[STUDY GROUP] Latin American Social Movements/LA History

[ellipsis]

I have spent quite a bit of time studying latin american social movements, mostly in the 20th century and thought that I would open this space up for people to ask me questions, contribute their own knowledge and generally talk about Latin american social movements and latin american history.

[Bright Banana Beard]

You could blog it about the history, I will be interesting in reading it.

[ellipsis]

Here is an old paper of mine that while not perfect should be of interest to revleftists

A Comparison of the Writings of José Carlos Mariátegui
and the EZLN

There is much disagreement among scholars about the causes and context of the 1996 Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas, Mexico. As with any historical event, the uprising has been viewed through many lenses, including government officials, both in Mexico and abroad, social scientists, economists, feminists, historians and, most importantly for the purpose of this paper Marxists. There is a notable trend of Western-centrism in Marxist thought, although in the past twenty years there has been much written to change this fact. Because of his distinctly nonwestern contributions to the constantly evolving genre, José Carlos Mariátegui is an incredibly important theorist who, quite sadly is not widely read. At first glance, the Peruvian journalist turned social theorist appears to be the Nostradamos of contemporary Latin America studies, a prophet who predicted the role that the region plays in the theatre of the modern globalized economy. Are his writings really prophetic or is the current political and economic climate merely a case of history repeating itself? I believe the answer lies in Mariátegui's Marxist analysis of Latin American history. The argument has been made that while Marx was wrong about Communism, his analysis of capitalism was dead on, even for today’s information economy.1
In this paper, I hope to prove that Mariátegui gave a solid analysis of the rise of capitalism as well as socialism in Central and South America. While there are many social movement that I could use to support this thesis, due to spatial and temporal restrictions, the EZLN stands out as one of the most important. I will begin by examining Mariátegui's Marxist analysis of Peruvian history. I will then elaborate on his description of the role of the indigenous within Latin American society. The third and final area of the essay deals with a major theme in Mariateguismo, anti-imperialism and a socialist revolution by the indigenous of Latin America. Although Mariátegui mostly looks at the socioeconomic history of Peru up to the early 20th century, it is still extremely relevant to study of the entire region today, eighty years later. Throughout the paper I will be comparing the ideas described above to Mexican history, especially the Mexican Revolution and the Zapatista uprising.
In the first chapter of Mariátegui's definitive work, Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality he, in true Marxist tradition looks at the history of Peru based on changes and shifts and the relations and mode of production. He traces the emergence of the colonial feudal aristocracy coincided with the rise of guano and nitrates exportation industry located near the coast, economic shift away from the mining based gold and silver economy in highlands that fueled the European conquest of the continent.2 This was not simply a physically shift of the allocation for economic resources; it was the creation of a new Peru situated in the lowlands, one ruled by a aristocratic ruling class. The roots of Peru’s “social dualism and conflict, which to this day remain its greatest historical problem.”3 lie in the establishment of this new class. Already we see that Mariátegui view all Peruvian history as a result of class struggle, between those who own the means of production, the bourgeoisie and the working class, the proletariat.
The guano and nitrate economy eventually collapsed, which lead Peruvians to realized the inherent economic instability in “an economic prosperity supported or held together almost solely the possession of natural wealth at the mercy of the greed or aggression of foreign imperialism or vulnerable to the continual changes in industrial need arising from scientific invention.”4 Apparently those in power did not come to the same realization as Mariátegui. The economic and societal devastation in Latin America caused by a over dependence on foreign exports such as coffee, sugar and corn is well documented, particularly with the rise of neoliberalism and the establishment of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The effects of the crash of Peru’s guano economy were extremely wide reaching including a fall of production, the devaluation of the national currency, a decrease in domestic entrepreneurship; a general economic depression5 strikingly similar to the one experienced by many countries, like Bolivia after being subjugated to a “structural readjustment program” by the World Bank and IMF.
Peruvian independence marked a change in government which, like everything else is indicative of change in the mode of production. Peru and all of Latin-America made the transition from feudalism to capitalism, but a handful of major events shaped what kind of capitalist system was born. The appearance of modern industry drastically change the relations of production in the country, contributing to the emergence of an industrial proletariat movement. The role of finance capital in Peru’s economy changed as North American and European Banks controlled banks increased credit available to ruling class of the country, including loans for infrastructure development projects. One of the most ambitious and historically influential programs was the massive undertaking of building the Panama Canal, which brought the Pacific coast of Central and South America closer to the Atlantic-based economies of Europe and the United States. However, it made access to the region much more economically feasible for the United States which increased it’s influence and control over Latin America, while decreasing that of European colonial powers. There was a shift back to a more agrarian-based economy run by a new land owning class who, with the increase in foreign investment were made increasingly wealthy and replaced the aristocracy with an powerful and oppressive bourgeoisie. Mariátegui claimed the Peruvian states were willing to assist the American corporations in their domination of the indigenous population that made of eighty percent of the country’s population, a relationship which will be elaborated upon later in the paper. Because of this concession of national sovereignty, there was a significant rise in power of North American banks and the increasing amount loans from these financial institutions for new public work projects. All of this led to rise of North American-owned industry in Peru.6
This transition had grave implications for the societal welfare of Peru, a country whose - “mining, commerce, and transport are in the hands of foreign capital.”7 Additionally because all of the commodities produced were exported to overseas markets, the country received none of the benefits of it’s economy. Vast amounts of profit were extracted from cheap Peruvian labor and left the country without being reinvested domestically.8
To this day countries in Latin America suffer the consequences of Gamonalismo, Mariátegui's name for the postcolonial economic system dominated by latifundistas, large landowners.9 He argues that an economy based around haciendas, or large foreign owned farms are inherently detrimental to society. “The hacienda, by taking over the trade and transport as well as land and dependent industries, deprives the town of livelihood and condemns it to a sordid and meager existence.”10 Because the haciendas control the labor market, they are able to ensure that the peasantry has no option but to work in horrible conditions for extremely low wages. Today it seems that the socioeconomic situation of Latin American has not improved much. Globalization, free-trade, and other forces of neo-liberalism are clearly dominating the private spheres and civil society of the region. I believe that Mariátegui prophetic nature is in reality his Marxist nature. The problems of Peru in the 1920’s are rooted in the class struggle that is woven into the fabric of all capitalist society. The struggle of the proletariat is universal. It is no wonder then that patterns emerge between events distant in time and space; the indigenous people of the Americas share a 500 year history of domination and subjugation by those of European blood.
For example, the end of feudalism made possible the formation of the “vestiges of indigenous communal economy” in the highlands of Peru,11 an interesting phenomenon considering that the Zapatista rebellion was organized by indigenous people living on communal farm-based societies in the mountains of southern Mexico. While the ancestors of southern Mexican and Peruvian highlanders were from two different pre-colonial civilizations, the Maya and the Inca respectively, Mariátegui argues that their shared socialists tendencies are very much related. To this end he examines what he calls “the problem of the Indian,” his theory proposing the prevalence of the socialist tendencies among the indigenous proletariat of Latin America, citing the Inca civilization’s “highly-developed and harmonious communistic system” as proof.12 This a deviation from the traditional Marxist’s viewpoint which considers such early forms of communism to be primitive and separate from the post-capitalist socialist state which Marx envisioned.
For Mariátegui, the root of the oppression of the indigenous is Peru’s “land-tenure” economy,13 a type of capitalism characterized by the domination of the proletariat by imperialist bourgeois latifundistas. For him, this oppression is not a cultural, moral, or ethical phenomenon, it is a problem of socioeconomic and political origin, of institutionalized racism.14 The Zapatistas claim to be fighting neo-liberal hegemonic capitalism as well and that their revolution was made necessary, in part by the lack of possible political participation in federal, state and local government by the indigenous of Chiapas. The core mechanism in this system “is the hegemony of the semi-feudal landed estate in the policy and mechanism of the government.”15 As has already been shown, the foreign gamonales have totalitarian power in Peru and reign supreme over it’s national affairs.16 The IMF and World Bank continue this tradition by requiring that governments grant them this type of control over all of their industry as a condition for receiving development assistance through the privatization of all state owned business, including public works and other “structural readjustments.”
Having isolated capitalism as the core causal factor of the problem of the Indian, Mariátegui explores two different solutions, either the oppressive bourgeoisie changes their attitude towards the Indigenous proletariat or the Indigenous revolt against the exploitive system of latifundismo.17 Written by the bourgeois institutions of government, the laws of Latin American republics attempt to absorb the indigenous into the “latifundium system.”18 As such, the problem is one of cannot be solved by any act of legislation or administration, unless they completely elimination the hacienda, which will never happen as the latifundistas will never agree to their own economic ruin.19
The current system, even with the advent of the ration voices of reason of progressive liberals have failed to improve their lives, Mariátegui sees but one option for the indigenous:
revolutionary and even reformist thought can no longer be liberal; they must be socialist. … Humanitarian teachings have not halted or hampered the European imperialism, nor have they reformed its methods. the struggle against imperialism now relies only on the solidarity and strength of the liberation movement of the colonial masses.20

In other words
Although he provides a detailed economic and philosophical argument, the Peruvian sociologist is most significant and empirically relevant as a author of socialist revolutionary literature, a much needed contribution to an overly Eurocentric discourse. Mariátegui offers a comprehensive socialist analysis of the indigenous proletarian social movements in Latin America and their anti-imperialistic nature. In one lecture he elaborated on the struggle of the proletariat at the regional and global level: “In this great contemporary crisis, the proletariat is… an actor. In it the fate of the world proletariat is to be resolved. From it will emerge … the proletarian civilization, the socialist civilization.” Mariátegui recognized the need to enlighten the proletariat to negate the effects of counterrevolutionary propaganda, an idea that is a defining element of Western Marxist discourse.21
He also states that a socialist revolution in European would have implications for the situation of the world’s proletariat, including those of Latin America. The countries of the region are unique in that they are not only economically dependent on colonial powers, but their sociopolitical structures are based upon those of European societies. The same spectre that haunts Europe threatens the capitalist economic system of Latin America as well. He ends with the argument that we are witnessing the global proletarian revolution which will overthrow capitalism and form new socialist society and the call to arms for socialist to unite.22
Mariátegui outlines the justifications that validate his anti-imperialist view point. The institutions of power in both the public and private sphere, run by the white aristocratic bourgeoisie and the mestizo petty bourgeoisie support the capitalist oppression of the indigenous by European imperialism. They are not only partners in crime, but a friendly cartel in which the Lima bourgeoisie fraternizes with the yankee capitalist.” The imperialist hegemonic control of Latin American states, and subsequent domination of their national polity is made possible by the collaboration of the latifundistas. The interests of the capitalist are identical to the interests of the landowning class. Mariátegui denounced the government of Peru as “clearly, unabashedly Pan-Americanist and Monroeist” correlating the rise of foreign investment in the country with its “economic development, the exploitation of its natural riches, its population, and the improvement of its routes of communication.”23
The more Mariátegui reveals about the workings of the system of imperialism, the more connections can be made to the current state of affairs in Latin America, especially with regards to Chiapas, Mexico and the struggle of the Zapatista rebels. The forces of neoliberalism are dependent on the development of new technology that electronically connects people thousands of miles apart. The current trend in Mexico towards unrestricted, free-trade can trace it’s origins to the repeal of Article 27 of the Mexican by the PRI in 1996 and the effective elimination of communal land rights for indigenous communities. This, together with the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and more recently of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), reveals the continual domination of today’s Latin American economies by hacienda power structures.
Mariátegui warned that “The socialist revolution will find its most bloody and dangerous enemy in those petty bourgeois placed in power by the voices of order.”24 In Chiapas the latifundistas would use their private security forces to control their workers, by means of intimidation, harassment, by making a person “disappear” or, in extreme cases committing a public massacre of women and children. At the end of one essay he issued a bold statement of summary,
we are anti-imperialists because we are Marxists, because we are revolutionaries, because we oppose capitalism with socialism, an antagonistic system called upon to transcend it, and because in our struggle against foreign imperialism we are fulfilling our duty of solidarity with the revolutionary masses of Europe.25

In addition to the considerable amount of Mariátegui's analysis of Peru that is relevant to history of Mexico, he also studied the Mexican Revolution. As Mariátegui did not live to see NAFTA, he was surprisingly optimistic about “the whole transcendental revolutionary period begun with the overthrow of Porfirio Díaz's dictatorship by Francisco Madero” 26He praised the advancement of land reform by the agrarian proletariat. His tones seems to imply that it was a true socialist revolution, while it clearly was not. While the writing of the 1917 Mexican Constitution attempted to protect the rights of the indigenous proletariat, it did not replace capitalism in any significant way and as such did little to address the causes of the revolution, except to repress it. This praise is contradictory to Mariátegui's refutation of the potential benefit of a non-socialist revolution, a theory given support by the eventual repeal of Article 27 by the same political party that formed the very government of which he seems to be a proponent in one lecture.27
I suspect that the writing of José Carlos Mariátegui varies much more greatly in content than the handful of sources available in English. It is a continuing cycle in which translations do not exist because there is no demand for them. However, there is no demand because he is not widely read. He is not read because there aren’t enough books in english, which is a result because he is not translated enough. In the end, this is only one of many factors which have contributed to the Western-centric development of the discourse surrounding Marxism. If the socialist revolution is a rebellion against the traditional power structures of Latin America, ones that Mariátegui argues are copied from those Europe, is it then logical to assume some degree of western-centrism in Latin American Marxist?
From the limited scope of his essays in English, we are able to tell a lot about Mariátegui as a social theorist; ardently pro-Marxist, he views Latin American history through the lens of class struggle. He provides a comprehensive examination of more aspects of the “Peruvian Reality” than are relevant to discuss in this paper. But from this paper’s analysis it is clear that the power of Mariátegui's words to resist the traditional definitions of academic thought. It is for this reason that he deserves to be more widely read, by scholars of various discipline.

Works Cited

Cassidy, John , "The Return of Karl Marx," The New Yorker (October 20 & 27, 1997): p.
248–59.

Mariategui, José Carlos. Seven interpretive essays on Peruvian reality. Trans. Marjory Urquidi.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1971. p. 11`-30.

Mariategui, José Carlos. “Anti-Imperialist Viewpoint.” 1929. Trans. Michael Pearlman. 1996. 18
Nov. 20005. <http://marxists.org/archive/mariateg/works/1929-ai.htm>

Mariategui, José Carlos. “History of the World Crisis: Lecture 1: The World Crisis.” 1923.
Trans. Juan R Fajardo. 1998. 18 Nov. 2005.
<http://marxists.org/archive/mariateg/works/1924-hwc/hwc01.htm>

Mariategui, José Carlos. “History of the World Crisis: Lecture 16: The Mexican Revolution.”
1923. Trans. Juan R Fajardo. 1998. 18 Nov. 2005.
<http://marxists.org/archive/mariateg/works/1924-hwc/hwc16.htm>

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[ellipsis]

here is a recommended reading and viewing list that I wrote on my blog. I link to some full length movies that are really good.

[vulemdal]

I have spent quite a bit of time studying latin american social movements, mostly in the 20th century and thought that I would open this space up for people to ask me questions, contribute their own knowledge and generally talk about Latin american social movements and latin american history.

Which Latin American social movement has had the most success up to this point, in your opinion? What are your thoughts on Venezuela's path up to this point, and where do you see that country at in the next 5-10 years? Have you ever been to Latin America, and if so for what purpose? Have you worked with any organizations that do work in Latin America?

[ellipsis]

Success is complex thing to qualify in my opinion. Obviously the EZLN has been able to sustain itself and establish autonomous communities for its supporters, complete with schools, hospitals, an abortion clinic, economic cooperatives, etc. Las Madres de la Playa de Mayo in Argentina have been going strong for decades and have spawned groups like HIJOS who continue to hold war criminals and fascists accountable for their actions during Argentina's US-supported dictatorships. The FSLN, their first time in power did many interesting things. I try to look at movements and glean lessons from both their successes and failures.

Chavez's Venezuela is a mixed bag in my opinion. I support him, but not unconditionally. My problem with him is that while he has done many great things, despite considerable international and domestic opposition, he was been in power for 10 YEARS and not much has changed for the better in his country. His election has spurned a so called pink-tide to rise throughout latin america, but I would like to see these countries do more as an economic and political bloc. I cannot predict where Venezuela will go, but I would consider it likely that it will continue to grow as a regional power and hopefully will undergo a more complete revolution.

I have been to Latin America, but "only" Cuba, Honduras, Southern California and Mexico. I have been to Mexico several times, for both pleasure and academic purposes. I took spanish classes at the EZLN language school and was fortunate enough to spend time in APPO-occupied Oaxaca city.

The American Friends Service Committee does good work along the border. Also the mexico solidarity network is the premier EZLN solidarity organization in the US and I highly recommend working with them. Their are also regional, smaller solidarity organizations that you can seek out.