Why I'm failing Latin American History.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Alright, I wrote this, but I just needed to hand something in - I don't necessarily agree with it. I'm not, however, exactly sure what I believe, so lay on yr own analysis. I'm sure Flyby and other defenders of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" will be able to offer particularly interesting analysis.

***

Peasant involvement in, and support for, revolutionary movements tends to arise not from class consciousness, and consequent commitment to a given revolutionary programme, but out of other factors. While often economic in origin, they spring not directly from the peasants’ relationship to production (many own means of production, of sorts1), that is, relationships of kind, but out of questions of degree2. As such, their support may be of a fickle nature.
In particular, this character of peasant support for traditional revolutionary movements may be seen in the changing relationship of various sectors of the Peruvian peasantry with Sendero Luminoso / the Communist Party Of Peru (PCP). To substantiate this, the contrasting documents of the American government sources in the country, and the documents of the PCP itself, are invaluable.
Though operating primarily in the rural region of Ayacucho, declassified CIA Documents suggest Sendero Luminoso was, initially, at least, “ . . . dominated by disaffected intellectuals, students, and professionals.”3 Though Sendero’s analysis of Peru as “a semifeudal and semicolonial society”4 suggests they concern themselves specifically with the peasantry, they maintain that only the (smaller) Peruvian Proletariat, in alliance with the peasant masses, is capable of finishing the tasks of bourgeois revolution of a “democratic” and “national” character.5
Sendero was able, indeed, to build some base of support among the masses - their Robin-Hood character, as well as appealing to some members of the official Peruvian Left also resonating elsewhere, an American report referring to the “Mystical appeal to a few Andean youth,”6 as late as September ‘83. Even after the massacres in Lucanamarca and Huancasancos and human rights violations6 by government forces attempting to crack down, Sendero was still able to operate with enough support to continually raise cadres, and move freely through their mountain heartland. It is worth noting, though, that this support, as earlier, continued to accompany financial crisis, and the spectre of hunger.
However, when presented with a non-revolutionary solution to their problem in the 1985 elections, via Alan Garcia, peasants chose to take it. Despite economic instability7 that could have created a revolutionary situation, the peasantry generally chose to defy Sendero’s call to boycott elections. While in the 1980 elections, most peasants in the Sendero Luminoso heartland (Ayacucho) had rejected electoral politics, the emergence of Alan Garcia of the reformist Partido Aprista Peruano offered a means of securing material improvements without revolutionary action.
In this sense, the class-nature of the peasants came into play - rather than concern themselves with the development of class struggle, the peasantry rejected Sendero’s calls to “instead [of voting] conquer power for the people!”9 in favour of promises of development (through the Emergency Zone Development Strategy”10). During this same period, the largely Lima (that is, urban) centered Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement was growing and increasing its activity.
The other prime example of the questionable consciousness of the peasant masses came with the capture of “Presidente Gonzalo” in Fall of 1992. Sendero, at this point, had shifted and was made up, in a large part, of indigenous peasants, rather than its earlier composition of professional revolutionaries from academic and professional backgrounds, and, with Gonzalo’s capture, the forces essentially fell apart. The Sendero Luminoso “Mass Line” says:

The peasants are the principal force, especially the poor peasants, who struggle for the conquest of land through armed struggle under the leadership of the Communist Party. Not seeing it this way leads to the "land seizures" and conforming to the old order.11

With the disappearance of “Gonzalo”’s leadership, it is apparent the peasants moved back toward their inclination toward conciliation with the status quo, having no developed interest in the objectives of the class struggle outside of the leadership if Sendero Luminoso.

***

1 Suggested in Eckstein, p.15
2 That is, the ability of economic conditions to meet the needs of Peasants, as contrasted with looking at the class-nature of economic relationships.
3 Central Intelligence Agency Review, “Latin American Review: Peru Terrorism May Threaten Civilian Government” p.17
4 Central Committee, Communist Party of Peru, “Don’t Vote! . . .”
5 Ibid.
6 U.S. Embassy Cable, “Peru: Assessment of Short Term Prospects”
7 Reference to “. . . economic collapse in the last year,” U.S. Embassy Cable, “Garcia Administration and the Peruvian Military” p.2
8 As expanded on in the imaginatively titled, “Don’t vote! Instead, Expand the Guerrilla Warfare to Conquer Power for The People!”
9 Taken directly from the title of the above mentioned work.
10 Mentioned in multiple American sources, first U.S. Embassy Cable, “Garcia Administration and the Peruvian Military” p.5
11 Communist Party of Peru, “The Mass Line”

***

I can't believe I handed that in . . .
I'm going to flunk out of University. Woo.

[RedStarOverChina]

I agree that the peasants who own land are not necessarily a group of revolutionary people. No surprise there.

But when the peasantry is the largest group of people in the country, us marxists must obey their wish, or the general will. For example, if we suggest a revolution and the majority dont feel it's not gonna be good for them, what are we trying to achieve?

Now I dont know much about the situation in the south, so I guess it depends on the situation. Do the peasants there own a good deal of land?

[Tupac-Amaru]

What is the exact title of your essay? Is it about the growth of peasant movements in Peru? if it is, than maybe you can mention something like this as an intro:

Rural underdevelopment in Latin America is the result of a number of economic, social and political circumstances that over the centuries have created and maintained a strict division between different groups (classes) in society, particularly in rural areas. The low-status peasant groups have for a long time now been struggling to survive and have been used for the benefits and glory of a small but well organized ruling group. Until the final part of the nineteenth century this system used various kinds of forced labor, first slavery and later a feudal system whereby people belonged to the land they worked on. With the introduction of “capitalist” labor relations, based on wage labor, this began to change gradually. But in most parts of Latin America the capitalist system has not only not improved the lot of most agricultural workers but has actually contributed in many areas to their increasing impoverishment. “In fact, the crudest forms of exploitation have historically taken place on the plantations and estates most closely linked to the world market, ever since the first slave cut down the first sugar-cane stalk in the Caribbean in the sixteenth century”1.

The way the ownership of the land has been organized in Latin America is one of the main reasons for the social movements there. Often such movements took the form of guerilla movements. These were usually composed of young peasants of between twenty-five and thirty-five years old (although there will be exceptional cases; one of the heroes of the struggle in Cuba, Comandante Crescencio Perez, entered the Sierra at sixty-five years of age and was immediately one of the most useful men in the troop). Middle class intellectuals usually commanded these peasants. There are three main important points to remember when looking at guerrilla movements. First, they demonstrate that people can organize themselves into a small guerrilla army and overthrow a large, powerful, established regime. Second, popular movements do not have to wait for the economic conditions to become unbearable before organizing a revolutionary war. Third, Latin American revolutionary struggles should, according to Che, be based in a rural, peasant population. The reason for this is because the guerrilla fighter needs the peasants to survive but the peasants don’t need the guerrilla fighter. “In guerrilla combat, we must rely on the force of the popular masses, for it is only thus that we can have a guarantee of success. The support of the masses offers us great advantages as regards transport, assistance to wounded, intelligence, disruption of the enemy's position, etc. At the same time, the enemy can be put into an isolated position, thus further increasing our advantages. If, by misfortune, we are defeated, it will also be possible to escape or to find concealment. Consequently, we must not lightly give battle in places where the masses are not organized and linked to us.”2.

1.Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Agrarian Problems & Peasant Movements in Latin America, p.10
2. Mao-Tzedung, Basic Tactics 1937, Ch. 2: “We must organize the masses and unite with them”


But yea, im not sure wot your main point is...so if you could define the thesis statement...that'd be kool.