Re: Stages of the Peruvian Revolution

[hariette@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (hariette spierings)]

ANOTHER AND BLATANT SWINDLE FROM THE PLAGIARIST "QUISPE"

TRANSLATED AND PUBLISHED IN 1984 BY RED STAR INFORMATION SERVICE, THE
ANTECESSOR OF COMMITTEE SOL PERU - LONDON

By
Chairman Gonzalo, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
of Peru.

      THE TWO STAGES OF THE PERUVIAN REVOLUTION
>
>The two stages of the Peruvian revolution are based on the
>country's semi-colonial and semi-feudal condition, Mariategui
>analyzed the revolutionary forces that there are two basic
>classes: the proletariat and the peasantry, that while the latter
>is the main force being the majority and supporting the weight of
>semi-feudalism, the former, the working class, is the leading
>class; further on, he noticed that only with the appearance of
>the working class can the peasantry fulfill its role: "Socialist
>doctrine is the only one capable of giving a modern, constructive
>sense to the indigenous cause, which, placed in the true social
>and economic arena, and elevated to the level of a realistic and
>creative policy, counts for the fulfillment of this enterprise
>with the will and discipline of a class now making its appearance
>in our historical political process: The proletariat."
>
>Joining the peasantry and the proletariat is the
>petty-bourgeoisie, which "always played a very minor and
>disoriented role in Peru," put under pressure by foreign
>capitalism "it appears destined to assume, as its organization
>and orientation prospers, a revolutionary nationalist attitude."
>These are the driving classes of the revolution, who under
>certain conditions and circumstances can be joined by the
>national bourgeoisie, which Mariategui calls the "left
>bourgeoisie." Those are the four classes who united target the
>blanks of the revolution: Semi-feudality and imperialism.
>
>In two well known paragraphs of the Communist Party Program,
>written by the founder himself [Trans. Mariategui], the stages of
>the Peruvian revolution are defined and its character specified:
>
>"The emancipation of the economy of the country is only possible
>by the action of the proletarian masses, in solidarity with the
>world's anti-imperialist struggle. Only the action of the
>proletariat can first stimulate and later on realize the tasks of
>the democratic-bourgeois revolution which the bourgeois regime
>itself is incapable of fulfilling."
>
>"The democratic-bourgeois stage accomplished, the revolution
>becomes, in its objectives and doctrine, a proletarian
>revolution. The party of the proletariat, qualified by the
>struggle to exercise power and develop its own program, fulfills
>in this stage the tasks of organizing and defending the socialist
>order."
>
>Here, we see the problem of the Peruvian revolution and its
>stages masterfully condensed: The national-democratic or
>bourgeois-democratic of the new kind in the wording of Mao Tse
>Tung, and the proletarian revolution. Two stages, the first one
>of which we now live since 1928, but which still has not been
>fulfilled or concluded, and the future, proletarian stage; two
>uninterrupted stages of the same revolutionary process. Under no
>circumstances should their character and contents be confused.
>This great thesis by Mariategui became, after ample debates and
>struggles, a fundamental truth of Marxist understanding of the
>laws of our revolution.
>
>It is fundamental, only the working class and only it, is capable
>of leading the national-democratic revolution. That only by
>preparing and organizing can it develop the second, proletarian
>stage. Consequently, if the national-democratic revolution is not
>led by the working class, in no way can it be fulfilled and even
>less build socialism. This is the paramount question today, since
>counter-revolution and social corporativism deny this great truth
>and assert that in our country the armed forces of the old State
>is fulfilling the first stage of the revolution and even, they
>claim, setting the bases for socialism. This key question
>differentiates revolutionaries from counter-revolutionaries: The
>first ones, with Marxism and Mariategui, maintain that the
>proletariat and only it "can first stimulate and later on fulfill
>the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution which the
>bourgeois regime is incapable to develop and fulfill." That is
>our position. We must upheld and fight the counter-revolutionary
>theses, aiming our spear against social-corporativist revisionism
>that preaches against the thesis of Mariategui and it is the
>detachment of social-imperialism in our country, whose effort
>serve only to its collusion and collision with the Yankee
>superpower for world domination.
>
>               THE ANTI-FEUDAL STRUGGLE.
>
>The land program is basic to our country and, in synthesis, it is
>the question of feudalism with its two elements: Latifundia and
>servitude; that is why, as Mariategui said, the agrarian problem
>in Peru is the destruction of feudalism, whose relations taint
>our society from top to bottom, from the base to the
>superstructure. The motor of rural struggles has been and is the
>problem of land, and that the three agrarian laws of the 1960's
>did not destroy its base is clearly shown by today's struggles by
>the peasantry.
>
>In analyzing the land problem, the founder of the Party
>highlighted the struggle confronting community and latifundia; he
>showed its economic and social superiority, pointing out that the
>community had given the peasant majorities strength to resist the
>thievery by feudal landowners throughout the centuries, and that
>it entails the living yeast which will help socialist development
>in the future. Reviewing the agrarian labor regime he highlighted
>the existence of feudal relations of exploitation hidden behind
>seemingly capitalist forms. These questions do not belong to the
>past, but to a present which we must search well to discover its
>blurred semi-feudal essence hidden behind the apparent and
>purported "destruction of feudalism" of the so-called agrarian
>reform.
>
>Considering the struggles of the Peruvian and of Latin American
>peasantry generally, Mariategui brought forward the slogan of the
>peasants: "Land for those who till it, expropriated them without
>compensation" and that its mobility demands the "arming of
>workers and peasants to conquer and defend their vindications."
>In that way, feudalism must be destroyed by confiscating the
>lands and only the armed workers and peasants will be able to
>accomplish this, since there is no other way to break up
>feudalism, destroy latifundia and abolish serfdom. We must not
>forget that Peruvian laws have been ruling agrarian relations and
>abolishing serfdom for over l50 years, but in reality they have
>maintained the underlying feudalism.
>
>Consequently, the anti-feudal struggle is the motive of the class
>struggle in the countryside and the basis of our
>national-democratic revolution itself.
>
>             THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE.
>
>Peru, like the rest of the Latin American countries, is a nation
>in a formative stage. "It is being built over the inert
>indigenous strata, and the alluvial sediments of western
>civilization." In that way, "the problem of the Indians is the
>problem of four million Peruvians. It is the problem of three
>fourths of the population of Peru. It is the problem of the
>majority. It is the problem of nationality," Mariategui observed,
>and he added: "A truly national policy cannot do without the
>Indian, it cannot ignore the Indian. The Indian is the foundation
>of our nationality being formed.
>
>Oppression makes the Indian an enemy of civility. It annuls them,
>practically, as an element of progress. Those who impoverish and
>depress the Indian, impoverish and depress the nation...
>Without the Indian, the condition of being Peruvian is not
>possible. This truth ought to be valid, above all, to persons of
>mere demo-liberal bourgeois and nationalist ideology...
>
>Thus, the problem of the Indian is that of the majority ignored
>by the policies of the Peruvian State, of the republic generally,
>for more than 150 years; it is the problem of acting outside the
>interest of four fifths of the population. As our founder said,
>of looking and acting with eyes placed on the imperialist
>metropolis dominating us. Scratching deeper into the problem,
>Mariategui set forth that the Indian problem is the problem of
>the land; consequently, the national problem is based on the
>problem of the land and in no way can one be separated from the
>other, a proposal which follows strictly the these; of Marxism,
>proved by the practice of the class struggle of our own masses
>and expressed, incontrovertibly, in the character of our
>revolution.
>
>On this base, the founder of the Communist Party analyzed the
>classes and the anti-imperialist struggle in our country, and in
>Latin America in general; he pointed out that the Latin American
>bourgeoisie "feeling sure enough of their ownership of power so
>as not to care much about national sovereignty," as well as
>having common interests with imperialism, adding that: "While
>imperialist policy ... is not forced to armed intervention, in
>case of military occupation they will count on the absolute
>collaboration of the bourgeoisie." In that way the relationship
>of the Peruvian "mercantile bourgeoisie" and its position with
>respect to imperialism was clarified. Referring to our country,
>when treating the subject of the united front, Mariategui
>proposed the possibility of uniting "with the left liberal
>bourgeoisie, truly disposed to struggle against the remnants of
>feudalism and against imperialist penetration," defining the
>position of what today we call the national bourgeoisie; and he
>specified, besides, as we saw, that the petty-bourgeoisie will go
>on developing "a revolutionary nationalist position" as the
>foreign domination increases.
>
>On the other hand, charging against the Apristas [Trans.
>reactionary Party in Peru] who then raised anti-imperialism "as a
>program category, a political attitude, a self-sufficient
>movement taking us spontaneously, however by what process it is
>not known to socialism, to the social revolution" and exposing
>their thesis of "we are leftists (or socialists) because we are
>anti-imperialist," Mariategui, keeping in mind that only the
>proletariat, together with the peasantry, can be consistently
>anti-imperialist, pointed out: "To US, anti-imperialism does not
>constitute nor can it by itself constitute, a political program,
>a mass movement capable of conquering power," and he concluded:
>
>"In conclusion, we are anti-imperialists because we are
>socialists, because we are revolutionaries, because we
>counterpoise socialism as an opposite system to capitalism,
>destined to replace it, because in the struggle against foreign
>imperialism we fulfill our duties of solidarity with the
>revolutionary masses of the world."
>
>Thus, the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist struggle intermingle
>as two inseparable matters and as integrating parts of the
>national-democratic revolution which only the working class is
>capable of leading, provided it establishes the worker-peasant
>alliance as the starting point of the united front of the
>revolution.
>
>[Extract from the Document of the Central Committee of the
>Communist Party of Peru "Let's Retake Mariategui and Reconstitute
>his Party." October 1975.]



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---