recent years, from the resurgence of Latin American left-wing parties in power and their friendly interactions with the Communist Parties of other countries, it is not difficult to see that the Latin American Left is still striving to realize the socialist ideal. Mariátegui's thought possesses great practical significance in 21st-century Latin America.
Mariátegui's Latin-Americanized Marxist thought is a dialectical unity of Marxist theory and reality, of universality and specificity. As early as 1928, Mariátegui pointed out with foresight: "Although, like capitalism, socialism may have been born in Europe, it is not specifically or characteristically European. It is a worldwide movement, from which none of the countries that move within the orbit of Western civilization are excluded." Socialism is the universal future of humanity. Because national conditions differ, we must grant socialism an indigenized life; this will be a more concrete socialism. Standing here 100 years later and looking back at Mariátegui's thought, the most precious wealth he left to later generations is the use of the "living soul" of Marxism to approach socialism.