Lesser Spotted Comrades - Jose Carlos Mariátegui
by Diarmuid Flood
It is in some ways a disservice to cast one of Latin America’s most influential Marxists as a ‘Lesser Spotted Comrade’, however this can be applied in the sense that the contributions of Jose Carlos Mariátegui remain unknown for many socialists outside the continent from which he emerged. On his death the liberal political commentator Waldo Frank remarked;
“Mariátegui has died… These words suffice to plunge the intelligentsia of all Latin-America into sorrow; nothing could be more eloquent of the cultural separation between the two halves of the world than the fact that to most of us these words convey no meaning.”
This piece should stand as a minor attempt to reverse this unfortunate reality.
Early Life
Mariátegui was born in Moquegua, Peru, in 1894. He suffered health issues throughout his life and was crippled in one leg from a young age. He began work as a printers' assistant in 1909 and before long moved into a role as a journalist. A declared socialist by his early twenties, his writing displayed a clear pro-labour perspective. He would later remark that these early unpolished writings represented his ‘stone age’. After a wave of strikes in 1919 he and several other young writers were sent to Europe on a grant intended to remove their influence from Peru and cause them to be ‘civilised’.
However, having passed through Germany during the Spartacist Revolution, and after spending three years in Italy, Mariátegui returned to Peru in 1923 declaring himself ‘a convinced and committed Marxist’. Once he arrived he began giving lectures in the University of Lima and set about sketching out his perspective for how socialist change could take place in Latin America. At this point Mariátegui’s illnesses had worsened and he had to have his leg amputated in 1924. This did not put a stop to his agitation but instead intensified it.
Return to Peru
After returning from Europe, Mariátegui began to consider how the Marxist method could be applied to the realities of Latin America. He analysed that although 100 years prior these states had achieved formal political independence, imperial powers - first Britain and then the United States - controlled their economies and continued to determine the political, social, and economic possibilities. The majority of the population in Peru were indigenous communities operating under semi-feudal conditions and struggling against a brutal landowning class (‘gomonales’) upheld by these same imperial interests. Similar to other theorists, Mariátegui outlined how Peru had developed in an uneven manner due to the penetration of imperialism - meaning that some sectors of society had taken on advanced capitalist production processes while feudal relations persisted between these communities and landlords.
“The economic condition of these republics is undoubtedly semi-colonial, and this characteristic of their economies tends to be accentuated as capitalism, and therefore imperialist penetration, develops.”
In this context he began to consider who were to be the subjects of the Peruvian revolution. He outlined that the native bourgeoisie lacked revolutionary potential as they were enmeshed in the system set up by imperialism.
“...the national bourgeoisies, who see cooperation with imperialism as their best source of profits, feel themselves secure enough as mistresses of power not to be too greatly preoccupied with national sovereignty.”
The task of national liberation and socialist transformation therefore fell to a united front between indigenous communities and the emerging working class. He sought to develop links between these groups and this formed the basis for his theoretical journal Amauta.
In 1928, Mariátegui founded the Peruvian Socialist Party, becoming its general secretary. It was in this period he also produced his magnum opus - Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality. These essays explored the economic development of Peru, the nature of indigenous communities, the land system, the influence of religion, public education, and literature. In his examination of indigenous communities, he noted appreciation for collective forms of ownership persisted due to the long standing system of communal social organisation in Incan culture called the ayllu. He also identified that the issues faced by indigenous communities were rooted in their socio-economic conditions;
“The socialist critic exposes and defines the problem… in the country’s economy and not in its administrative, legal, or ecclesiastic machinery, its racial dualism or pluralism, or its cultural or moral conditions. The problem of the Indian is rooted in the land tenure system of our economy. Any attempt to solve it with administrative or police measures, through education or by a road building program, is superficial and secondary as long as the feudalism of the gamonales continues to exist.”
While a clear outline of the deep insights made in these essays cannot be given in this article, the analysis stood far ahead of much of the Marxist movement of the time and still holds immense value.
Death and Legacy
Unfortunately due to worsening health complications, Mariátegui died on April 16th 1930 at the age of 35. His colossal contribution to the Marxist movement is even more remarkable given his short life. Brazilian Marxist Michael Löwy has stated that Mariátegui is ‘undoubtedly the most vigorous and original Marxist thinker that Latin America has ever known’. It is abundantly clear that this status as an innovative thinker should stand not just in the context of Latin America but for the Marxist movement as a whole.
Article originally published in Issue 9 of Rupture Magazine. Subscribe or purchase previous issues here.