(Draft translation)
A little over three months ago we had the opportunity to speak at this self-same place. On that occasion we spoke about the problem of education and we stated some ideas which over time we had acquired in that epoch. The last time I spoke from this spot was for me a wonderful experience. Today I have a new opportunity to speak, but the circumstances are somewhat different. We are going to speak about José Carlos Mariátegui, of the validity of his thought, and this task which has been entrusted to me is not simple, much less for me. We believe that in the first place we must approach Mariátegui with respect. In the second place, we must approach him from a clear and precise class position, because it is in no way possible to understand the richness and validity of his thought by any other approach. It is clear that although Mariátegui has been physically dead for many years, his thought remains profoundly alive as it was in the 1930s; it continues to be forceful, it remains relevant and continues to be a perspective for Peru, while other thoughts of people who are still alive are essentially dead.
In more or less an hour it is somewhat difficult to embrace all of
Mariátegui's thought; for this reason we wish to refer to certain
very concrete problems and outline what we should do before the figure of
this great Peruvian. In the first place we to look at the figure of
Mariátegui as a proletarian intellectual. We are not going to go into
dates nor into great details which are of no interest now, but into central
problems presented by the relevance of the thought of José Carlos
Mariátegui.
A great deal has been written about Mariátegui, after having tried to bury him with silence. It is clear that Mariátegui is being greatly extolled to also mystify him, and some try to systematically distort Mariátegui; he is treated with the senseless pedantry of "surpassing" him. Of Mariátegui it has been said in the first place that he was not a convinced nor confessed Marxist, that he was a thinker whose thought was not based on a Marxist-Leninist backbone.
Mariátegui himself admitted that he was a convinced and confessed Marxist, fearlessly, precisely and with clarity. What does this mean? It tells us that Mariátegui had a proletarian class position, and that he was simply, concretely and in an all-round way on the side of the exploited. Mariátegui felt in his own flesh and blood what the exploited masses of our country felt, and what he felt he translated, during what was unfortunately for us his short life, into concrete actions and written words. Furthermore, Mariátegui had a world view, an ideology, and the ideology he expressed in many works was Marxism-Leninism: Mariátegui conceived of, assisted in and his point of departure was the contemporary world. It is not possible to understand things, it is not possible to understand society, the world, if one's point of departure is not the ideological conception of the proletariat. Mariátegui was a Marxist-Leninist. If we go to his works, his writings, Mariátegui tells us that in the current century, in the 1920s, that Leninism is the new form, the highest which Marxism had reached in this epoch. Mariátegui thus found his affiliation with Marx and Lenin and for his reason described himself as a convinced and confessed Marxist-Leninist. In the third place, Mariátegui a method of work, a method of analysis, an irreplaceable method to comprehend anything. Mariátegui's point of departure was dialectical materialism, and his works are an irrefutable proof of this. The first question which must be made clear, as we said, is the proletarian position of Mariátegui, the Marxist-Leninist ideology which nourished him and the method of dialectical materialism which guided him. On these three bases it is feasible to understand the figure of José Carlos Mariátegui: he who does not wish to understand this, cannot understand Mariátegui and will never understand him, no matter how bright or intelligent, because he is not on the same side, lacks the same light in his mind, and does not have the same method. This should be made absolutely clear. We must proceed from facts, proceed from Mariátegui's class position, depart from his Marxist-Leninist ideology and we consequently must also depart, clearly, from his method: dialectical materialism. Whoever does not focus Mariátegui within these three points of view will be unable to understand him, will not understand his thought and will distort it, in some cases in good faith, but in the majority of cases of the paid pen-pushers, out of bad faith.
Mariátegui was a great Latin American Marxist-Leninist and of this we should be proud. In Latin America there is no Marxist-Leninist who can be compared to him in any way; truly José Carlos Mariátegui is a peak in Latin American Marxist-Leninist thought, and a peak which has passed the test of time.
JCP is appreciated more outside of our borders. Here in our country he is liked less, and even known less, which is a disgrace. Mariátegui is therefore a great Marxist-Leninist of our nation to our honor and of the honor of the exploited of our people, not for the others. For the others he is dagger nailed in the heart which they cannot remove and will never be able to remove.
Mariátegui is no mere repeater, familiar with four or five formulas, but has something more, something more profound, something more Marxist. He takes Marxism-Leninism and introduces it to and bases it on our reality, he places it in our nation, he embodies it on our ground, and in embodying it, in introducing it, in placing Marxism in our nation, he enlightens us with a thought which still remains in force. The interpretation which Mariátegui made of our country in the famous Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality continue to be an unyielding document.
In Mariátegui we see the grasp he had, the Marxist and ingenious grasp
of being able to found the universal reality of Marxism-Leninism with the
concrete forcefulness of our revolutionary prophet. This is something few
people have, and this is something Mariátegui had in excess and in
greatness, and this should be recognized, whosoever doesn't recognize this
cannot understand the development of Marxist ideas in our country, and whosoever
doesn't understand the development of Marxist ideas in our country cannot
understand what is happening in Peru, much less call themselves a revolutionary.
This is clear. Lamentably, there are revolutionaries here and there who know
Mariátegui's thought, and further, are afraid of it, a just fear,
because it is a good touchstone to see who is and who is not. They have good
reason to fear Mariátegui. Thus, Mariátegui's Seven
Essays continue to be something fundamental to Peruvian thought. Clearly,
Mariátegui has made seven masterful interpretations of Peruvian reality
from the Marxist viewpoint and from the only correct and exact viewpoint.
Against this little book, talented and well-versed scholars of the opposite
position, of the reactionary position of Mr. Víctor Andrés
Belaúnde, have launched themselves, but they have failed.
Mariátegui's little book still lives, while very few people now read Mr. Víctor Andrés Belaúnde's book, and it is read out of historical curiosity. Thus, our point of departure should be what Mariátegui tells us in that little book, in that slim volume which is a popular vision in our country. Mariátegui makes an analysis of our economy, which is the capital or fundament point. It is impossible to understand a society if we do not understand it economic structure, if we don't understand the social relations of exploitation which make up the social economy, the political economy. Anything else is a deformity. What does he say about Peru? He characterizes it very concretely: Peru is a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country and he proves this and shows this in his outline of the economic process of our country. Mariátegui makes a sketch of the classes in Peru and of their historical evolution, he speaks to us with other words which today Marxist thought in Peru continues to develop with the thought of Mao.
Thus, Mariátegui not only sketches the relations of exploitation in our country, he not only sketches the classes, he also makes a sketch of the evolution of ideas in Peru, talking, for example, about the literary question, something which we should study thoroughly in order to understand how literature has evolved in Peru, how it has always had a clearly class character. Mariátegui makes a fusion of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete reality of our country and consequently emerges as the best and most profound, the most regal analysis of the analyses of Peruvian reality, and it is this analysis which should serve as the foundation to follow on the theoretical path which he masterfully initiated. No one who has sought to refute Mariátegui's fundamental ideas has succeeded, they have only made elementary outlines, but have not been able to make the edifice which he built so quickly and at such an early age.
Much has been said about how the Seven Essays are simply the work of a journalist, in derogatory tones. One gentleman, whose name sullies the mouth by uttering it, that fellow Ravines [the revisionist who usurped the leadership of the PCP after Mariátegui's death -- Trans.], said that what should we think of Mariátegui, we talk so much about Mariátegui when Mariátegui was a superficial man, a journalist. This fellow has not understood anything about Mariátegui; naturally, what is he going to understand since he is one of those fellows who, wearing one jersey, took it off and went over to the opposing team.
They lack both the proletarian conception and M's method, so the jersey is useless to them, because with time and sunlight things lose their color and become yellow.
Therefore, the problem is not the external, but these three little things, these little words, three basic things about Mariátegui: his class position, his ideology and his method. Whoever puts himself on the side of the proletariat, the peasantry and the exploiting classes in our country will have the aptitude to understand Mariátegui, while whoever does not have this attitude, this class position, who has one foot on the side of the exploited and the other foot on the side of the exploiters, who is prudently on the side of the exploited but whose heart is with the exploiters, will be unable to understand him. For this reason there are so many drooling midgets out there, but their spittle doesn't even reach the floor which Mariátegui walked on over 30 years ago.
We would like to make a point which cannot be separated from the above, they are united like the faces of a page or this paper are united, two inseparable sides. I refer to the question of Mariátegui as a proletarian combatant, a great figure, extraordinary thinker and also an extraordinary organizer, and the first militant Marxist combatant of our country. We should also make this very clear.
Sir José Carlos Mariátegui came to our country from Europe, bringing new ideas and a task, a mission: to work for the formation of socialism in Peru, this was his mission and he carried it out, he worked for this, lived for this, longed for this and died for this, and always remained invincible, with his spine upright without accommodating flexibilities. When one studies a little, one finds a work plan in Mariátegui for a type of organizational development for the proletariat of our country. In the first place, he carries out preparatory work for the labor union, showing himself to be a creator of class trade unionism. There had already been union struggles in the country, but Mariátegui lays the bases for proletarian syndicalism; Mariátegui is the creator of the General Confederation of Workers in Peru. The CGTP [Spanish abbrev. -- Trans.] is principally the handiwork of Mariátegui, he was its ideologue, its mentor, it was he who constituted it organically and who created its foundations and constitutional charters.
One of the first organizations that the proletariat needs is the structuring of a central union. Mariátegui understood this perfectly, but not only did he understand it, because Mariátegui was not the type of person who was satisfied with understanding things, then sat around contemplating his lucidity and enlightenment, but who felt the necessity of completing the task which this understanding demanded of him. He carries out preparatory work for the constitution of the CGTP. Any institution has two constituent parts, two elements which make up any organization or institution. First, an ideological part, that is, the mobilization of ideas, the formation of a program, the constitution of points of unity, the appraisal of statutes, etc., and a second part, the constitution of the organic apparatuses in the strict sense. Mariátegui understood this profoundly and ingeniously, and following his Marxist outline, Mariátegui created the CGTP of our country.
Here is something extremely interesting: Mariátegui, in writing the statutes, make trade-unionist, classist, proletarian statutes which have yet to be realized. This is ironic, but more than irony it is proof of the disorientation imposed after him by certain elements in the midst of the union movement of our country. If you look at the statutes of the CGTP, in the first place who ill find a kind of prologue, what Mariátegui calls an orientation, which puts forward how the proletariat views the world of its day, how there is a struggle which cannot be kept hidden, a struggle which must at least be recognized, a struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, and proposes at the same time that there is a class ideology which must be followed in order to form a union organization. He expounds this clearly and in a precise language. What did Mariátegui do subsequently?
Mariátegui proposed the general bases for the organic constitution of that union organism, but he does not propose to such excessive detail that it will kill and destroy, but with general lines and basic points to permit the development and initiative of the people. We cannot tell people: when you go downhill start with your right foot. We must give them initiative, let them think with their own heads so they understand, so they learn and don't remain eternal children. He thought about the people, that they didn't need a kind of blind man's guide all the time because they weren't blind. Mariátegui understood this, for this reason he made general bases for organization. Also, when Mariátegui treats this question he refers to something formidable which is not found in any statute.
The only favorable difference in the union statutes is that the current ones are printed better.
Mariátegui immediately proposed the forms of struggle and talked about the strike. Why did Mariátegui put things this way? Because in the organizations we must also talk about the necessary forms of struggle, because according to what you hope to accomplish there is a form of struggle.
This is important to point out, because if you look at our country's newspapers, La Prensa for example, maintains that the strike is a bad method, inadequate, that it is a method of extremist agitators. La Prensa wishes to domesticate the proletariat in the sense that it should not go towards striking but parliamentarism and compromise, they want the robbed to sit down and discuss the things which the thief has taken. In every struggle it is fundamental, it is important to see the means of struggle, the forms of struggling, and the most basic and fundamental thing is the mobilization of the masses. The mobilization of the masses is holy for a simple reason, because through this practical mobilization the people begin to open their eyes and begin to understand and to free themselves from atavism and begins to generate those who must lead it. For this reason a mass mobilization is very good, and for this reason this fundamental point of the statutes of the CGTP is outstanding. But he doesn't only touch on this, Mariátegui also takes on the problem of propaganda and agitation. The people need their own mouth to day their own words, they don't need others to speak for them; the people won't speak in a flowery language, they won't know fine language, it may contain errors, but that is unimportant. What is important is that is say what it feels, what it sees, what it needs and consequently what it wants to the end, no matter the defeats, because all defeats that the people suffer are transitory, all of them, absolutely all of them. Mariátegui touches on this also and looking at the statutes he talks about propaganda and agitation. If we take a look at all this long period since the death of Mariátegui, we can see how this problem has not been understood, how thought has not been formed in Peru, how there have been struggles to create a proletarian press which does not exist in our country, we can understand how the reactionaries can scream at us every day, we have not found a daily press that can tell us the workers' words. We don't find it because the problem as Mariátegui proposed it has not been understood. Thus, if we make this small retelling of what is proposed in the statutes of the General Confederation of Peruvian Workers we can see the extraordinary capacity which Mariátegui had and his means of solving it. Mariátegui understood this problem perfectly, the problem that the people are invincible with the condition that they organize themselves. Lenin, extraordinary in every sense, said: "the people are invincible, but the people are invincible when they are organized in iron ranks, united on the same principles."
Here Mariátegui had explained how the people had to first specify its ideological and political position, and in the second place how it should forge its organic structure.
But Mariátegui not only occupied himself with the organization of the workers; the titanic labor of Mariátegui does not end here, he sees something else. He understands our country to the core and discovers that there is a peasantry in our country; but he not only sees them but he understands their role, he understands their historic destiny, what oppresses them. Mariátegui says that in Peru there are peasants who are crushed by the feudalism which oppresses them. This feudalism has two expressions: latifundio and servitude, this vile desire to exploit, to live off the work of others. Mariátegui understands this and explains the fundamental cause, this evil, its origin, its historical source which is feudalism which still supports our country. He says that our country is semi-feudal, that this is a mountain which is weighing on and doubling-over the Peruvian peasantry, that the problem of the Peruvian peasantry is the land question, and that the land question is the problem of conquering it. How do we conquer the land? Mariátegui says that we must organize the peasantry and he is the first who begins to work under a correct conception, to indefatigably fight from a proletarian viewpoint for the organization of the peasants. Mariátegui has a work which is rarely read, because some consider it not to be a scientific work but a political one. There are people who have a monumental short-sightedness. Mariátegui begins to see the peasantry and proposes organic forms and makes an analysis in his work Outline of the Indigenous Question, which was written by Mariátegui to present at an international meeting.
Mariátegui analyzed the situation of the peasantry in our country, and what interests us is that there he proposed the organic forms for the peasantry. Mariátegui says that we must form peasant unions, that we must form peasant leagues, thus proposing the organizational mobilization of the peasantry. Mariátegui understood that without organization the people are very weak and cannot fight. Nevertheless, he goes farther. He proposes that there is a necessity to build a worker-peasant alliance, that is, one of the principal fundamentals of any revolutionary process.
Mariátegui indicates this and more. He proposes two extraordinary things: referring to power, Lenin had said, "the question of revolution is the question of power." This is fundamental, everything points to the conquest of power, to retain it, or to maintain it. Some believe that Mariátegui was a humanist or a "humanistoid", a deformed bourgeois liberal. Mariátegui goes even further and says we must do something else in the organizational problem of the peasantry: we must seek to arm the peasantry, we must organize the armed force of the peasantry. Don't let anyone come and say that I am propitiating, I am talking about Mariátegui, Mariátegui proposed the arming of the peasantry as one of its necessary organizational forms. Not only did he propose this, he proposed that we must form soviets. This is extremely correct and applicable from A to Z, totally and absolutely beyond the margin of the petty fears we might have. This is how Mariátegui proposes things.
Mariátegui resolves the political problem of our country, knowing full well that the proletariat has its organic forms: unions, worker alliances, armed workers. Well then, Mariátegui knew that these three things which we are saying are nothing unless the brain that guides them exists. Mariátegui proposes the formation of the proletarian party and creates the party of the proletariat in our country. Anyone who studies the problem of ideas in Peru will have to recognize that. Carlos Tapia [a sociologist who now serves the Peruvian military as a Senderologist -- Trans.] goes around saying that Mariátegui didn't create the Communist Party of Peru, that Mariátegui created the Socialist Party, because Mariátegui was a man with a broad vision, with a wide spirit, Mariátegui wasn't sectarian, he wasn't narrow, he was very gentlemanly in his ideas. This appears to be a defense of Mariátegui but it is the worst insult which can be made to Mariátegui. Mariátegui would accept anything except this, because it is like saying "you were a bad man, and in the end you died when you were only 35 years old." There are defenders to whom we must say please don't defend us, because you're drowning me. That is what we must say to those "defenders of Mariátegui", who say that Mariátegui wasn't sectarian, that he was broad and democratic, so broad that he confused exploiters with the exploited. Mariátegui created the Communist Party, which was not called that in the beginning: it was called the Socialist Party. That's where they come from, and the aforementioned Mr. Ravines says with his trembling voice "we can prove this with documents and everything", that he created the Socialist Party and not the Communist Party. I created the Communist Party, says this wretch.
But this is false. True, Mariátegui created the Socialist Party, but affiliated with the Third International and subject to the principles expounded by Lenin in 1919. How can it be that Mariátegui creates a Socialist Party which is not Communist, but which is affiliated with the international? Where these ignoramuses who said this party is not Communist, yet it is? Mariátegui presents his constitutional letter, the moment of its birth. Mariátegui was there. Mariátegui also writes the program of the Communist Party. How can this be? He didn't found the Party, but he wrote the document; this means that the members of the International were fooled. He didn't found it, but he affiliated it with the International; he didn't found it, but he writes the constitutional letter. What we have here is a simple conspiracy to snatch away the immense figure of Mariátegui.
Mariátegui has given his life and he remained firm and complied with what he saw was his duty: to participate in the formation of Peruvian socialism. And he not only participated, he engendered it and from that moment on socialism in our nation has that shining affiliation. We are in a process of rediscovery of the figure of Mariátegui.
We wish to speak about Mariátegui's validity. First, we should talk about Mariátegui's enemies. As you already know, he died young, only 35 years old. His work remained to be done and he laid the foundations of his practical work. His work has had many vicissitudes: Open felonies, unconfessed betrayals, opportunists who wish to huddle in his shadow. He has also had -- and this is clear -- people who consequently have defended him and people who today wish to return to his figure, his source. With the death of Mariátegui, some elements, some fellows, some minor personalities whose names I don't even want to pronounce, rose up like standard bearers of Mariátegui in order to systematically disown his thought and to betray in action what they said received as a legacy. These supposed inheritors of Mariátegui, how did they work? What is their practice? By their deeds you shall know them, as they act now and as they act tomorrow and next year in 1969 even more so. In words they sing the praises of Mariátegui, they fill columns of their newspapers to render homage, they convoke multitudinous and popular pilgrimages to raise up the figure of Mariátegui. Behind the name of Mariátegui they wish to hide their shirking of duty which has now been carried on for many years in our nation, more than 30 years; they are old and proven in treachery. Is it possible to raise up and recognize Mariátegui without following his thought? How can there be followers of Mariátegui in any way who, differing with Aumata [a Quechua word which means teacher or wiseman, which became a nickname for Mariátegui -- Trans.] who held that the nation was semi-feudal and semi-colonial, shamelessly sustain that Peru is a dependant country? How can they be followers of Mariátegui? These people say, and it is written in their tracts, in their documents here and there, that the thought of Mariátegui is still relevant, it is still real, concrete, that the economic analysis of Mariátegui continues to be a reality in our country, but that Peruvian society is semi-feudal and dependant. Let us understand, what did Mariátegui say? Mariátegui says that Peru is a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country and that its semi-colonial condition will continue to aggravate and be hammered more to the extent that imperialism penetrates more. Let us ask a simple question: Has imperialism penetrated more since Mariátegui's time or not? The answer is: it has penetrated more. If imperialism has penetrated more, has what Mariátegui said come to pass or not? He said that to the extent that imperialism penetrates more, we will be even more semi-colonial and that we would be at risk of becoming a total colony, that is, of losing sovereignty in a definitive way. Mariátegui proposed, for example, a worker and peasant front. And what do these so-called successors preach? They preach about making a front with the bourgeoisie. So where are the workers and peasants? They are not there, except for a few they drag in by the ears to falsely represent the authentic workers and peasants of Peru. Mariátegui said that we must arm the peasants, the workers, that we must make soviets. And what do these so-called followers say? That we must go to elections, that we will seize power through elections. What kind of followers are these? I refer to Mariátegui's documents. Can these gentlemen call themselves followers of Mariátegui? No. They are the mummifiers of Mariátegui, the cremators of Mariátegui. They use a lot of incense to smudge the saint, to smear him so that he cannot be seen as he was and how he still is. So many pilgrimages, so much verbiage, so much elevation of his figure in order to prostitute his thought. So much talk of Mariátegui to negate his revolutionary version. Are they followers of Mariátegui? No. They are traffickers, enemies of Mariátegui, who seek to reduce the celebration of Mariátegui to a simple celebration of his death. This is very symptomatic. They celebrate the anniversary of his death because they are celebrating the fact that he died. Understand? Rather, we should be happy that he was born, we should not be celebrating the day that he died but the day that he was born, like the other great figures of the world. No one celebrates the day Lenin died, but everyone celebrates the day he was born. My their deeds we know them better. We should not accept this, we should combat all those who oppose Mariátegui, who negate him. But not only Mariátegui has this type of enemy.
He also has his underhanded enemies. There are people who go about saying: What year did Mariátegui write in? In 1928. Ah! they say, in 1928, more than 40 years ago. In 40 years the science of history has progressed in the world. The methods of investigation have progressed, the studies of Peruvian history have advanced in archeology, in the history of the republic, in the history of incanato, etc. They have advanced so much that they have "surpassed Mariátegui." The affiliation of these surpassers is the same affiliation of the surpassers of Marx. These "pocket surpassers" have not surpassed their own narrow gaze, they are liars, falsifiers, traffickers. Well then, what do these people do? They are crazy for accumulating data, that intellectual richness of the bourgeoisie. This is a bourgeois concept, to believe that the more data one has, the greater interpreter one is, that one has a greater comprehension of the national situation; it is absurd, a lie. That is not where the problem is, the entire problem is not in gathering data, we are more than just simple adding machines. The problem is one of interpretation, and Mariátegui used the title Seven Interpretive Essays, not "seven essays on accumulating data." And the problem of interpretation is the problem of class position, of the proletarian ideology and of the dialectical materialist method. What happens is that the surpassers have not yet understood the problem of understanding in the bourgeoisie and in the proletariat. These surpassers want to make a Marxist interpretation of Peru with the bourgeois conception in their heads. What is the result? A mess that even they don't understand, and they end up with ambiguities: "Peru is semi-capitalist, Peru is semi-colonial, Peru is neocolonial, Peru is semi-feudal, but at the same time it is capitalist." So what in the devil is Peru? The problem is that these people lack unity of thought, not because they are unintelligent, they may be very competent and mentally agile, but they lack a basis, like a building with a roof but which lacks a foundation; they lack a class position and for this reason they can't advance. They make digressions, grand interpretive schemes, lucid and brilliant schemes about a stage of the country or of current Peruvian society but they don't go the very core of the problem, and as a result, they end up talking about how in Peru there are curious situations or curious alliances. In Peru there is nothing curious because society is not curious, society is law-governed; but whosoever does not follow Marxism cannot discover them. To these friends, these gentlemen who seek to surpass Mariátegui, we must make them comprehend the problem, make them see they commit a grave error as long as they continue with the bourgeois system in their head and thus seek to understand Mariátegui. They will never achieve this.
One of the problems that is debated the most is on the class character of Peru, because Mariátegui maintained that Peru is semi-feudal and that is correct. They say that Mariátegui was mistaken because he has said that we are semi-feudal and that we are capitalist. In the depths of these people's thoughts there is no dialectical mechanism, they don't believe that the revolution is feasible unless there is a great development of the forces of production, but that concept has been overcome already. Lenin made mince-meat of that and others continue to revive it.
Well then, there are people who say they have surpassed Mariátegui, but where is their achievement? Where is the brilliant document in which they prove the nation is this way or that, or that the revolution has such and such character? That is another problem because Mariátegui said that the first stage of the Peruvian revolution is national-democratic, popular-democratic, but the surpassers of Mariátegui say no, the revolution is socialist. Finally, there is another group of distorters who partially take up Mariátegui and begin to make outlandish lucubrations. Here and there Mariátegui says something about religion, he has his opinion on religion and myth, and some rub their hands, soft hands from never having done anything, and say: Mariátegui was a mystic at heart and was not a Marxist, he was a humanist who felt and suffered with Peru.
Mariátegui concretely expounded that Marxism-Leninism was universal. The surpassers grab a phrase in which he said that the revolution in Peru will be neither traced nor copied. Mariátegui expounded on Marxism as a universal truth and he fitted that universal truth to our reality. It is not the way some say that Mariátegui tried to fit reality into a narrow Marxist framework, as Mr. Victor Andrés Belaúnde said. No. Mariátegui has not done that. Mariátegui was not foolish, Mariátegui was a Marxist man who understood things and was a scientist, although he was anti-academic, but anti-academic towards the paralyzed, decrepit and feudal academia that existed in our nation, not of the popular university which he illuminated with his ideas.
The reactionaries wish to make a bourgeois Mariátegui for us, a petty bourgeois Mariátegui, some have said that Mariátegui was a populist (laughter), a populist in the sense that Mariátegui developed the pro-peasantry thought in Peru. That Mariátegui didn't develop the proletarian conception, but rather the conception from the point of view of the peasants; this is a lie from head to tail, it is a supreme betrayal. Mariátegui was a Marxist, he did not have a peasant viewpoint, because if he had had one, he would be a petty-bourgeois revolutionary and nothing more.
What conclusions should revolutionaries draw from Mariátegui's thought? First, study and disseminate José Carlos Mariátegui. Why study Mariátegui? Because in our country he is talked about a lot but rarely read. Let us examine ourselves and see if we have read the ten small volumes of Mariátegui. Do we know his political positions, strictly speaking? Do we know his anti-imperialist viewpoint? How many times have we meditated on the questions of Mariátegui? Very few.
Mariátegui is a shining figure in our nation, there is no other of his stature. What figure do they want to put up before Mr. Riva Agüero, that apprentice fascist who never even became one? Mr. Víctor Andrés Belaúnde also failed to materialize his thought. Belaúnde is a superficial man who passes himself off as a thinker. His works on San Agustín don't go beyond mere verbiage, he is all husk. We must disseminate the thought of Mariategui. What have we done for the 40th anniversary of Mariátegui? Have we studied him to the root? Have we had basic discussions, seminars on the Seven Essays? Have we tried to apply what Mariátegui said and follow his line in order to understand in this light what is happening today? Have we raised this lantern in order to see where we are? No, we have not done so. I propose one concrete thing. It seems to me that we should propose some activities for the 40th anniversary of the Seven Essays. How will we do this? Later we will discuss this. In the second place, it seems to me that we also have another task: the problem of defending Mariátegui, who is attacked openly and in an underhanded way.
Mariátegui is a source of light which we cannot permit to be veiled, we cannot permit that they make us see with different colored glasses, that they make us see black for red, that they distort the fundamental ideas of Mariátegui. We cannot permit this, we must defend Mariátegui, because if we don't do this Mariátegui will continue to be obscured, and we would be following the same politics as the reactionaries, because the reactionaries grabbed Mariátegui and imprisoned him, they tried to silence his ideas.
We must free Mariátegui, because if we don't free him we won't be freed ourselves. Of course, it is clear we are not talking about a personal problem, we are talking about freeing our people.. In the third place, it seems to me that we must carry forward the study of Mariátegui. I don't pretend to surpass Mariátegui, I don't wish to be catalogued as a surpasser, but I do believe that we should develop Mariátegui, take up his ideology, his methods, his sources as the base, and develop these questions. For example: How can we see the economy of 1968 in light of the essay of 1928? It would be magnificent to do the same in literature, in the land question and others. It seems to me that this is an obligation and that we intellectuals must do this, workers too, peasants too because there are many paragraphs there which refer to them in simple, clear and sharp, very precisely. Finally, and I will conclude with this, Mariátegui is a great example which joins other figures of our history, for example, Túpac Amaru.
Mariátegui is an historic figure in our country. Notwithstanding that he is recent, he already has a perfect historic outstanding dimension, he is the ideologue or our country, there is no other. The reactionary ideologues are dwarves compared to Mariátegui.
We must do these tasks. How good it would be if there were others like him! But I am perfectly convinced that a Mariátegui isn't born every day. His relatives can use his name or not. The question is one of setting an example. We should elevate him as an example, as a guide to the revolution in our nation, and our nation is changing profoundly and will change even more. It has already been said that history cannot be detained; it may be deflected for a little while, nothing more. Mariátegui is thus an example for us. What kind of an example? Mariátegui is an example of a proletarian revolution, no more and no less. We will not magnify him. Mariátegui didn't want us to exalt him, nor that we take away his merits. If we called him an example of a revolutionary, if we took away his proletarian last name, if we remove him from the proletariat, then he would be nothing more, merely ordinary.
And what does this mean? I go to Mariátegui to know what he is about, I go to his work, his life, and I find in Mariátegui a theoretical development, a Marxist, a Leninist study of our problems, a great theoretician of Peru and Latin American.
We should follow this path. I am not proposing that we should try to be equal to him, only that we follow his path. For example, I could make a little prologue, I can do something following his light on that plane and I would become a diminutive theoretician, but I am on that path and if we join together all the little truths which we could gain on Mariátegui's path, it would be a great river of truth. Who has greater responsibility in this? The intellectuals, but not the dried up intellectuals. Our nation, the transformation of our nation and its development not only demands intellectuals but revolutionary intellectuals. What does this mean? Mao Tse-tung is brilliant and precise and very concrete when he says that we must unite with the exploited masses of workers and peasants. He said this very clearly. If one wants to be a revolutionary intellectual one must unite with the masses, work with them, feel what they feel and think like they do. But this is a process because I must give up my high status, my necktie, I have to leave this behind at a timely hour if I hope to become a revolutionary intellectual. This is a reflection which we all must make. This brings us to the second thing. In Mariátegui we must see the man of action. When Mariátegui took up a task, he completed it, he carried it out and when it came to his particular problems, his health and his family, he put family and personal problems behind his tasks.
Mariátegui was of great consequence, he sacrificed everything to his work because he understood this, because he was a combatant. Whoever is not a combatant is not a Marxist-Leninist.
We must follow his path to the letter. We can follow his path with difficulty, but we can follow it.
I believe some ideas have been made clear; try to clear away the rubbish and wordiness, try to keep the outline, try to remember certain ideas, above all the will to enthrone Mariátegui's thought, to defend him and follow his example. The destiny of our people is at stake. Either we enthrone Mariátegui's thought or the people will not advance.
Conference by Dr. Abimael Guzmán Reynoso in 1968 at the Universidad San Cristobal de Huamanga de Ayacucho.