Reflections

Context

In the early twentieth-century, nearly one hundred years after they had won their independence, Peruvians still found that they were subservient to foreign interests. Their colonial overlords in Spain had been replaced, first by the British Empire and increasingly by the United States (Chasteen 216). The latter nation had combined a desire to “civilize” Latin Americans with their own, more openly selfish desires of influence and wealth to serve as justification for their continually increasing influence in Latin America in the 1910’s and 1920’s (Chasteen 220). One country that faced this influence was Peru, whose leader Augusto B. Leguía was a dictator who favored the United States. Leguía was sharply criticized by nationalists and socialists alike, most prominently Victor Raúl Haya de la Torre (Chasteen 246). However, another figure, José Carlos Mariátegui, was a quieter voice, though no less important, in criticizing the society and government of Peru. Though American influence was not felt in Peru as strongly as it was in Central America or the Caribbean, Mariátegui, like many other Peruvians at the time, believed that his people had to combat the American imperialism that dominated their lives. In his view, this would have to be done in a way that reconciled the different historical legacies in Peru, while also carefully balancing revolution and tradition.

Summary

The reflections of José Carlos Mariátegui in this source are comprised of three main sections. Mariátegui, a socialist who separated himself from fellow leftists such as de la Torre through his views on class and imperialism, decides to discuss the issue of tradition before tackling the class issue. On the subject of tradition, Mariátegui believes that there is a place for Spanish, Incan, and African traditions within Peruvian society, as all played a part in developing the culture. He urges that Peru should refrain from going too far to one side or the other, nothing that the idea of Incans as completely pre-historic and irrelevant, and on the other hand, a view that marginalizes Spanish influence, are both wrong. For Mariátegui, revolution and tradition can be reconciled, and the three traditions of Peru must be reconciled in order to have a rich and functioning society (Starn 241).

The next subject that Mariátegui discusses is that of myths. For him, mythology is necessary for a sense of meaning, and the recent advances in science have taken away this sense. Mariátegui further argues that the bourgeoise lack their own myth, hence explaining their current crisis. By contrast, the proletariat can look to social revolution as their myth, and this positive vision for the future through myth is what gives revolution its strength, for Mariátegui (Starn 242). The belief is that revolutionary spirit is in fact a religious spirit, and that this faith or myth of revolution is necessary for the new age.

Finally, Mariátegui discusses the issue of anti-imperialism. While he agrees with other socialists in the belief that capitalism and imperialism are fundamentally intertwined, it is in fact this belief that he uses to explain why he does not share the class-unifying views of Victor Raúl Haya de la Torre. Instead, Mariátegui believes that the Creole elite looks down on Peruvian national traditions, and would sooner associate themselves with the foreign imperialists who are responsible for their wealth than side with the masses. For Mariátegui, anti-imperialism by itself cannot be the basis of revolution. If the social classes of Peru united, he argues that the petty bourgeoise would simply take over the state and continue to oppress the masses, just as the foreigners had helped them to do (Starn 243). Instead, in his view, it would be necessary to launch a socialist revolution if the Peruvian people wished to be rid of imperialism forever. Only this sort of revolution could annihilate class divisions and deliver Peru to the masses, something he believes is the case for Europe as well. That Mariátegui emphasizes his willingness to stand with European revolutionaries shows that he is committed to revolution first and foremost, and that he supports it around the world (Starn 244).

Conclusion

The connections of Mariátegui’s writings here to similar thought in the period are numerous. Mariátegui, though he is somewhat unique for the time in his view that socialism must be much more than nationalism, still has many folks who would agree with his views. In Peru, socialist movements rose to challenge the existing order, showing a common exhaustion with neocolonialism. Further, it is his uncompromising belief in revolution that was emulated by later thinkers such as Che Guevara. The idea that the Peruvian elite were tied to foreign elites is nothing new either; such thinking was present as far back as the independence of Peru, when Creoles accused Peninsulares of being fundamentally tied to Spain. The history of Peru has been infused with struggles between foreign-influenced elites and the masses, but it is rare that a thinker like Mariátegui so strongly insists that the masses must lead the revolution, and that only this will lead to their victory.

Works Cited

Chasteen, John Charles. Born in Blood and Fire: a Concise History of Latin America. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2016.

José Carlos Mariátegui. “Reflections” in The Peru Reader: History, Culture, Politics. Edited by Orin Starn, Carlos Iván Degregori, and Robin Kirk. Durham: Duke University Press, 2005.

By Matthew Akins