Zheng Xiangfu and Ling Zhehong: The Development Path, Internal Dilemmas, and Prospects of the Latin Americanization of Marxism
At the dawn of the 20th century, Marxism gradually developed a orientation toward diversification and localization. Following Lenin’s Sinicization of Marxism in Russia, José Carlos Mariátegui, the founder of the Communist Party of Peru, initiated the process of the Latin Americanization of Marxism, providing extensive experience for the localization of Marxism. However, Latin American Marxists also faced numerous challenges regarding localization, which were closely linked to their understanding of the essence of Marxism and the realities of Latin America. To explain the internal roots of these challenges, it is necessary to trace the trajectory of the Latin Americanization of Marxism and elucidate its historical necessity and developmental mechanisms.
I. Late 19th Century to 1917: Mechanical Amalgamation of Latin American Marxism and Indigenous Trends
Since the Paraguayan War of Independence, liberation movements in Latin American colonies surged. The Latin American continent, which had endured over 300 years of Spanish and Portuguese colonial rule, achieved liberation and independence successively under the leadership of pioneers such as Simón Bolívar and José de San Martín [1]. Post-independence Latin American countries faced primary tasks: What kind of political regime should be established? What economic path should be followed? What dominant ideology should be formed? In short, where was Latin America headed? For a time, currents of political and economic thought—such as Utopian Socialism, Anarchism, Syndicalism, Christian Democracy, Social Democracy, and Classical Liberalism—took the stage in succession. Amidst this clamor, Marxism gradually entered Latin America and began to influence the choice of developmental paths. In the 1880s, progressive Latin American intellectuals began to disseminate Marxism and gradually put it into practice.
As an early Latin American Marxist, Juan B. Justo, the founder of the Communist Party of Argentina, attempted to reconcile the revolutionary nature of Marxism with Social Darwinism. In 1894, Justo founded the Socialist Party of International Workers in Argentina. This party was renamed the Argentine Socialist Party in 1896, the Argentine Social Party in 1900, and from it, the Communist Party of Argentina split in 1918. In 1898, Justo translated and published the first complete Spanish version of Capital, Volume I, and began disseminating Marxism in Latin America. However, Justo was not a committed Marxist. In the late 19th century, he supported the "Declaration of Principles" proposed by the Argentine Socialist Party, which "renounced the establishment of proletarian political power." Although he claimed his inspiration came primarily from Marx, he was actually influenced by Second International revisionists like Eduard Bernstein and Jean Jaurès, as well as positivist sociologists such as Auguste Comte, Émile Durkheim, and Herbert Spencer. He opposed violent revolution and believed that capitalist society possessed the capacity for self-evolution. In 1912, Justo was elected to the Argentine Congress, and in 1921, he was elected President of Argentina. During his administration, he promoted social reforms while maintaining a tolerant attitude toward cooperation with the bourgeoisie or imperialism; thus, he is regarded as a representative of the moderate wing of Marxism.
The famous poet Manuel Ugarte was another early Argentine Marxist, as well as a nationalist who opposed U.S. and Spanish imperialism. In the early 20th century, he served as a representative of the Argentine Socialist Party in Europe, establishing close ties with the Second International (Socialist International). Based on the reality of the uneven development among Latin American nations, Ugarte emphasized national differences and opposed the Second International’s program stating that "communism should aim to eliminate national borders." He diverged from the Second International on the question of the socialist path, arguing that socialists should not oppose their own nations, and that "socialism is not equivalent to national suicide." As part of the revolutionary wing of Marxism, Ugarte made important contributions to the Latin Americanization of Marxism and laid its foundation. However, as his contradictions with moderate Marxists like Justo reached a fever pitch, Ugarte was marginalized within the party and expelled from the Argentine Socialist Party in 1916. Consequently, the Latin Americanization of Marxism to which he was committed suffered a setback.
Luis Emilio Recabarren, a leader of the Chilean workers' movement, was likewise a representative figure of the early revolutionary wing of Latin American Marxism. In 1912, he founded the Socialist Workers' Party of Chile, renamed the Communist Party of Chile in 1922. Inspired by the "philosophy of education," Recabarren advocated for mobilizing workers through education and propaganda, arming their minds with progressive ideas to awaken their subjective consciousness and revolutionary fighting spirit, thereby launching a proletarian revolution. To this end, he took the lead in establishing proletarian schools and popularized this mobilization method throughout Latin America, leading progressive intellectuals to follow suit. Recabarren also actively committed himself to media propaganda and education, founding several proletarian newspapers to give a voice to labor. In 1924, Recabarren committed suicide due to the failure of the struggle against military dictatorship and his disappointment regarding revolutionary prospects.
In summary, the early dissemination of Marxism in Latin America was constrained by reactionary forces and the then-prevalent influence of Positivism and Darwinian Socialism. Simultaneously, it faced challenges such as Marxism not yet being rooted in the masses, particularly having difficulty finding resonance among the most oppressed indigenous peoples of Latin America. To address this, some Marxists adopted a moderate stance to temper the revolutionary nature of Marxism, attempting to gain greater political survival space. Other Marxists realized the proletariat had not fully awakened and chose a stance of rational enlightenment to mobilize for revolution. Consequently, early Latin American Marxism could only produce trends like Syndicalism through its combination with indigenous radical leftism—envisioning the replacement of the state with workers' self-governance—eventually collapsing into a form of utopia.
II. 1918–1959: The Struggle of Latin American Marxism Against "Latin American Exceptionalism" and Dogmatism
The victory of the Russian October Revolution propelled world Marxism into a New Era. Lenin’s dialectical understanding and application of Marxism became a model for the proletarian revolutions of various countries, and the wave of the localization of Marxism rapidly swept across Latin America. Building on an in-depth study of Latin American conditions, progressive intellectuals integrated Marxist theory with the specific realities of Latin American countries and engaged in dialectical creation, pushing the Latin Americanization of Marxism to a new stage.
The Latin Americanization of Marxism began amidst debates against "Latin American Exceptionalism." Early Marxist practice in Latin America had been subjected to unwarranted accusations by intellectuals enamored with bourgeois thought. Influenced by colonial metropoles, they argued that Marxism was a European product unsuited to Latin American reality. In response to this "Latin American Exceptionalism," Mariátegui, known as the "Father of Latin American Marxism," pointed out: "Socialism cannot be a lifeless copy of the socialist system or a dogmatic application of Marxist thought. It must be a ‘heroic creation’; the reality of Latin America must give it life." To this end, he not only proposed the slogan "Marxism must be Latin Americanized," but also led Latin Americanized Marxism away from mechanical amalgamation with indigenous trends toward the broad road of dialectical creation. Between 1919 and 1923, Mariátegui lived in exile in Europe and came under the influence of Marxism. After returning home in the summer of 1923, based on painstaking research into Peruvian conditions, he completed his masterpiece, Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality. As the title suggests, this work is a collection of seven essays that centralize Mariátegui’s foundational thoughts on Latin Americanized Marxism. Its content includes: (1) finding the subject of the Peruvian proletarian revolution in the Indian nations, as they were the most oppressed by colonizers and the bourgeoisie and possessed the strongest consciousness of resistance; (2) exposing the truth behind Euro-American imperialism's attempts to control Latin America, calling for the severance of imperialist privileges in Peru that covertly supported the Peruvian dictatorship and feudal remnants, as these caused myriad social ills and stalled reforms; (3) identifying a Peruvian-path proletarian revolution; (4) opposing the dogmatization of Marxism and the exclusion of the vast numbers of religious believers in Latin America from revolutionary ranks, advocating for the use of Latin American theology to build consensus and construct a "myth" [2] of communism among Latin Americans to stimulate their revolutionary potential; (5) emphasizing the important role of ideology in national development, advocating for cultural "decolonization," and arguing that Peruvian literature should be rooted in the indigenous to achieve independence and freedom of the national spirit, rather than continuing Spanish colonial cultural traditions that weakened revolutionary spirit. Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality marked Mariátegui’s mature application of the Marxist historical materialist conception of history to analyze Latin American society and Peruvian reality, correctly articulating the theoretical basis for why Marxism must be Latin Americanized. Even today, Latin Americans believe that "Mariátegui’s Marxism is an early—and unique—model of Latin American national Marxism."
Unlike Mariátegui, Julio Antonio Mella, another early Latin American Marxist, placed greater hope in youth and intellectuals to lead the proletarian revolution. Although he acknowledged the enormous revolutionary potential latent in workers, peasants, and Indians, he believed they needed to be "civilized." When founding the Jose Martí Popular University, Mella took "scientific education, political anti-dogmatism, and social justice" as three core principles. He elevated the spirit of independence and freedom of the Cuban liberation pioneer José Martí, advocating for the close integration of the proletarian revolution with the struggle against imperialist rule. He noted: "The clear struggle to destroy imperialism... is not a very bourgeois national struggle, but a proletarian international struggle. Only by liquidating the root of imperialism—capitalism—will a truly free country exist." To this end, he believed the Cuban revolution should utilize internal class contradictions to launch a proletarian revolution, overthrowing domestic imperialist, capitalist, and feudal forces in one stroke to finally establish a new Cuban socialist state.
In the second and third decades of the 20th century, Latin American Marxists such as Mariátegui and Mella opened up a bright future for the Latin Americanization of Marxism. However, after the successive deaths of these two thinkers, the process began to face internal and external dilemmas, forcing it to struggle forward against dogmatism. Internally, some so-called "Orthodox Marxists" dogmatized the instructions of the Comintern, questioning the feasibility of the localization programs of Mariátegui and others, labeling them as "heretics." Externally, after World War I, the United States intensified its scramble for interests in Latin America, while the Soviet Union, to contend with U.S. imperialism, sought to mobilize the Latin American proletariat for revolution. In this context, the heavy responsibility for the Latin Americanization of Marxism fell upon an outsider, Victorio Codovilla. An Italian, Codovilla joined the Italian Socialist Party in 1911 and joined the Argentine Socialist Party after going into exile in Argentina in 1912, quickly becoming a leader of the party’s left wing. In 1917, he founded the first Marxist newspaper for Argentina, La Internacional. In 1918, the left wing of the Argentine Socialist Party broke with the right, leading to the establishment of the first Communist organization in Latin America—the International Socialist Party of Argentina. In 1920, it was renamed the Communist Party of Argentina, and Codovilla was appointed to important positions due to his outstanding performance and ability, becoming the head of the South American Secretariat of the Comintern. Thereafter, he played the role of a vanguard of Latin American anti-imperialism while influencing Soviet policy toward all of Latin America with his insights on the Latin Americanization of Marxism. In 1928, at the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, the "discovery of America" became an important agenda item. However, the "Third Period" theory [3] proposed at this meeting was completely divorced from the revolutionary realities of Asian, African, and Latin American countries. This theory held that capitalism had entered a period of total collapse, thereby putting the task of the proletariat seizing power on the immediate agenda. This resulted in misleading national communist movements and leading them into difficulties. Subsequently, due to the outbreak of WWII and the U.S.–Soviet hegemony, the Latin American communist movement was required to yield to Soviet interests and was influenced by Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Browderism [4]; dogmatism prevailed, and the process of the Latin Americanization of Marxism consequently stagnated for over 30 years.
By the 1950s, within the international environment of US-Soviet hegemony, Soviet leaders began advocating for a policy of peaceful transition to socialism, suggesting that Latin American Communist Parties should take power through elections. This led most Latin American Communist Parties to blindly trust in the inclusiveness of the capitalist system. Consequently, the exploration of the Sinicization of Marxism in Latin America shifted toward social reformism, giving rise to localized socialist practices such as "military socialism" and "cooperative socialism." Vicente Lombardo Toledano, the founder of the Popular Socialist Party of Mexico, integrated Marxism with indigenous Mexican revolutionary thought during his leadership of the Mexican labor movement, proposing a vision of socialist reform through cooperation with the government. To this end, he established the Confederation of Mexican Workers in 1936 and applied the historical materialist [5] perspective to analyze the defects of capitalist society. He called for the "unification of different class interests and full cooperation to support national industrialization," attempting to continuously improve the living standards of the Latin American grassroots through industrial innovation. Furthermore, he advocated for Marxism as the guiding educational principle for university reform in Mexico.
III. After 1960: Pluralistic Explorations of the Integration of Latin American Marxism with Local Realities
The victory of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, alongside the exploration of national paths by socialist countries such as China, transformed the long-standing Soviet influence over Latin America. This pushed the Sinicization of Marxism in Latin America toward an open developmental path, rekindling hope for the indigenous development of Latin American Marxism. Politically, various Latin American countries followed the example of the Cuban Revolution and promoted socialism. Economically, the Marxist "Dependency Theory" was born in Latin American to explain and resolve the issue of imbalanced economic development. Culturally, enlightenment movements such as Liberation Theology, Liberation Philosophy, and Liberation Pedagogy strengthened the subjectivity of the Latin American masses, enabling them to break free from the spiritual enslavement of Western capitalism.
(i) The Rise of Castroism and Guevaraism
The Cuban Revolution served as a model for socialist revolution in Latin America. It not only cleared the obstacles for establishing the first socialist state in the Western Hemisphere but also stimulated a broad awakening among the Latin American grassroots. The guerrilla warfare led by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara thoroughly defeated the regime of Fulgencio Batista, the dictator supported by the United States, creating a "myth" of the Latin American proletariat defeating US imperialism through guerrilla tactics. This also gave rise to the far-reaching "Castroism" and "Guevaraism." Castro once mapped out a struggle plan for Latin American revolutionaries: strengthening Party leadership, relying on revolutionary intellectuals, uniting workers and peasants, exerting a dynamic revolutionary spirit, adopting guerrilla warfare to wear down the enemy's will, and striking enemies from all sides. Since the victory of the Cuban Revolution, under the guidance of Castroism, Cuba has unswervingly adhered to the socialist road for over 60 years, advocating for social justice, people's democracy, and Latin American solidarity. Thus, it can be said that Castroism was a turning point in the Sinicization of Marxism in Latin America.
If Castro's contribution to the Sinicization of Marxism in Latin America focused primarily on the revolutionary and political spheres, Guevara's spirit penetrated the socio-cultural sphere and became a symbol of Western left-wing movements. Guevara believed the key to the victory of the Cuban Revolution lay in guerrilla warfare, and Guevaraism became synonymous with "focalism" (guerrilla-centrism). After Cuba established its socialist system, Guevara proposed the theory of the socialist "New Man." He pointed out that measures such as economic systems, political rights, and cultural education would guarantee that Cubans obtained entirely new material and spiritual armor, becoming "New Men" through active interaction with society rather than "alienated men" in a capitalist society. As a state leader once responsible for Cuba's economic construction, Guevara resolutely opposed dogmatism in both theory and practice. He believed that Marxism is inherently open and must respond to new problems with "intellectual audacity," rather than becoming "cold scholasticism" or a defensive ideology. Therefore, it was Guevara who inaugurated the open process of the Sinicization of Marxism in Latin America.
(ii) The Formation of Dependency Theory and Liberation Philosophy
In the late 20th century, the political practice of Latin American socialism encountered numerous difficulties. In the 1970s, the government of Salvador Guillermo Allende in Chile was overthrown, signaling the failure of the "Allende Socialist" proposal for a peaceful transition to socialism. The Sandinista National Liberation Front, which took power in Nicaragua in 1979, lost the 1990 elections and became an opposition party. The "Shining Path," which split from the Communist Party of Peru in the 1970s and was active in Peru during the 1980s, called for a "struggle to establish a regime truly belonging to the exploited classes," but was designated a terrorist organization in 1997, and its founder died in prison. In 1994, the Zapatista peasant uprising in Mexico, known as the "first shot against neoliberalism in the post-Cold War era," struggled to expand into a national revolution and was forced to sign a peace agreement with the government in 1996. Meanwhile, the United States imposed a blockade on Cuba for over 50 years, causing it to face unprecedented economic difficulties. To prevent the emergence of a "second Cuba" in Latin America, the United States exerted every effort to turn Latin America into its "backyard," continuously persecuting the Latin American left through military intervention and covert operations. Under these circumstances, Latin American Marxism resourcefully penetrated the economic and cultural spheres, creatively forming new achievements in the Sinicization of Marxism in Latin America: Dependency Theory and Liberation Philosophy.
In the mid-20th century, inspired by Marx's theory of surplus value, the dichotomous analytical framework, and the "metropolis-colony" concept, Argentine economist Raúl Prebisch constructed the "center-periphery" theory. Building upon this, Chilean scholar Enzo Faletto and Brazilian scholar and former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, among others, further developed the Marxist Dependency Theory. Dependency Theory posits that the capital-dominated world market has formed a developmental structure consisting of "great industrial centers" and "peripheral countries providing raw materials for the great industrial centers." Since the developed center countries dominate in terms of technology, manpower, and resources, a phenomenon occurs where they dominate and exploit the backward peripheral countries, thereby forming an economic dependency relationship between the two. This economic dependency also brings about dependency in political and cultural fields. For developing countries to achieve development, they must break free from reliance on Western countries and prevent the invasion of Western countries in economic, technological, ideological, and cultural domains. In response, the radical dependency school, represented by André Gunder Frank, one of the founders of World-Systems Theory, argued that only through revolution could peripheral countries completely escape the historical fate of being exploited. Conversely, the reformist dependency school, represented by the famous Brazilian economist Celso Furtado, believed that center countries do not want to lose the cooperation of peripheral countries; thus, peripheral countries should rely on strong governments to maintain a relationship of equality, autonomy, and mutually beneficial development through negotiations or by establishing organizations. Dependency Theory organically integrates Marxism with economic nationalism, drawing on Marx and Lenin's analysis of the capitalist mode of production in terms of methodology and theoretical origins, while prioritizing the development of the national economy. This expanded the research within Marxist political economy regarding how colonial countries develop their economies. The emergence of Marxist Dependency Theory made the question of how Latin American countries could escape dependency on Western countries in economic, political, and cultural spheres a trend in the second half of the 20th century, marking the collective awakening of the Latin American nation. Therefore, Dependency Theory is also known as the political economy of colonial countries or the Third World.
Accompanying Dependency Theory were Liberation Theology, Liberation Philosophy, and Liberation Pedagogy, which possess distinct Latin American characteristics. In the 1970s, some Latin American philosophers, represented by Leopoldo Zea, took the lead in challenging Western philosophy and attempted to construct a "Third World" philosophy. Zea argued: "Philosophy is awareness; it is the realization of the state of dependency and the status of being oppressed; it is awakening to strive for liberation. Philosophy is no longer a plan, but an attitude—an attitude used to establish liberation philosophy and a non-alienated philosophy. This philosophy must liberate itself from European philosophy in a critical manner." Subsequently, a large number of indigenous philosophers based in the "Third World" and their liberation philosophies emerged in Latin America. For instance, Enrique Dussel's construction of the "liberation of the Other" in liberation ethics; Arturo Ardao’s discussion on the "westward shift" of the center of world culture; Augusto Salazar Bondy’s critique of Western capitalist culture as the "culture of the dominators"; and Francisco Miró Quesada’s discourse on "humanism in a concrete environment," among others. In short, Latin American liberation philosophers attempted to break free from political, economic, and cultural dependency on Euro-American capitalism by restoring indigenous culture and subjecting the spiritual world of Latin Americans to a "baptism." This reflected the theoretical elevation of Latin American Marxism in the 1970s and 1980s, fully demonstrating the conviction of the Latin American people to no longer submit to Western powers and their desire to step into the 21st century with an independent and autonomous posture.
(iii) The "Update" Practice of Cuban Socialism and Chavez's "21st Century Socialism" Strategy
The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe posed severe tests for the world communist movement. Latin American Communist Parties also made strategic adjustments after experiencing the shifting tides of the 20th-century world communist movement. At that time, many people thought that Cuba's days were numbered after losing Soviet support, but it moved into the 21st century by virtue of "Cubanized" socialist reforms and proposed "updating" the Cuban socialist model. Its main thrust involved "structural change" and "conceptual innovation" in the economic and political spheres to change the dependent economic development model, strengthen ties with other Latin American countries, emphasize efficiency while adhering to fairness and justice, reform the heavy bureaucracy, and promote a spirit of criticism and innovation while opposing rigidity and dogmatism. Cuba's "updating" of socialist practice ultimately allowed it to peacefully pass through the "Special Period." [6]
Meanwhile, in 1999, the Communist Party of Venezuela united with domestic left-wing parties to form the "United Socialist Party" and elected Hugo Chávez to power, which was seen as a sign of the revival of Latin American socialism. Represented by the "21st Century Socialism" strategy proposed by Chávez, a "Pink Tide" swept through Latin America: after being elected President, Rafael Correa proposed the construction of "21st Century Socialism" in Ecuador; Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, proposed the value concepts of "Indo-American Socialism" and "Socialism for Good Living" (Buen Vivir); Brazil's first female president, Dilma Rousseff, inherited the "Labor Socialism" theory of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Left-wing parties in countries like Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay also launched moderate socialist reforms after taking office. They held high the banner of "Latin American 21st Century Socialism," showing unprecedented concern for national identity. They proposed socialist concepts with national colors—such as indigenous national identity, the principle of "Good Living," balance, and cosmic values—and pursued practical systems that reflect multi-ethnic political structures, protected the rights and interests of indigenous peoples, and unearthed the social values of indigenous nations. They continuously drew inspiration from socialist thought and focused on the experience of "maintaining our own subjectivity while making foreign things serve us" when looking at advanced foreign construction models. Chávez pointed out: "We must reinvent socialism, but it is not the Soviet socialism we saw." Correa also noted: "Traditional socialism had a fixed model, and dogmatism was a flaw of traditional socialism. We cannot set a model for the new socialism; instead, we must formulate a set of realistic solutions based on the actual conditions of each country's people."
In summary, since the second half of the 20th century, the Sinicization of Marxism in Latin America has continuously deepened. After experiencing various political, economic, and cultural theoretical and practical explorations of socialism, the Sinicization of Marxism in Latin America has adopted a new posture. By utilizing the guerrilla tactics of proletarian revolution and extending socialism across the American continent, it has achieved a landmark success for Latin Americanized Marxism. As the fruits of the Sinicization of Marxism in Latin America—such as Liberation Theology, Liberation Philosophy, and Dependency Theory—have penetrated the political, economic, and cultural spheres, the Latin American masses have begun to view Marxism with a more rational and mature mindset. Although Latin American "21st Century Socialism" still has various shortcomings, in the process of exploring a Latin American path of development and integrating Marxism with local realities, Latin American Marxism increasingly demonstrates national colors as well as flexible, open, and diverse characteristics.
IV. The Internal Dilemmas and the Way Forward for the Sinicization of Marxism in Latin America
While the Latin Americanization of Marxism has achieved fruitful results, it still faces numerous problems in both theory and practice.
From a theoretical perspective: First, most Latin American countries were influenced by Trotskyism, Stalinism, and Browderism [7], which to a certain extent delayed the process of the Latin Americanization of Marxism and dissipated the strength of indigenous Marxist exploration. This caused Latin American Marxist practice to fail to achieve a breakthrough similar to that of socialism with Chinese characteristics, instead repeatedly falling into disputes over differing opinions. Second, some Latin American intellectuals, influenced by local culture or "Latin American exceptionalism," saw only partial conclusions of Marxism. They superficially drew inspiration from certain theoretical expressions but ignored the methodological significance of Marxism and failed to elevate Marxism into an ideology. Consequently, they could not achieve ideological unity, thereby affecting the development of socialist practice. Third, some Latin American Marxists either treated the instructions of the Comintern and the Soviet Union, as well as the successful experience of the Cuban Revolution, as infallible dogmas [8], or they simply shouted "famous quotes" from Latin American revolutionary leaders like Guevara, Castro, and Mariátegui. They failed to recognize that "the concrete analysis of concrete conditions is the living soul of Marxism." They lacked a profound understanding that the key to the Latin Americanization of Marxism lies in using Marxist methodology to analyze the realistic problems of Latin American countries in various periods and formulating corresponding strategies and tactics.
From a practical perspective: After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, the revolutionary will of Latin American Communist Parties—as representatives of the Latin Americanization of Marxism—was impacted, falling into ideological and organizational chaos. A large number of Communists lost confidence in socialism. Since entering the new century, most Latin American Communist Parties have found it difficult to take power and govern, serving only as participating parties in government or as opposition parties; this makes it difficult for socialist concepts and goals to be reflected in national policies. Many Communist Parties in Latin American countries even turned into Social Democratic parties. Although the vast majority of Latin American Social Democratic parties lean left politically and later established the "Socialist International" [9] in an attempt to unite and plan for the future development of Latin America, generally speaking, the socialist movement in the Latin American region has fallen into a low ebb. Therefore, how to respond to reality, enhance the Party's influence, win the recognition of the masses, and gain a majority of seats in elections has become a major issue that communists in Latin American countries urgently need to solve.
Based on the above analysis and reflecting on the process of the Latin Americanization of Marxism and its practical gains and losses, we believe that the development of the Latin Americanization of Marxism depends on a profound understanding and grasp of the following points:
First, one must profoundly understand the totality of Marxism and resolutely oppose attempts to separate socialism from Marxism. Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism constitute an organic whole. Any attempt to sever the three will lead to failure in practice; socialism without Marxism is not true socialism. Although many countries since the 20th century have proposed socialist goals—such as Nasser's socialism in Arab countries, communal socialism in Africa, Liberation Theology socialism in Latin America, and democratic socialism in Western Europe—these various forms of socialism all detached themselves from the guidance of Marxist theory. In particular, they detached themselves from the soul of socialism—historical materialism—thereby erasing the scientific nature of socialism. History to date has proven that so-called REFORMIST Marxism or REFORMIST socialism cannot succeed. Only under the guidance of Marxist historical materialism can socialist revolution and construction move step-by-step toward victory.
Second, the local indigenous people and their traditional culture constitute the profound foundation for the Latin Americanization of Marxism. Latin American indigenous peoples are at the lowest level of society in political, economic, social, and cultural aspects. They are the most important force for social change in Latin America, yet their weak material and cultural foundations make it difficult for them to shoulder the heavy responsibility of revolution alone. Therefore, the Latin American revolution must unite the local indigenous and Indian peoples, improve their economic base, political rights, and social status, cultivate their subjective consciousness, and enhance national cohesion. As Mariátegui pointed out: "One of the main roots of our socialist movement can be found in the socialism of our indigenous peoples." The implication is that without the participation of the indigenous masses, Latin American socialism has no future.
Third, Party building is the key to the success of the practice of the Latin Americanization of Marxism. In order to develop Latin American Marxism and consolidate Latin American socialism, it is necessary to build a political party capable of uniting the broad masses at the grassroots. History is the best textbook. The "Pink Tide" in Latin American countries at the beginning of the 21st century benefited precisely from this, when there were more than 20 Communist Parties in the entire Latin American region. Currently, although the Latin American Left has obvious differences of opinion on some theoretical and practical issues, the fundamental outlook remains positive, and its strong resilience has not changed. As long as Latin American Communist Parties can represent the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, serve the people whole-heartedly, propose administrative programs that serve the majority, and always adhere to Marxism as guidance—unifying the ideology of the whole society, resisting external interference, taking a clear-cut stand against erroneous ideas and political views that do not conform to the interests of the people, and winning the support of the vast majority of the masses—they can achieve the goals of national prosperity and common prosperity.
Fourth, Latin American Communists must face the historical experience of the Latin Americanization of Marxism and deeply study and explore socialism with Latin American characteristics. Lenin once pointed out: "Since socialism has become a science, it demands that it be treated as a science, that is, that it be studied. The increasingly clear consciousness thus acquired must be spread among the masses of the workers with redoubled zeal." Latin American Communist Parties should, according to their national conditions, deeply study the various stages and specific tasks of the socialist road, formulate corresponding principles and strategies, and promote the indigenization, nationalization, and modernization [10] of Marxism on the basis of constantly reflecting on historical experiences and lessons. Today, Latin American Communists are still inspired by the spirit of early Marxists such as Mariátegui, Mella, and Recabarren, constantly drawing theoretical nourishment from them and tirelessly exploring the road of Latin American socialism. This is a difficult process, but the future is bright.