Noticiero ¡Lucha y Resiste! se sentó con Sydney Loving, participante de la delegación de Amigos de China Socialista, que recientemente regresó de una visita de diez días a cinco ciudades en China. De bases revolucionarios a ciudades de alta tecnología y desarrollo verde, la delegación presenció de primera mano el poder del socialismo a levantar las vidas de la gente. Loving es miembro del Comité Central de la Organización Socialista Camino de la Libertad.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: ¿Cómo llegaste a China? ¿Cuál fue el propósito del viaje?

Sydney Loving: La delegación fue organizada por Amigos de China Socialista, un proyecto político dedicado a fortalecer la comprensión y apoyo para China según la solidaridad y la verdad. Yo representé la Organización Socialista Camino de la Libertad, y la delegación incluyó la gente de la Alianza Negra por la Paz, Mundo de Obreros, Internacional Progresista, Partido Comunista de Britania Liga de Comunistas Jóvenes, la Alianza de Liberación Negra, Libros Iskra, y otros.

Fuimos invitados por la Red China de ONG de Intercambios Internacionales, y durante 10 días visitamos Xi’an, Yan’an, Dunhuang, Jiayuguan y Shanghái.

Durante nuestro viaje a una variedad de lugares, tuvimos la oportunidad de descubrir cómo China está construyendo el socialismo, los avances increíbles que han hecho en 76 años de construcción socialista, y tuvimos diálogos maravillosos sobre cómo podemos rebatir mejor las narrativas negativas y las mentiras estilo Guerra Fría con las que estamos bombardeadas dentro del oeste. Al final, lo que encontramos fue un país encabezado por un partido político con una visión de futuro, con una meta que crea un mejor futuro para todos.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: ¿Cómo describirías el camino de desarrollo de China?

Loving: Para entender verdaderamente lo extraordinario que es el desarrollo de China, hay que entender la historia y cómo fue la vida anterior para la mayoría de la gente. Antes de la revolución en 1949, China fue totalmente devastada por el imperialismo y la ocupación extranjera, feudalismo brutal, las hambrunas provocadas por el hombre, el caudillismo y más. La expectativa de vida en las áreas rurales era tan baja como 24 años. En Xi’an fuimos a unos sitios históricos antiguos, y los generales de terracota y las estatuas de mujeres nobles estaban rollizos – porque la hambruna masiva era una característica de la sociedad por siglos. Entonces, el socialismo tenía que superar todo esto.

Fuimos para Yan’an, que fue verdaderamente la cuna de la revolución de 1935 y 1947. El Ejército Rojo se reagrupó allá después de la Marcha Larga, y el PCCh [Partido Comunista de China] tuvo el 7mo Congreso Nacional, (16 largos años después del 6to Congreso, porque estaban luchando contra el imperialismo japonés y el KMT) en el cual el Pensamiento Mao Zedong fue cristalizado y adoptado. Ellos pelearon contra el dogmatismo y tomaron la decisión de ser el partido de las masas de la gente China. Cuando construyeron las estructuras políticas y eligieron representantes al Congreso, tenían un sistema de platos hondos y frijoles para las personas que no podían leer para votar por sus candidatos.

Ahora, 76 después, vimos un país que es la economía más grande del mundo medido por Paridad de Poder Adquisitivo. Incluso en las ciudades más pequeñas son tecnológicamente avanzadas y cada día más verde, la expectativa de vida es de más de 78 años, y claro donde más de 800 millones de personas han salido de la pobreza extrema – y no solo estamos hablando en términos de cantidades de dólares. Estamos hablando de alimentación, ropa, vivienda, electricidad y agua, atención médica y educación garantizadas.

El capitalismo no es capaz de cumplir esa clase de proyecto. Lo lograron con el planeo central y la movilización en masa. Cada ciudad que visitamos mostró cómo el Partido Comunista está guiando el desarrollo que prioriza a la gente primero.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: ¿Cuáles diferencias notaste en la vida cotidiana?

Loving: Se siente sinceramente diferente a las ciudades en los EE. UU., incluso nuestras ciudades más grandes. Las calles están limpias, caminables, y bien ordenadas a pesar de lo pobladas que están. Hasta el punto de que las madres y sus hijos simplemente caminaban tras cada intersección, con confianza de que los carros tenían que pararse. Muchos vehículos y cosas son diseñados con consideración a las necesidades de los viejos, los niños y los obreros. Aun en uno de los hoteles, los trabajadores se reunían en la plaza para hacer baile/ejercicio por las mañanas. Fue verdaderamente tranquilo pero animado, con parques y jardines en todas partes, y muchas actividades gratuitas y acceso a la cultura y a sitios históricos.

En Xi’an y Dunhuang en particular vimos como miles de años de civilización están siendo preservados como parte de la identidad viva de la gente. Y ya que el turismo interno es tan importante, los museos y sitios estaban llenos de niños, ancianos y familias. Para mí, me quedó claro que mantener el pueblo como dueño de su historia y su cultura es parte fundamental del espíritu revolucionario.

Y no como las ciudades de los EE. UU., no vimos casi ninguna falta de vivienda. En diez días, viajando por cinco ciudades, solo vi a una persona pidiendo limosna en la calle con un código QR en el fondo de una olla. Compáralo con San Francisco o Nueva York, donde hay barrios enteros de campamentos.

Además de eso, la tecnología fue increíble. Desde pequeños robots que toman el elevador para entregar comida a tu cuarto de hotel a los aeropuertos donde solo te paras frente a una cámara y te muestra toda la información de tu puerta de embarque y vuelo. Nuestros anfitriones nos avisaron contra tomar el tren bala porque nosotros los occidentales somos muy lentos con tanto equipaje y seguro íbamos a llegar tarde, pero el tren normal también fue genial.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: Fuiste al noroeste, una región bastante pobre de China. ¿Qué fue lo que más notaste?

Loving: Si, fuimos a la provincia de Gansu, en el borde del desierto de Gobi, una de las partes más empobrecidas de China. Pero realmente nos impresionó lo que están haciendo allí.

En Jiayuguan, visitamos JISCO, una empresa siderúrgica estatal alrededor de la cual los obreros construyeron la ciudad entera en los años 1950s. Hoy tiene una cobertura verde de 42%, con estanques y parques — y recuerda que esto es el desierto Gobi. Es un testamento del nivel de desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas que ahora JISCO incluso tiene una granja lechera y una vinatera con la bodega de vino techada más grande de Asia (sí, probamos el vino — delicioso). También recorrimos la planta de poder solar de sal fundido de Dunhuang, que puede almacenar energía por la noche y un centro de control con IA para una red eléctrica inteligente que ayuda a reducir la producción de carbón en toda la providencia. Le preguntamos a un trabajador allí cuál es la diferencia tecnológica entre cómo funciona su red eléctrica y la de EE. UU., y modestamente nos dijo: “Bueno, nuestra red nunca se cae”. Desafortunadamente, eso me hizo reír – siendo de Texas.

Hay un gran énfasis en la modernización ecológica. Realmente están transformando el desierto en un lugar habitable y sostenible. Es un testamento de cómo van juntos el alivio de la pobreza y el ambientalismo bajo el socialismo.

China también está demostrando que la tecnología no es inherentemente anti-humana. En Shanghái fuimos a una fábrica de robótica en donde demostraron los avances en la cirugía e industria, y una fábrica de Lenovo donde mostraron cómo colaboran con el sistema escolar para llevar tecnología avanzada a escuelas rurales. La diferencia está en quién controla la tecnología, bajo qué sistema y para qué propósito.

Para China, un desarrollo que deja gente atrás simplemente significa un fracaso. Por eso se enfocan en equilibrar el desarrollo de las regiones, impulsando el occidente y el noroeste en lugar de permitir que la riqueza se concentre solo en las costas. Así, tras el éxito de los masivos proyectos de aliviar de la pobreza – que ni la ONU puede negar – la siguiente fase es la “prosperidad común”.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: ¿Cuál fue el papel del Partido Comunista en la vida cotidiana?

Loving: El Partido Comunista estuvo en todas partes. Digo acaban de celebrar haber alcanzado 100 millones de miembros. Aldeas, hospitales, escuelas y fábricas tienen ramas del Partido. En Jiayuguan pasamos por uno de los “Centros del Partido,” donde nuestros guías nos dijeron que las personas pueden ir a hacer preguntas o pedir ayuda de los cadres, hasta el cuidado de los niños.

Me repito, es tan diferente de los partidos políticos de aquí. A los funcionarios locales se les evalúa por cómo sirven a la gente, con el partido siendo una meritocracia en ese sentido. No puedes comprar un puesto de liderazgo como lo hacen en los partidos políticos aquí en los EE. UU.

De hecho, para ascender rango en el Partido, tienes que demostrar tu dedicación y servicio al pueblo. Un miembro del Partido, que era maestro y que también fue nuestro guía improvisado en el autobús, lo resumió diciendo que es un sentimiento de orgullo por lo lejos que han llegado y hacia dónde van. Y con buena razón.

La presencia del PCCh no es misteriosa ni abstracta. Son doctores dando consultas gratis, comités organizando la limpieza de las calles y obreros mejorando las condiciones de seguridad en el trabajo. Esto demuestra por qué pudieron vencer el militarismo japonés y al KMT: porque estaban, y siguen estando, profundamente arraigados en el pueblo.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: ¿Qué lecciones deberían los revolucionarios en los EE. UU. sacar de tu experiencia?

Loving: Sabemos que el capitalismo monopolista es un sistema moribundo, así que una lección para todos es que el socialismo funciona. Esta es la vida real, así no es una utopía, y hay contradicciones y mejoramientos que hacer en todo. Pero está haciendo el trabajo más importante que existe, que es mejorar las vidas de las personas y resolver problemas complicados enormes como la pobreza, el cambio climático, y los ataques a la soberanía y amenazas de guerra, con creatividad y flexibilidad en tiempos de cambio. Si tienen la oportunidad, la gente definitivamente debería visitar y ver por sí mismos.

Pero no es suficiente solo admirar a China. Para los revolucionarios aquí, tenemos que entender nuestras tareas. El mayor obstáculo a un futuro pacífico y digno para todos es el imperialismo de los EE. UU. El mismo sistema que bombardea Palestina, bloquea Cuba, financia golpes de estado en África, y quiere declarar guerra contra China.

El imperialismo de los EE. UU. es enemigo de la gente aquí también.

Como comunistas, estamos estableciendo liderazgo en todos los aspectos de la lucha de la gente y construyendo un movimiento revolucionario en la casa, para crear un partido de la clase obrera, arraigado en la gente, con la misma agilidad y claridad de propósito que han demostrado los comunistas de China por casi un siglo. Dicho esto, no hay una forma de copiar y pegar el camino de China que funcione para nosotros. Tenemos que aplicar la ciencia revolucionaria a nuestras propias condiciones, tiempo y lugar.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: ¿Tienes pensamientos finales?

Loving: ¡El socialismo es el futuro! En muchos aspectos, China está mostrando el camino, pero es verdad para todos nosotros. La gente en cada rincón del mundo merece vivir con dignidad y paz. Lo alcanzaremos si luchamos por ello.

#International #China #FRSO #OSCL #RevolutionaryTheory #Interview #Opinion #Socialism

Fight Back! sat down with Sydney Loving, a participant in the 2025 Friends of Socialist China delegation, which recently returned from a ten-day visit across five cities in China. From revolutionary bases to high-tech cities and green development, the delegation witnessed firsthand the power of socialism to uplift the lives of the people. Loving is a member of the Central Committee of Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

Fight Back!: How did you go to China? What was the purpose of the trip?

Sydney Loving: The delegation was organized by Friends of Socialist China, a political project aiming to strengthen understanding and support for China on the basis of solidarity and truth. I repped Freedom Road Socialist Organization, and the delegation included folks from Black Alliance for Peace, Workers World, Progressive International, Communist Party of Britain Young Communist League, Black Liberation Alliance, Qiao Collective, Iskra Books, and others.

We were invited by the China NGO Network for International Exchanges, and over ten days we visited Xi’an, Yan’an, Dunhuang, Jiayuguan, and Shanghai.

Traveling to a range of areas, we got to investigate how China is building socialism, the incredible advances they’ve made in 76 years of socialist construction, and we had awesome dialogues about how we can better counter the negative narratives and Cold War-type lies we’re bombarded with in the West. Ultimately what we found was a country led by a forward-thinking political party, with a purpose that’s carving out a better future for everybody.

Fight Back!: How would you describe China’s path of development?

Loving: To really understand how remarkable China’s development is, you’ve got to understand the history and what life was like for most people. Before the revolution in 1949, China was totally devastated by imperialism and foreign occupation, brutal feudalism, man-made famines, warlordism, etc. Life expectancy in the rural areas was as low as 24 years old. In Xi’an we went to some ancient history sites, and the terracotta generals and statues of noblewomen were plump – because mass starvation was a feature of society for centuries. So, socialism had all this to overcome.

We went to Yan’an, which was really the cradle of the revolution from 1935 to 1947. The Red Army re-grouped there after the Long March, and the CPC [Communist Party of China] held the 7th National Congress there, (16 long years after the 6th Congress, because they were fighting Japanese imperialism and the KMT) where Mao Zedong Thought was crystalized and adopted. They fought dogmatism and made the decision to be the party of the masses of Chinese people. When they built the political structures and elected representatives to the Congress, they had a system of bowls and beans for people who couldn’t read to vote for their candidates

Now, 76 years later, we saw a country that’s the largest economy in the world as measured by Purchasing Power Parity. Even smaller cities are high-tech and increasingly green, life expectancy is over 78 years, and of course where over 800 million people have been lifted out of extreme poverty– and we’re not just talking by dollar amounts. We’re talking guaranteed food, clothing, housing, electricity and water, healthcare and education.

Capitalism is just not capable of that kind of project. They did it through central planning and mass mobilization. Every single city we visited showed how the Communist Party is guiding development that puts people first.

Fight Back!: What differences did you notice in daily life?

Loving: It really feels very different than cities in the U.S., even our biggest cities. The streets are clean, walkable, and well-organized despite how populous they are. To the point where moms and their kids would just walk across the intersection, confident the cars would stop for them. Lots of electric vehicles and things are designed with the needs of the elderly, children and workers in mind. Even at one of our hotels, the workers would all meet in the quad for a dance/exercise in the mornings. It was really peaceful but lively, with parks and gardens everywhere, and tons of free activities and access to culture and historical sites.

In Xi’an and Dunhuang especially we saw how thousands of years of civilization are being preserved as part of people’s living identity. And with internal tourism being a big deal, museums and sites were full of schoolkids, seniors and families. To me it was clear that having history and culture belong to the people is part of the revolutionary spirit.

And unlike cities in the U.S., we saw almost no homelessness. In ten days, traveling around five cities, I saw just one person begging on the street with a QR code in the bottom of a pan. Compare that to San Francisco or New York, where you have entire neighborhoods of encampments.

Also, the technology was unreal. From little robots that take the elevator to deliver food to your hotel room to the airports where you just stand in front of a camera and it displays all your gate and flight info. Our hosts advised against us taking the bullet train because we Westerners were too slow with all our luggage and definitely would’ve been late, but the normal train was awesome, too.

Fight Back!: You went to the northwest, a poorer region of China. What stood out?

Loving: Yes we went to Gansu Province, on the edge of the Gobi Desert, one of the most historically impoverished parts of China. But we were really blown away by what they’re doing there.

In Jiayuguan, we visited JISCO, a state-owned steel company that the workers built the whole city around in the 1950s. Today it has 42% green cover, with ponds and parks– remember this is the Gobi Desert. It’s a testament to the level of development of the productive forces that now JISCO even has a dairy farm and a winery with the largest indoor wine cellar in Asia (yes we tasted the wine – delicious). We also toured the Dunhuang molten salt solar power plant, which can store energy at night, and a smart grid AI control center that helps reduce carbon output across the province. We asked a worker there what’s the difference in tech between how their power grid works vs. in the U.S., and he modestly said, “Well our grid never goes down.” Unfortunately, I got a kick out of that – being from Texas.

There’s a big emphasis on ecological modernization. They’re really transforming a desert into a livable, sustainable place. It’s a testament to how poverty alleviation and environmentalism go hand in hand under socialism.

China is also proving that tech isn’t inherently anti-human. In Shanghai we went to a robotics facility where they demonstrated the advancements for surgery and industry, and a Lenovo factory where they showed off how they’re partnering with the school system to bring advanced tech into rural classrooms. The difference is who controls tech, under what system, and for what purpose.

For China, development that leaves some folks behind means failure. That’s why they focus on balancing the regions, uplifting the west and northwest instead of letting wealth pool on the coasts. So after the success of the massive poverty alleviation projects -which even the UN can’t deny – the next phase is “common prosperity.”

Fight Back!: What was the role of the Communist Party in daily life?

Loving: The Communist Party was everywhere. I mean they just celebrated reaching 100 million members. Villages, hospitals, schools and factories have Party branches. In Jiayuguan we passed one of the “Party Centers,” where our guides told us people can go and ask questions or get help from cadres, even childcare.

Again, it’s so different than political parties here. Local officials are graded on how well they serve the people, with the party being a meritocracy in that sense. You can’t buy your way into leadership like they do for political parties here in the U.S.

Actually, to rise the ranks in the Party, you have to demonstrate your dedication and service to the people. One Party member who was a teacher and an impromptu tour guide on our bus summed it up by saying it’s a feeling of pride in how far they’ve come and where they’re going. And for a good reason.

The CPC’s presence isn’t shadowy or abstract. It’s doctors giving free checkups, committees organizing street sanitation, workers shoring up safety conditions. It proves why they were able to defeat Japanese militarism and the KMT: because they were, and still are, deeply rooted in the masses.

Fight Back!: What lessons should revolutionaries in the U.S. draw from your experience?

Loving: We know that monopoly capitalism is a dying system, so one of the lessons for everyone is that socialism works. This is real life, so it’s not a utopia, and there’s contradictions and improvements to be made in everything. But it’s doing the most important work there is, which is lifting up people’s lives and solving huge complicated problems like poverty, climate change, and attacks on sovereignty and threats of war, with creativity and flexibility in changing times. If you get the chance, folks should definitely visit and see for yourselves.

But it’s not enough to just admire China. For revolutionaries here, we have to understand our tasks. The biggest obstacle to a peaceful, dignified future for everybody is U.S. imperialism. The same system that bombs Palestine, blockades Cuba, funds coups in Africa, and they’d like to wage war on China.

U.S. imperialism is the enemy of the people here, too.

As communists, we are earning leadership in all the strands of the people’s struggle and building a revolutionary movement at home, to create a party of the working class, rooted in the people, with the same agility and clarity of purpose that China’s communists have shown for almost a century. That being said, there’s no copy-pasting of China’s path that will work for us. We have to apply revolutionary science to our own conditions, time and place.

Fight Back!: Final thoughts?

Loving: Socialism is the future! In many respects China is showing the way, but it’s true for all of us. People in every corner of the world deserve to live with dignity and peace. We will get there if we fight for it.

#International #China #FRSO #RevolutionaryTheory #Opinion #Interview #Socialism #Feature

Carlos Montes is a nationally respected leader in the Chicano, immigrant rights and anti-war movements. He was a co-founder of the Brown Berets, a Chicano working-class organization in the United States in the late 1960s and 1970s. The Brown Berets were inspired by and often compared to the Black Panther Party.

Montes was one of the leaders of the 1968 ELA Chicano Blowouts, a series of walkouts of East Los Angeles high schools. He is portrayed by Fidel Gomez in the 2006 HBO movie Walkout. Montes is one of the ELA 13 indicted by a grand jury for conspiracy to disrupt the Los Angeles school district. With the Brown Berets, Montes organized the first Chicano Moratorium protest against the Vietnam war in East LA, which took place December 20, 1969.

Fight Back! caught up with Carlos Montes to see why immigrant rights forces are mobilizing for the Southwest Summit Against Deportations on April 12 and 13 in Los Angeles, California.

Fight Back!: Welcome, Carlos! Tell us a little about yourself and how you joined the movement.

Carlos Montes: I joined the movement when the struggle for Chicano rights was rising. I was motivated by the Black Liberation Movement. Growing up facing police harassment pushed me to get involved. I’m just a little kid from the border town of Juarez [Texas], and now I’m still here – organizing for public education, immigrant rights, against police brutality and fighting for our communities.

Fight Back!: What are the main attacks immigrants are facing right now?

Montes: The main tip of the spear is ICE arrests and deportations across the nation. Here in Southern California, since February 23, they’re targeting mostly working-class Chicano, Latino and some Asian communities. The Secretary of Homeland Security went on Spanish-language national TV threatening, “Go back,” or else. They’re arresting legal residents, people who’ve been here for years. ICE, DHS and FBI are using unmarked cars, staking out homes, spreading fear.

Fight Back!: How do we fight back?

Montes: Here in Boyle Heights Centro CSO is doing barrio walks door to door with know-your-rights information to be able to resist ICE. In LA, the Community Self-Defense Coalition goes to raids and chants with bullhorns: “Don’t come out!” We remind people of their rights. In some cases, ICE leaves. Since February, thousands have come out – like the 15,000 to 20,000 in LA who marched all over, city hall and even onto the freeway, driving back to Boyle Heights. On February 8 and 17, we marched from working-class Chicano immigrant communities to downtown. High school students led walkout for several weeks. The community is coming out to protest.

Fight Back!: Why should people mobilize for the summit?

Montes: It’s important for all immigrant rights activists to come out, have a united voice, a united front. This national conference initiated by Legalization for All Network will denounce Trump’s attacks and DHS’s attacks on immigrants. Chicanos and working people are under attack – and are fighting back. This is historic. In the 60s and 70s, at the height of the Chicano movement, we had MEChA conferences, El Plan de Santa Barbra and the Denver National Chicano Youth Liberation conferences. Now, we’ll have moms, youth, people from all walks of life attending the summit.

It’s an opportunity to meet activists young and old, learn from each other, unite and share tactics. That’s why we’re planning hard– registration is kicking up.

Fight Back!: What’s the significance of holding the conference in Boyle Heights and East LA?

Montes: East LA is a Chicano community that’s always fought for justice – anti-war, against police abuse, for education, against the ELA Sheriff’s. Boyle Heights is a working-class immigrant neighborhood with a history of fighting back. In the 30s and 40s, they resisted deportations and racist military attacks during the Zoot Suit Riots. In the 50s, they fought freeways displacing families. In the 60s, students rose up against police abuse and the Vietnam War. Today, they battle gentrification, high COVID rates, and ICE. Unions like the teachers’ union, families of police killing victims, and Black and Brown communities stand in solidarity here.

Fight Back!: What can we expect at the conference?

Montes: Elvira Arellano, who started the sanctuary movement in Chicago years ago, was deported and came back – she will speak. Jeanette Vizguerra’s daughter is coming too. We’ll have Amerika Garcia Grewal from Eagle Pass speaking, that’s where Governor Abbott has taken over federal border zones. Groups like MIRAC, Union del Barrio, UTLA, Proyecto Pastoral, and Colorado CSO will lead panels on fighting back. Rafael Avitia of La Mesa Brown Berets will also speak. There’ll be workshops and a big press conference calling for mass protests and an immigrant worker walkout on May Day.

Fight Back!: Final message for folks?

Montes: Come to East LA on April 12 – where the Chicano movement fought against war, police, and for public education– and Boyle Heights on April 13 – where we resisted ICE, freeways, and gentrification. This conference will be historic. We’re packing it with people, just like the old days. ¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!

To register for the Southwest Summit to Stop Deportations, visit: https://tinyurl.com/summitagainstdeportations

#Interview #ImmigrantRights #ChicanoLatino #OppressedNationalities #CarlosMontes #CentroCSO

Sentados en el famoso “Rincón Rojo” en el Casa Museo José Carlos Mariátegui ubicado en el distrito Jesús María en Lima, Perú, Jonce Palmer de ¡Lucha y Resiste! tuvo el placer de estar al lado del Dr. Ricardo Felipe Portocarrero Grados, director del Museo desde 2011 hasta 2014 y asesor del Archivo José Carlos Mariátegui. En esta entrevista, platicamos sobre la vida y obra de Mariátegui, su impacto en la historia del Perú, y su legado hoy en día para la izquierda revolucionaria peruana e internacional.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: ¿Quién fue Mariátegui y cómo se puso importante en la historia del Perú?

Ricardo Portocarrero: José Carlos Mariátegui fue un político e intelectual peruano que es considerado, según una frase que se hizo muy conocida de Antonio Melis, “el primer marxista de América [Latina]”. Se ha denominado así no porque antes hubieran personas que se declaran marxistas, sino porque se considera la obra de Mariátegui como una obra original del marxismo latinoamericano, prácticamente fundante de un marxismo que sí bien nace en Europa, pero lo que busca es interpretar para transformar la realidad peruana.

El alcance de la obra de Mariátegui se debe fundamentalmente a la revista Amauta. Fue a través de la revista Amauta que Mariátegui tomó contacto no solo con intelectuales y dirigentes obreros o campesinos de casi todo el Perú, sino también con personalidades de casi toda América Latina: de Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Costa Rica, y México. En Europa, también tenía contactos aunque la presencia de Amauta fue menor.

Y es esta amplia red de intercambios políticos e intelectuales que se articuló alrededor de la revista Amauta que produjo este reconocimiento—aún en vida de Mariátegui—tan amplio a nivel nacional e internacional. Fue también a través de la revista Amauta que se conocieron Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana.

Una parte de los Siete ensayos fue publicado en Amauta, también Defensa del marxismo, y eso permitió que a su muerte, muchos ya lo conocieran por sus escritos. Entonces el impacto que produjo su muerte redundó ampliamente en todo el continente.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: ¿Puede explicar más sobre la obra política y teórica en que se involucró Mariátegui?

Ricardo Portocarrero: Como todo pensador marxista, su obra es amplia y diversa. Quizás lo primero que hay que señalar es que Mariátegui fue, como fue Marx, Gramsci, Lenin, y Trotsky en algún momento, periodista. Era parte de su actividad política. Comenzó como un joven periodista, desde el taller hasta la redacción, y esta fue una tarea que realizó a lo largo de toda su vida. ‘

Por ello, encontramos el primer momento que se ha denominado “edad de piedra” anterior a su formación marxista, una obra predominantemente literaria: había cuentos, poemas, teatro, crónicas de la ciudad de Lima, escritos hípicos de una obra muy diversa que eran propios de un joven periodista en formación en una Lima todavía aristocrática y muy conservador.

Es a partir de su viaje a Europa, y particularmente a su regreso al Perú, que Mariátegui orienta esta producción periodística con fines de organizar en el Perú una central sindical de medios de prensa que se entará en las bases de lo que él llamó el socialismo peruano. Los libros que él publicó en vida—y otros que dejó en proyecto—son resultados de una revisión de sus propios escritos que por si tenían cierta organicidad temática de ciertos problemas de interés, por ejemplo, la construcción del socialismo en la Unión Soviética, la crisis de la socialdemocracia europea, la emergencia y las nuevas corrientes artísticas, literarias, intelectuales, etc.

Esa articulación le permitió dar forma a estos libros que publicó en vida, que son La escena contemporánea (1925), Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana (1928), Defensa del marxismo, que fue publicado íntegro en 1955 después de la muerte del autor y durante su vida en Amauta, y El alma matinal que quedó inconcluso.

Eso es bien importante para entender porque es una obra multifacética, escrita al ritmo de la situación cotidiana. Sin perder las perspectivas de largo plazo, tenía que ser escrito al ritmo de los acontecimientos. Que le daba una profundidad mayor a una obra escrita especialmente que tiene que abarcar muy amplia que muchas veces lo más cercano, cotidiano, preciso, se pierda. Ese estilo periodístico es lo que ha convertido en atractivo por poder estar leído con cierta facilidad, con un estilo muy literario, muy reconocido, prácticamente a lo largo de su obra.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: ¿Cuáles fueron algunos de los problemas del pueblo peruano durante este tiempo? ¿Aún existen los mismos problemas hoy en día? ¿Han aparecido problemas nuevos?

Ricardo Portocarrero: Esa es una pregunta recurrente que la izquierda peruana en general, y sobre todo, aquellos que se han declarado sus herederos—no sus seguidores, sus herederos, que dicen que representan Mariátegui en el día de hoy con sus partidos—se han planteado ese tema en diferentes momentos. Por ejemplo, a fin de los años 70, a instancia de la editorial Minerva, se publicó un conjunto de libros dedicados a estudiar los Siete ensayos en comparación con el Perú de ese momento.

En ese momento había profundas transformaciones, productos de las reformas de un gobierno militar y nacionalista. Esas reformas, la más importante siendo la reforma agraria, había abolido el latifundio. La persistencia colonial en el campo desapareció. Entonces, obviamente el Perú de Mariátegui ya no existía.

Más adelante, a finales de los años 80, se formó un grupo de intelectuales izquierdistas y marxistas que realizó unos seminarios justamente con la intención de elaborar un libro que se titulara Los nuevos siete ensayos. Desgraciadamente, no se llegó a concretar el libro como tal. En ese entonces el Perú atravesaba una guerra interna cruenta que también estaba transformando las relaciones de poder y la estructura de clases.

Más recientemente, ese es un tema pendiente para la izquierda peruana. Yo creo que fundamentalmente, hay dos aspectos que están vigentes todavía, pero en otras formas, como problemas en el presente. El problema de la dependencia, del imperialismo en el Perú y América Latina. El caso del Perú es clarísimo por la situación actual que vivimos bajo un modelo neoliberal brutal y represivo que, de otra manera, pone justamente al debate: ¿Quiénes son los sujetos que estarían interesados en luchar en contra de esas presencias? Obviamente las clases dominantes—el capital extranjero, los grupos de poder económico—están interesados en mantener esta situación.

Para aquellos que se opongan a esa dominación imperialista, es nuevamente una cuestión de discusión. Obviamente la estructura social no es la misma; no tenemos ni siquiera la misma clase obrera que existió en el Perú a principios del siglo XX. Pero también, es claro que las relaciones capitalistas, la contradicción entre capital y salario, la penetración del capital en el campo, en los circuitos de distribución, son cada vez más fuertes.

El otro tema fundamental tiene que ver en cierta manera con el poder político: El problema de cómo crear una nueva sociedad en Perú. Mariátegui planteó dos elementos que tenían que ser tomados en cuenta en este proceso de transformación. Uno de ellos era el problema agrario, que se prestaba en ese entonces por esos latifundios—propiedades de los llamados gamonales. Hoy no existen. Existen grandes empresas nacionales extranjeras que han convertido la lucha de la tierra en un tema muy importante en Perú. Ya no es solamente para la producción agroexportadora—anteriormente exportamos azúcar, algodón; ahora exportamos espárragos, café—sino también tiene que ver con el hecho de que la minería y el petrolero requiere justamente expropiar y expulsar a la población de los pueblos en las Andes de sus territorios para poder realizar los grandes proyectos mineros que solamente dejan contaminación, enfermedad, y muerte.

El otro aspecto del problema agrario es el papel de la producción agraria familiar en los campos con una manera de impulsar un mercado interno que resuelve el problema de la mayoría de la población que vive en diversas regiones. O sea, el problema del centralismo político. El poder se ejerce fundamentalmente desde Lima. Entonces, el problema agrario, de esta penetración del capital en el campo, y las luchas de las agriculturas familiares campesinas son aspectos del problema ya había planteado hace casi cien años. Son algunas ideas que tienen que ser repensadas.

Desgraciadamente, dentro los sectores intelectuales, pero también en algunos partidos políticos, se está pensando más en términos de políticas públicas que este estado se debe esforzar para mejorar la situación cuando la cosa es clara. Esto no tiene solución en este modelo económico y bajo este estado. Entonces, en ese sentido, la izquierda más revolucionaria, radical o, más consecuentemente, marxista, prácticamente es inexistente. Hay un fuerte movimiento social, pero no hay ninguna fuerza política de izquierda radical que realmente pueda dirigir este movimiento con fines de transformar la situación.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: ¿Cómo ha impactado la obra de Mariátegui en el movimiento marxista en Perú hoy en día? ¿Y dónde vemos esta influencia?

Ricardo Portocarrero: Yo creo que la influencia de la obra de Mariátegui es tal que prácticamente no hay partido político que se declare de izquierda (aunque no lo sean) que no le bendigan a Mariátegui. Es prácticamente parte de la identidad política de la izquierda peruana, inclusive aquella que no sea marxista. Generalmente la izquierda marxista lo reclama como un emblema revolucionario, una forma de decir “nosotros somos revolucionarios porque seguimos a Mariátegui.”

Hay otra izquierda más progresista, moderada, reformista que identifican a Mariátegui como un ejemplo de persona de político e intelectual preocupado por los grandes problemas nacionales. Pero que le quitan buena parte del aspecto político y programático de la obra de Mariátegui. Resaltan Amauta, sus libros, los Siete ensayos, pero no hablan del Partido Socialista ni de los sindicatos que fundó y apoyó respectivamente. Lo ven como intelectual, abstracto y aislado.

En el caso de la derecha, los conservadores y reaccionarios en este país, Mariátegui recibe su prestigio, pero prácticamente lo reducen a silencio. O sea, simplemente no hablan de él. Al menos, no públicamente. No hay una fuerte campaña desde el estado de hoy o las fuerzas políticas conservadoras contra Mariátegui. Su obra se queda sin algo de reprochar. Es una obra impecable. Por ejemplo, en los cuartos últimos años, hemos tenido las conmemoraciones de las últimas Guerras de Independencia en 2021-2024. Mariátegui casi no fue mencionado, y cuando sí ha sido mencionado, ha sido muy superficialmente.

También hay jóvenes que están interesados en investigar a Mariátegui. Hace poco aquí mismo en esta sala regalamos los premios de un concurso de ensayos sobre la obra de Mariátegui teniendo como referencia sus conferencias en la Universidad Popular [Gonzales Prada]. Entonces si hay jóvenes en sus años 30 que están escribiendo e investigando sobre la obra de Mariátegui. Esperamos con tiempo lograr llevar esos nuevos trabajos, no solo más amplios en Perú, sino en el exterior.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: ¿Por qué leer a Mariátegui? ¿Por qué tiene importancia leer su obra hace casi un siglo? O mejor, ¿porque leer su obra no siendo peruano ni latino, simplemente siendo interesado, activista, u organizador?

Ricardo Portocarrero: Me preguntas porque leerlo, pero quiero poner el elemento como leerlo. Lo vemos en casi toda la obra de Marx, Engels, y los más importantes marxistas conocidos: amina mucho una lectura ahistórica, descontextualizada, que en cierta manera, buscan un método abstracto, una herramienta teórica separada de la historia para poder comprender al mundo presente. Pero se olvida que todas las obras—Marx, Engels, Gramsci, Lenin, Mariátegui—vivieron en una época específica y que analizaron esa realidad específica. Desde allí llegan a su conclusión. Por ejemplo, hoy en día, es muy manida el concepto de hegemonía de Gramsci. La han sacado abstractamente separada de los debates de la izquierda europea del siglo XX.

En este caso, leer a Mariátegui, o la forma en que hay que leerlo, es efectivamente encontrar un método—el método marxista—en uso, en acción. O sea, el método no es un recital. El método tiene su función, su papel, al momento de ser aplicado en el mundo concreto.

¡Lucha y Resiste!: O sea, leerlo a través de la praxis—no solamente la teoría sino también la práctica.

Ricardo Portocarrero: Así es. Y para eso tiene que conocer la época, su vida, y todo lo demás. Todo de lo cual actuó como referencia: lo que leyó y comprendió. Aquí el papel de la más influencia es muy relevante pero mal trabajado. El método consiste no en algo abstracto sino un método en acción.

El otro aspecto fundamental de Mariátegui: es una obra contemporánea en el sentido de una época en que todavía estamos viviendo. Algunos dicen que no, con la caída del Muro de Berlín, la desaparición de la Unión Soviética, la realidad ha cambiado. Lo que ha cambiado son las relaciones de poder a nivel mundial, pero el capitalismo como sistema, como ejecutor de la economía mundial, y restablecedor de las relaciones de poder entre países imperialistas y dependientes, no ha cambiado. Ha cambiado el periodo histórico, pero no la época. Todavía estamos viviendo durante la época del imperialismo.

En ese sentido, es una obra que aún interesa a la gente, porque hasta estas contradicciones de esta época, Mariátegui puede ser leído en esos términos, de cuestionar no solo el Perú, sino un mundo que todavía está vigente.

¿Y por qué tiene que ser leído por los no peruanos ni latinoamericanos? Es una pregunta que muchos se hacen porque desconocen que la mayor parte de sus artículos están dedicados a temas no peruanos. Hay mucho porcentaje de su obra que tiene que ver con los problemas de Europa. Realizó investigaciones sobre la India, China, y países del oriente.

Pero no los analizan como países aislados, sino países articulados mundialmente a las relaciones de poder que se producen. Cuando habla de la China o la India, no solo habla de los movimientos de liberación anticoloniales, sino también el papel que tienen los países imperialistas en él. Cuando habla de Europa, habla de ese papel que cumplen en otros países. Está analizando el mundo. Eso permite que personas que no hayan nacido en América Latina puedan entender y aprender de la obra de Mariátegui de manera global.

Otro aspecto que contribuiría mucho a su lectura es algo que Marx ya había planteado. Por ejemplo, en el caso de Irlanda e Inglaterra, había ese problema colonial. Él decía que la solución del problema irlandés iba a ser una cuestión muy importante para fortalecer el movimiento obrero británico. Así mismo, por ejemplo en los Estados Unidos, tiene el problema de la nacionalidad negra, los indígenas, y más. A los Estados Unidos vinieron de África y fueron de Islam. Hay un colonialismo interno; no es un colonialismo fuera del país, sino dentro del país. El caso de los chicanos es otro ejemplo.

Yo creo que la obra de Mariátegui, leída desde esa perspectiva conjuntamente con otros escritores marxistas de América del norte y del Caribe, les ayuda también a comprender. Sería muy importante para el movimiento de obreros en América del norte comprender que su propia liberación no es solamente una liberación nacional sino de todo el proletariado mundial. Creo que en ese sentido contribuiría en cierta manera deja de ser un pensamiento que se vea desde los Estados Unidos sino una mirada mucho más integral y articulada que justamente fomenta lazos de solidaridad y apoyo que por ejemplo se está viendo en la mirada mundial con el caso de Palestina. Porque tiene que entender que los gobiernos de los Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea están empeorando el problema. Imagínate si ellos no metieran armas a Ucrania, no metieran armas a Israel.  En cierta manera, contribuiría a integrar los movimientos internacionales en pro de la liberación no nacional, sino internacional.

Jonce Palmer es miembro general de la Organización Socialista Camino a la Libertad y co-fundador del Comité de Acción Comunitaria de Denver y Aurora, viviendo en Denver, Colorado. Su traducción de Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana por José Carlos Mariátegui, la primera traducción a inglés en más de 50 años, publicará Foreign Languages Press.

#International #Peru #Mariategui #Interview

In the famous “Red Corner” in the Casa Museo José Carlos Mariátegui in the Jesús María in Lima, Peru, Jonce Palmer of Fight Back! had the pleasure of sitting beside Dr. Ricardo Felipe Portocarrero Grados, director of the museum from 2011 to 2014 and co-director of the José Carlos Mariátegui Archive.

In this interview, we discuss the life and work of José Carlos Mariátegui (1894-1930), his impact on Peruvian history, and his current-day legacy for the Peruvian and international revolutionary left.

Fight Back!: Who was Mariátegui and how did he become an important figure in Peruvian history?

Ricardo Portocarrero: José Carlos Mariátegui was a Peruvian politician and intellectual who is considered, according to a phrase that became well known by Antonio Melis, “the first Marxist of [Latin] America”. He has been called this not because there weren’t people who declared themselves Marxists before, but because Mariátegui's work is considered an original work of Latin American Marxism, practically founding a Marxism that was born in Europe, but seeks to interpret Peruvian reality in order to transform it.

The scope of Mariátegui's work is fundamentally due to the Amauta magazine. It was through Amauta that Mariátegui made contact not only with intellectuals and workers' or peasants' leaders from almost all of Peru, but also with personalities from almost all of Latin America: Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Costa Rica and Mexico. He also had contacts in Europe, although the circulation of Amauta was smaller.

And it is this wide network of political and intellectual exchanges articulated through Amauta that produced this broad recognition – during Mariátegui's lifetime – at the national and international level. It was also through Amauta magazine that Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality became known.

Part of Seven Interpretive Essays was published in Amauta, along with Defense of Marxism, so that upon his death, many already knew him for his writings. The impact of his death reverberated widely throughout the continent.

Fight Back!: Can you explain more about the political and theoretical work in which Mariátegui was involved?

Ricardo Portocarrero: Like all Marxist thinkers, his work is broad and diverse. Perhaps the first thing to point out is that Mariátegui was, as was Marx, Gramsci, Lenin, and Trotsky at some point, a journalist. It was part of his political activity. He began as a young journalist, from the workshop to the newsroom, and this was a task he carried out throughout his life.

Therefore, we find the first moment that has been called his “stone age” prior to his Marxist training, a predominantly literary work: there were short stories, poems, plays, chronicles of the city of Lima, equestrian writings of a very diverse sort that were typical of a young journalist in training in a still aristocratic and very conservative Lima.

It was after his trip to Europe, and particularly upon his return to Peru, that Mariátegui oriented his journalistic production towards the organization in Peru of a press union that would become the basis of what he called Peruvian socialism. The books he published during his lifetime – and others he left in progress – are the result of a revision of his own writings, which in themselves had a certain thematic organicity of certain problems of interest, for example, the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union, the crisis of European social democracy, the emergence of new artistic, literary, intellectual currents, etc.

That articulation allowed him to shape these books he published during his lifetime, which are The Contemporary Scene (1925), Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality (1928), Defense of Marxism, which was published in its entirety in 1955 after the author's death and during his lifetime in Amauta, and El alma matinal, which remained unfinished. [Note: only Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality has been fully translated into English.]

It is very important to understand that Mariategui’s body of work is multifaceted, written in response to the daily situation. Without losing sight of the long term, it had to be written at the rhythm of current events. That gave all the more depth to his analysis of events that would otherwise run the risk of losing its closest, daily, precise qualities. That journalistic style is what has made his work attractive because it can be read with a certain ease, a very literary style recognizable throughout his work.

Fight Back!: What were some of the problems of the Peruvian people during this time? Do the same problems still exist today? Have new problems appeared?

Ricardo Portocarrero: That is a recurring question that the Peruvian left in general, and above all, those who have declared themselves his heirs – not his followers, his heirs, who say they represent Mariátegui today with their political parties – have raised that issue at different times. For example, at the end of the 1970s, at the request of the Minerva publishing house, a set of books was published dedicated to studying the Seven Interpretive Essays in comparison with the Peru of that time.

At that time there were profound transformations, products of the reforms of a military and nationalist government. These reforms, the most important being the agrarian reform, had abolished the latifundia. The colonial presence in the countryside disappeared. So, obviously, Mariátegui's Peru no longer existed.

Later, at the end of the 1980s, a group of leftist and Marxist intellectuals was formed and held seminars with the intention of preparing a book entitled The New Seven Essays. Unfortunately, the book did not materialize as such. At that time Peru was going through a bloody civil war that was also transforming the relations of power and class structure.

More recently, this is a pending issue for the Peruvian left. I believe that fundamentally, there are two aspects still at play as problems in the present, but they have taken on new forms. First there is the problem of dependence, of imperialism in Peru and Latin America. The case of Peru is very clear because of the current situation. We are living under a brutal and repressive neo-liberal model which in itself poses a question for us: Who are the subjects that would be interested in fighting against these relations? Obviously the ruling classes – foreign capital, the groups in power – are interested in maintaining this situation.

For those who oppose imperialist domination, this is a matter of discussion once again. Obviously the social structure is not the same; we do not even have the same working class that existed in Peru at the beginning of the 20th century. But it is also clear that capitalist relations, the contradiction between capital and wages, the penetration of capital in the countryside, in the circuits of distribution, are ever stronger.

The other fundamental issue has to do in a certain way with political power: the problem of how to create a new society in Peru. Mariátegui raised two elements that had to be taken into account in this process of transformation. One of them was the agrarian problem, which lent itself at that time to those latifundios – properties of the so-called gamonales. Today they do not exist. There are large foreign national companies that have turned the land struggle into a very important issue in Peru. It is no longer only for agro-export production; formerly we exported sugar and cotton, now we export asparagus and coffee; but also has to do with the fact that mining and oil requires expropriating and expelling the population of the villages in the Andes from their territories in order to carry out large mining projects that only leave pollution, disease and death.

The other aspect of the agrarian problem is the role of familial agrarian production in the countryside with a way of promoting an internal market that meets the needs of the majority of the population living in different regions. In other words, the problem of political centralism. Political power rests in Lima. So, the agrarian problem, of this penetration of capital in the countryside and the struggles of peasant family farms, are aspects of the problem that had already been raised almost 100 years ago. These are some ideas that need to be reexamined.

Unfortunately, within the intellectual sectors, but also in some political parties, people are thinking more in terms of public policies that the state should make an effort to improve the situation when the situation is clear. This has no solution in this economic model and under this state. So, in that sense, the more revolutionary, radical or, more consequently, Marxist left is practically non-existent. There is a strong social movement, but there is no radical left political force that can really lead this movement in order to transform the situation.

Fight Back!: How has Mariátegui's work impacted the Marxist movement in Peru today? And where do we see this influence?

Ricardo Portocarrero: I believe that the influence of Mariátegui's work is such that there is practically no political party that declares itself to be leftist (although they are not) that does not bless Mariátegui. It is practically part of the political identity of the Peruvian left, even that which is not Marxist. Generally, the Marxist left claims him as a revolutionary emblem, a way of saying “we are revolutionaries because we follow Mariátegui.”

There is another more progressive, moderate, reformist left that identifies Mariátegui as an example of a politician and intellectual concerned with the great national problems. But they take away a good part of the political and programmatic aspect of Mariátegui's work. They highlight Amauta, his books, the Seven Interpretive Essays, but do not talk about the Peruvian Socialist Party or the unions he founded and supported respectively. They see him as an abstract and isolated intellectual.

​​In the case of the right wing, the conservatives and reactionaries in this country, Mariátegui receives his prestige, but they practically reduce him to silence. That is, they simply do not speak of him. At least, not publicly. That said, there is no strong campaign from today's state or conservative political forces against Mariátegui. His work remains beyond reproach. It is an impeccable work. For example, in the last four years, we have had the commemorations of the last Wars of Independence in 2021-2024. Mariátegui was hardly mentioned, and when he was mentioned, it was quite superficial.

There are also young people who are interested in researching Mariátegui. Not long ago here in this room we gave away the prizes of an essay contest on the work of Mariátegui with reference to his lectures at the Universidad Popular [Gonzales Prada]. So there are young people in their 30s who are writing and researching on the work of Mariátegui. We hope in time to be able to bring these new works, not only more widely in Peru, but also abroad.

Fight Back!: Why read Mariátegui? Why is it important to read his work from almost a century ago? Or perhaps a better question would be, why read his work not being Peruvian or Latino, but simply being interested, an activist, or an organizer?

Ricardo Portocarrero: You ask me “why read him”, but I want to propose the idea of how to read him. We see it in almost all the work of Marx, Engels, and the most important known Marxists: their work is often subjected to an ahistorical, decontextualized reading. In a certain way, many look for an abstract method, a theoretical tool separated from history to be able to understand the present world. But it is often forgotten that all these thinkers – Marx, Engels, Gramsci, Lenin, Mariátegui – lived in a specific epoch and that they analyzed that specific reality. From there they reach their conclusion. For example, today, Gramsci's concept of hegemony has become hackneyed. It has been abstracted out of the debates of the European left in the 20th century.

In this case, to read Mariátegui, or the way in which to read him, is effectively to put a method – the Marxist method – in use, in action. That is, the method is not a mere exercise. The method has its function, its role, at the moment of being applied in the concrete world.

Fight Back!: That is, to read it through the lens of praxis, not just theory but also practice.

Ricardo Portocarrero: That's right, and for that you have to know the epoch, what it was like to live during that time, and everything else. Everything from which he acted as a reference: what he read and understood. Here the role of the most influence is very relevant but poorly thought out. The method consists not in something abstract but a method in action.

The other fundamental aspect of Mariátegui: it is a contemporary work in the sense of an epoch in which we are still living. Some say no, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, reality has changed. What has changed are the relations of power at the global level, but capitalism as a system, as commander of the world economy, and restorer of power relations between imperialist and dependent countries, has not changed. The historical period has changed, but not the epoch. We are still living during the age of imperialism.

In that sense, it is a work that still interests people, because even these contradictions of this era, Mariátegui can be read in those terms, analyzing not only Peru, but a world that is still in motion.

And why does he have to be read by non-Peruvians and non-Latin Americans? It is a question that many ask because they do not know that most of his articles are dedicated to non-Peruvian topics. There is a large percentage of his work that has to do with the problems of Europe. He also did research on India, China and Eastern countries.

But he does not analyze them as isolated countries, but rather as countries articulated globally to shifting relations of power. When he talks about China or India, he not only talks about the anti-colonial liberation movements, but also the role of imperialist countries in it. When he talks about Europe, he talks about the role they play in other countries. He is analyzing the world. That allows people who were not born in Latin America to understand and learn from Mariátegui's work in a global way.

Another aspect that would contribute a lot to his reading is something that Marx had already raised. For example, the relation between Ireland and England bears a colonial character. He said that the solution of the Irish problem was going to be a very important issue to strengthen the British workers' movement. Likewise, for example in the United States, you have the problem of the African American nationality, the indigenous, and so on. They came to the United States from Africa and were spurred from Islam. There is an internal colonialism; it is not a colonialism outside the country, but inside the country. The case of the Chicanos is another example.

I believe that Mariátegui’s work, read alongside other Marxist writers of North America and the Caribbean, would also help make it clear. It would be very important for the workers' movement in North America to understand that their own liberation is not only a national liberation but that of the proletariat around the world. I think that in that sense it would contribute in a certain way to stop being a thought that is seen from the United States but a much more comprehensive and articulated look that promotes ties of solidarity and support that is being witnessed in the world with the case of Palestine, for example. Because you have to understand that the governments of the United States and the European Union are making the problem worse. Imagine if they didn't bring weapons into Ukraine, they didn't bring weapons into Israel. In a way, reading Mariátegui would help to integrate international movements for liberation, not nationally, but internationally.

Jonce Palmer is a general member of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization and cofounder of Denver-Aurora Community Action Committee, living in Denver, Colorado. Their translation of “Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality by José Carlos Mariátegui”, the first English translation in over 50 years, is forthcoming from Foreign Languages Press.

#International #Peru #JoseCarlosMariategui #Interview

Fight Back! interview with Frank Chapman, of the Central Committee of Freedom Road Socialist Organization and the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

The book can be purchased here. Fight Back!: Your book is the first major work on Marxism-Leninism, the struggle for Black liberation and socialism to be written in several decades. What prompted you to do this?

Frank Chapman: Several things. The relationship between Black liberation and Marxism-Leninism hasn’t been addressed in several decades. The last significant work I read about it was back in the 70s, when then chairman of the Communist Party, Henry Winston, a Black man, wrote Strategy for a Black Agenda. It was basically a polemic against the narrow nationalism of certain forces in the Black Liberation movement, and also pointing out the reactionary character of that trend of Black nationalism that followed George Padmore.

More to the point, I noticed that during the 60s, a period that I lived through, at a significant high point of the Black Liberation movement, the party had a strong tendency in it to liquidate the national question, to deny that Black people were an oppressed nation. There was a struggle around that – not everybody in the party had that view. I certainly didn’t, and I was in the party.

Since the 60s, what has happened? The Black Liberation movement was damn near destroyed by the COINTELPRO program. It basically came to a holding position where there were no major advances for a couple of decades. Then you had this upsurge that occurred after the murder of Trayvon Martin in 2012. It was then that I started thinking about addressing this, because I saw a resurgence of the Black Liberation movement.

The big question that came into my head was, we’re not really learning the great lessons that were provided us by the communist movement in the 30s. We’re not taking those historic gains and building on them in the present, and we should be because it was those historic gains that set the stage for the Civil Rights movement.

So, I started looking at it back then, and decided to actually write the book when I saw that there were a lot of people who were Marxist-Leninists and in the socialist movement that really didn’t have a sound approach – didn’t have a Marxist-Leninist approach – when it came to the national question. I felt like this needed to be spoken to.

Fight Back!: You make the point that African Americans in the U.S. are an oppressed nationality. Why is this such an important point?

Chapman: Because we live in the age of imperialism. We live in an era of capitalism where oppressed nations throughout the world are fighting and striving for their right to self-determination. The Black liberation struggle in the United States is a part of that struggle. It’s another manifestation of the need to overcome the national oppression that capitalism imposes on peoples.

It was a tremendous contribution on the part of Lenin that he examined and correctly came out with an analysis that Black people were an oppressed nation within the U.S. As such, the communist movement throughout the world should stand in unconditional solidarity with them as they do with other oppressed nations. That was a significant advance for the communist movement, and it addressed directly and boldly the sellout, the betrayal that the Second International had done when they ignored the national question when it came to peoples of Asia and Africa, and the Black people in the U.S. To the extent that they recognized it at all, they only recognized it for certain European nations.

This is an important point to make because in the U.S., the basic democratic struggles being waged by Black people ever since we’ve been here have basically demonstrated that if you’re going to have a successful movement for socialism in this country, it has to be united with the struggle for Black liberation. Marx said it back during the time of the Civil War, labor in the white skin cannot be free if it’s sold and branded in the Black skin. This is a fundamental cleavage in the working class that impedes the development of revolutionary consciousness that prevents a mature movement to develop that can overthrow capitalism.

Fight Back!: Why do you think it is so important that activists in the Black Liberation movement study Marxism-Leninism?

Chapman: Because Marxism-Leninism has historically proven itself to be the greatest comrade in struggle to the Black Liberation movement. Communists have stood in unconditional solidarity with us for over a century. Marxism-Leninism has demonstrated to the more advanced forces – to the working class within the Black Liberation movement – that we can’t have Black liberation in the absence of a socialist future. In order for us truly to achieve our liberation, the Black Liberation movement and the working class movement must merge, to become one powerful movement against imperialism and capitalism. And at this stage of development, when capitalism is in sharp decline, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the Black Liberation movement – while a revolutionary movement in its own right – must join with the communist movement. That’s why we must study Marxism.

Fight Back!: In your book you spend time talking about the work of communists in the 1930s. What are some of the lessons we can learn from those efforts today?

Chapman: The great accomplishment of the communists in the 1930s, with the help of the Third International, they were able to see clearly the centrality of the struggle for Black liberation in the revolutionary movement. They were able to see clearly that a path to revolution in the U.S. has to be beaten out. The Black Liberation movement and the Marxist-Leninist movement together can find that pathway to socialism, because that’s the only pathway in the U.S.

The communists proved that in the 30s by going into the Deep South where you had Jim Crow states ruling with terror and brute force over Black people, to go into that situation to organize Black and white workers in a united fight against capitalist bosses and the landlords. That demonstrated, number one, that Black and white unity could be forged in the dirt and blood of class struggle. Number two, once that kind of unity was achieved, the Black Liberation movement and the working class movement were unstoppable. They proved that in the 30s with one victory after another.

Also, the communists in the 30s showed us the importance of the strategic alliance between Black people and the labor movement. It’s an alliance that objectively makes scientific sense, because what’s the class composition of Black people? 90% workers. So, this is only natural. This is an obvious connection. Black people have shown over and over again to be pro-union, and to be militant fighters for the union. Now today when we have millions of Black folks in the organized labor movement, we can drive these lessons home like never before.

What happened here in Chicago with the passing of the Empowering Communities for Public Safety (ECPS) ordinance is an example of that. We could not have won this historic victory without the support of the labor movement. It was the labor unions led by Black presidents that delivered the final blow for us, that brought the victory home.

We’re benefitting today by building on the experience of the communist movement in the 30s, by using the same strategy and tactics that were successful then, proving in the dirt and blood of battle they can be successful now.

#UnitedStates #InJusticeSystem #PeoplesStruggles #AfricanAmerican #Interview #Socialism #FrankChapman #MarxistLeninistPerspectivesOnBlackLiberationAndSocialism

Fight Back! interviews Frank Chapman on the November 22-24 Chicago conference to refound the National Alliance against Racist and Political Repression.

Fight Back!: Could you say a few words about what the conference to relaunch the National Alliance against Racist and Political Repression will look like?

Frank Chapman: The most powerful incentive for the relaunching of the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression is the national epidemic in police crimes and state violence being perpetrated against Black and brown people, LBGTQ and trans people. Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the DOJ’s refusal to intervene in the tragic murder of Eric Garner and the brutalization and murder of families at the U.S./Mexican border.

This dramatic increase in racist and political repression is accompanied by mass incarceration and the fact that the United States has the longest-held political prisoners in the world. Leonard Peltier, from the indigenous peoples’ movement, and Jalil Muntaquim, from the Black Panther Party, have been political prisoners for over four decades. And there are many others, like Gerald Reed, who are being held in prison as a result of being tortured and wrongfully convicted.

These are the reasons why we need to relaunch the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

Fight Back!: What is going on in our communities that makes the relaunching of the Alliance so important?

Chapman: Black and brown communities are over-patrolled and under-protected and must confront police harassment, racial profiling, torture and murder on a daily basis. This is not happening i