An Analysis of Mariátegui’s Latin Americanization of Marxism

After the victory of the October Socialist Revolution in Russia, the establishment of the Soviet Union followed, demonstrating the powerful appeal of socialism. Under these circumstances, the world Marxist camp, including Latin America (hereinafter “Latin America”), underwent a split. Those who proclaimed themselves “orthodox Marxists” gradually adopted a dogmatic understanding of Marxism and slavishly imitated the Soviet model of socialism. The socialist revolution and construction carried out under the guidance of dogmatic theory developed slowly, severely dampening the enthusiasm of proletarian revolutionaries. At that time, the major question “Where is Latin American Marxism headed?” loomed before the people of Latin America. José Carlos Mariátegui (1894–1930), born in Peru, relying on his profound insight into reality and dialectical understanding of Marxism, adhered to the Marxist methodology, proceeded from the perspective of indigenization, promoted the Latin Americanization of Marxism, and explored a socialist path with Latin American characteristics.

俄国十月社会主义革命胜利后，迎来苏维埃联盟的成立，彰显了社会主义的强大魅力。在此情况下，包括拉丁美洲（以下简称“拉美”）在内，世界马克思主义阵营产生了分化。宣称自己为“正统马克思主义”的人，逐步对马克思主义采取教条化理解，对苏联模式的社会主义亦步亦趋。在教条化理论指导下的社会主义革命与建设事业发展缓慢，严重挫伤无产阶级革命者的积极性。彼时，“拉美马克思主义何去何从？”这个重大课题横亘在拉美人面前。出生于秘鲁的何塞·卡洛斯·马里亚特吉（José Carlos Mariátegui，1894—1930）凭借深邃的现实洞察力和对马克思主义的辩证理解，坚守马克思主义方法论，从本土化视阈出发，促使马克思主义拉美化，探索出一条具有拉美特色的社会主义道路。

His pursuit of the cause of socialist indigenization was accompanied by a struggle against a harsh fate. As a child, he contracted nodular disease; at age eight, an injury to his left leg left him permanently lame. He fought against illness throughout his life, and this tenacious style was also reflected in his revolutionary work. In 1926, he founded the proletarian magazine *Amauta* in Peru, leading the trend of平民 magazines in Latin America. In 1928, he wrote the foundational work based on research into Peruvian reality, *Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality* (hereinafter *Seven Essays on Peru*), regarded as the manifesto of the Latin Americanization of Marxism. In October of the same year, he founded the Peruvian Socialist Party (renamed the Peruvian Communist Party in 1930). In 1929, he established Peru’s first General Workers’ Federation. He died in 1930. He devoted his short life to the cause of Latin American socialism and is a model for Latin American Marxists.

他对社会主义本土化事业的追求伴随着与坎坷命运的斗争。他小时候患上结节病，8岁时左腿受伤以致终身跛脚，一生与疾病作抗争，这种顽强作风同样体现在革命中。1926年，在秘鲁创办无产阶级杂志《阿毛塔》（Amauta），引领拉美平民杂志潮流；1928年，写下基于秘鲁现实研究的基础性著作《关于秘鲁国情的七篇论文》（以下简称“《秘鲁七论》”），被视为马克思主义拉美化的宣言书；同年10月，创建秘鲁社会党（1930年更名为秘鲁共产党）；1929年，成立秘鲁第一个工人总联合会；1930年去世。他短暂的生命献给拉美社会主义事业，是拉美马克思主义者的典范。

I. The Latin Americanization of Marxism Is an Inevitable Product of the Development of Latin American Social Reality

一、马克思主义拉美化是拉美社会现实发展的必然产物

The spread of Marxism in Latin America can be compared in time to that in Russia. Around the 1850s, Marxism was introduced into Latin America, exerting a profound influence on Latin American intellectual circles. With the rise of the anti-colonial movement, Latin American countries faced the century-old question of where to go. Mariátegui’s thought was precisely a product of this era.

马克思主义在拉美的传播时间可比肩于俄国，大约19世纪50年代马克思主义便传入拉美，对拉美思想界产生了深远影响。随着反殖民主义运动的兴起，拉美国家面临着向何处去的世纪性问题，马里亚特吉思想正是这个时代的产物。

1. The Spread of Marxism in Latin America Promoted Socialist Practice in Latin America

1．马克思主义在拉美的传播推动了拉美的社会主义实践

The leading force of the Latin American socialist movement initially consisted mainly of the petty and middle bourgeoisie, and the revolutionary ranks were full of compromise. In the early 19th century, Haiti became the first independent country in Latin America. Subsequently, many Latin American countries successively broke free from old colonial suzerains such as Portugal and Spain and established independent nation-states. However, due to the long period of colonial rule, it was difficult for the independent Latin American countries to extricate themselves from the colonial system in a short time. The development of productive forces was highly dependent on foreign capital. Regimes represented by the *caudillo* [1]1 *Caudillo*: A Spanish term for a military strongman or political boss, referring to the personalist, often authoritarian leaders who dominated Latin American politics in the 19th and early 20th centuries. changed frequently. Social reforms were impossible to advance. The status of indigenous inhabitants declined. All these factors constrained Latin America’s development. Latin American countries sought further solutions in the tug-of-war with the European and American great powers.

拉美社会主义运动领导力量最初以中小资产阶级为主，革命队伍充满妥协性。19世纪初，海地成为拉美第一个独立国家，随后许多拉美国家纷纷摆脱葡萄牙、西班牙等旧殖民宗主国，建立起独立民族国家。然而，由于受殖民统治时间太久，独立后的拉美国家一时很难从殖民主义体系中挣脱出来，生产力发展高度依附国外资本，以“考迪罗”为代表的政权频繁更替，社会改革寸步难行，土著居民地位没落等，都束缚着拉美发展。拉美国家在与欧美列强的拉锯中寻找进一步解决方法。

In the 1850s, Marxism was introduced into Latin America. In 1854, *The Poverty of Philosophy* first appeared on the streets of Chile. In the 1860s, the *Communist Manifesto* appeared in Cuba, Mexico, and Chile. Subsequently, European and American immigrants brought more works by Marx and Engels into Latin America. Scientific socialist ideas were initially disseminated in Latin America. In the 1870s, a group of Paris Commune members took refuge in Latin America, widely propagating socialist ideas, mobilizing the socialist movement, and nurturing the first batch of Latin American socialist activists, such as Juan B. Justo (1865–1928) of Argentina, Manuel Ugarte (1875–1951), and Luis Emilio Recabarren Serrano (1876–1924) of Chile. Under their leadership, some countries took the lead in taking action. Mexican socialists established the “Center of Organized Workers” in 1870, founded the *Socialist Newspaper* in 1871, and established the Socialist Party in 1878. From 1872 to 1876, sections of the First International were established in Argentina under the personal care and guidance of Marx; in 1896, the Argentine Socialist Party was founded. In 1892, Cuba held its first Congress of the Working Class and established the Cuban Revolutionary Party. In 1904, Uruguay established the socialist group “Karl Marx Center.” However, most of these nascent Latin American socialist organizations were led by progressive intellectuals from the petty and middle bourgeoisie, with some European socialists also participating. Most of them came from bourgeois families, had close ties with Latin American upper-class forces and European and American whites, and, coupled with a lack of revolutionary determination, experience in struggle, and weak armed forces, exhibited a weak and compromising side in the face of the powerful suppression of imperialism and feudalism. Furthermore, the socialist movement led by progressive intellectuals had a strong academic flavor, many differences of opinion, insufficient cohesion, and the leadership was not monolithic. Since the petty and middle bourgeoisie failed to represent the advanced class and lacked effective means of mobilization, the majority of the Latin American proletariat adopted a wait-and-see attitude toward the beautiful vision of socialism, causing the Latin American socialist movement at that time to be confined to a corner.

19世纪50年代，马克思主义传入拉美。1854年，《哲学的贫困》最早出现在智利街头。19世纪60年代，古巴、墨西哥和智利出现《共产党宣言》。随后，欧美移民将更多马克思恩格斯的著作带进拉美。科学社会主义思想在拉美初步传播。19世纪70年代，一批巴黎公社成员到拉美避难，在拉美广泛宣传社会主义思想，动员社会主义运动，并滋养出拉美第一批社会主义运动者，如阿根廷的胡安·B.胡斯托（Juan B. Justo，1865—1928）、曼努埃尔·乌加特（Manuel Ugarte，1875—1951）、智利的路易斯·埃米利奥·雷卡瓦伦·塞拉诺（Luis Emilio Recabarren Serrano，1876—1924）等。在他们的带领下，一些国家率先开始采取行动。墨西哥的社会主义者1870年成立“有组织的劳动者中心”，1871年创立《社会主义报》，1878年建立社会主义党。1872—1876年，阿根廷第一国际支部在马克思的亲自关怀和指导下建立起来；1896年阿根廷社会党成立。1892年，古巴召开第一次工人阶级代表大会，成立古巴革命党。1904年，乌拉圭建立社会主义团体“卡尔·马克思中心”。然而，这些初生的拉美社会主义组织大多以中小资产阶级进步知识分子为领导，还有一些欧洲社会主义者参与其中。他们大都背靠资产阶级家庭，与拉美上层势力、欧美白人往来密切，加上革命决心不大、斗争经验缺乏、武装力量薄弱，面对帝国主义和封建主义的强大镇压，具有软弱性的一面。此外，以进步知识分子为领导的社会主义运动书斋气息重，意见分歧多，凝聚力不够，领导层内部并非铁板一块。由于中小资产阶级未能代表先进阶级且缺乏有效的动员手段，大部分拉美无产阶级对社会主义的美好愿景抱以观望态度，致使当时的拉美社会主义运动偏安一隅。

2. The Latin American Socialist Movement Was Severely Divided, and Marxism Was Gradually Dogmatized

2．拉美社会主义运动分化严重，马克思主义逐渐被教条化

While Marxism was spreading in Latin America in the 1850s, the socialist movement was also guided by utopian socialism, anarchism, and others. At that time, Latin American thinkers expressed their own views by translating original works, writing articles, and delivering speeches, studying socialist ideas as general theories. Before the October Revolution in Russia, socialist ideas, after nearly half a century of collision and integration with Latin American indigenous thought, formed various Latin American socialist currents, such as social democracy and anarcho-syndicalism. While enriching Latin American socialist theory, these currents also diverted the revolutionary forces of socialism, causing the Latin American socialist movement to mostly appear in the form of small-scale actions. The thunderclap of the October Revolution in Russia elevated the status of Marxism to an unprecedented height. Latin American countries also sought to use Marxism to solve their own practical problems and put it into practice. Subsequently, communist parties were established one after another in Latin America, and struggles such as strikes, work stoppages, and demonstrations flourished. However, after the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922, Latin America placed Marxist theory on a pedestal, gradually moving toward dogmatism, which led to repeated failures in socialist practice.

19世纪50年代，马克思主义在拉美传播的同时，指导社会主义运动的还有空想社会主义、无政府主义等。当时拉美思想家通过翻译原著、撰写文章、发表演讲等方式表达自我见解，把社会主义思想作为一般理论进行研究。俄国十月革命前，社会主义思想在与拉美本土思想近半个世纪的碰撞与融合中，形成社会民主主义、无政府工团主义等多种拉美社会主义思潮。这些思潮在丰富拉美社会主义理论的同时，也分流了社会主义的革命力量，使拉美社会主义运动大多以小打小闹的形式出现。俄国十月革命一声炮响，使马克思主义地位空前高涨，拉美国家也寻求以马克思主义解决本国实际问题，并付诸实践。随后，拉美共产主义政党纷纷建立，“三罢”运动、游行示威等斗争蓬勃发展。但是，在1922年苏维埃联盟成立后，拉美将马克思主义理论供上神坛，逐步走向教条化，以致社会主义实践屡屡失败。

At the same time, two negative ideas were rampant: “Eurocentrism” and “Latin American exceptionalism.” “Eurocentrism” advocated that Latin America must copy European revolutionary theoretical achievements to succeed, rejecting indigenization. “Latin American exceptionalism” held that, due to differences in history, geography, and actual national conditions, Latin American countries could not establish a socialist system like Europe. These ideas, tinged with pessimism and rigidity, plunged the vibrant revolutionary movement in Latin America into dogmatism.

与此同时，两种消极思想甚嚣尘上，分别是“欧洲中心主义”和“拉美例外论”。“欧洲中心主义”鼓吹拉美必须照搬照抄欧洲革命理论成果才能取得成功，排斥本土化；“拉美例外论”则认为，由于历史、地理、现实国情等不同，拉美国家无法像欧洲一样建立起社会主义制度。这些带有悲观论调和僵化色彩的思想，使拉美生机勃勃的革命运动陷入教条化。

3. Reformism Was Prevalent in Latin America, Making It Difficult to Establish a Proletarian Regime

3．拉美改良主义盛行，难以建立无产阶级政权

After the end of the First World War and the founding of the Soviet Union, the leading force of the Latin American socialist revolution clearly shifted to the proletariat, and a number of Latin American communist parties emerged in response. In 1918, Argentina established the International Socialist Party (renamed the Communist Party of Argentina in 1920), followed successively by Mexico (1919), Uruguay (1921), Chile (1922), and Brazil (1922), among others, which founded communist parties. These newly born proletarian parties expressed support for the Communist International, vowing to emulate Russia and take the path of the October Revolution. However, the vigorous socialist revolutionary movements all ended in bloody failure, and a number of leaders were exiled overseas, such as Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre and Mariátegui. In 1924, through a profound reflection on the failure of the Latin American revolution and an in-depth investigation of revolutions in Europe and the Americas, a group of exiled intellectuals overseas, led by Haya de la Torre, formed the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana), also known as the APRA party, in Mexico. They believed that the main reason for the failure of the Latin American revolution was the collusion and support of European and American imperialists for Latin American bourgeois governments, and therefore it was necessary to establish an anti-imperialist alliance with the entire Latin American continent as a united front. In its early days, the alliance claimed to believe in Marxism, with the goal of establishing socialist countries in Latin America, and Latin Americans placed high hopes in it. However, from 1927 onward, the alliance showed a rightward trend, and its struggle line gradually became conservative. In February 1927, the alliance’s leader, Haya de la Torre, at the First World Anti-Imperialist Congress in Brussels, publicly opposed Lenin’s theory of imperialism, arguing that in underdeveloped Latin America, it was necessary to rely on developed capitalist countries to develop national capitalism, and only after national capitalism had fully developed could socialism be entered, and advocated for the establishment of a “multi-class” party led by the petty and middle bourgeoisie, uniting workers, peasants, and intellectuals. Subsequently, under the slogan of a “‘multi-class alliance’ led by the national bourgeoisie,” the Latin American petty and middle bourgeoisie united with their own countries’ working and peasant classes, forming a powerful but short-lived national democratic movement that forcefully impacted the warlord-oligarchic rule integrating landlords, the military, and the church. In the 1930s, they further declared that, on the premise of “not touching capitalist farms and plantations,” they would adopt a “constructive” stance toward imperialism and establish a “partnership without dependency” with it. This reformism not only failed to substantially resolve the issue of Latin American national independence but instead deepened its dependency on Western capitalist countries.

第一次世界大战结束及苏维埃联盟成立后，拉美社会主义革命的领导力量明显转向无产阶级，一批拉美共产党应运而生。1918年，阿根廷成立国际社会党（1920年更名为阿根廷共产党），随后墨西哥（1919年）、乌拉圭（1921年）、智利（1922年）、巴西（1922年）等国家先后建立共产党。这些新生的无产阶级政党表示拥护共产国际，誓言效仿俄国，走十月革命道路。然而，如火如荼的社会主义革命运动均以流血失败告终，一批领导者被流放海外，如维克托·劳尔·阿亚·德拉托雷（Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre）、马里亚特吉等。1924年，通过对拉美革命失败的深刻反思和对欧美革命的深入考察，以阿亚·德拉托雷为首的一批海外流亡知识分子在墨西哥境内组建美洲人民革命联盟（Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana），又称阿普拉党。他们认为，拉美革命失败的主要原因是欧美帝国主义勾结、支持拉美资产阶级政府，因此有必要建立以整个拉美大陆为统一战线的反帝联盟。在创立初期，该联盟自称信奉马克思主义，目标是在拉美建立社会主义国家，拉美人对此寄予厚望。但从1927年起，该联盟出现右倾趋势，斗争路线渐趋保守。1927年2月，联盟领袖阿亚·德拉托雷在出席布鲁塞尔第一次世界反帝代表大会时，公开反对列宁的帝国主义论，认为在不发达的拉美地区应当依靠发达资本主义国家发展民族资本主义，等民族资本主义发展充分后再进入社会主义，并主张建立由中小资产阶级领导的工农、知识分子联合的“多阶级”政党。随后，在“民族资产阶级领导的‘多阶级联盟’”口号下，拉美中小资产阶级同本国工农阶级联合在一起，形成了一股强大但历时短暂的民族民主运动，有力地冲击了地主、军人和教会为一体的军阀寡头统治。20世纪30年代，他们进一步宣称在“不触动资本主义的农场、种植园”的前提下，与帝国主义采取一种“建设性”立场，与之建立一种“没有依赖性的伙伴关系”。这种改良主义非但没能使拉美民族的独立问题实质性地得到解决，反而加深了其对西方资本主义国家的依赖。

Faced with the above predicament, Mariátegui, through reflection on reality, saw the differences between the stages of development, class conditions, and national circumstances of Latin American countries and those of Russia, and advocated integrating Marxism with Latin American reality, putting forward the call to Latin Americanize Marxism and indigenize socialism. Specifically addressing the situation in Peru, he wrote *Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality*, creating a model for integrating Marxism with Peruvian reality. Mariátegui’s thought was precisely born in the dissemination and development of Marxism in Latin America and the practice and transformation of the socialist movement.

面临上述困境，马里亚特吉通过对现实的思考，看到了拉美各国发展阶段、阶级状况和国情与俄国的不同，主张结合拉美实际，提出把马克思主义拉美化、社会主义本土化的号召。特别是针对秘鲁状况，写下了《秘鲁七论》，开创了把马克思主义与秘鲁实际相结合的范例。马里亚特吉思想正是在拉美马克思主义的传播与发展、社会主义运动的实践与改造中诞生的。

At the beginning of the 1920s, the newly established Latin American communist parties generally faced a problem: being subject to the dogmatic guidance of the Soviet Union and the Communist International, mechanically implementing a single line without distinguishing between the actual problems of each country, which caused the Latin American socialist movement to fall into rigidity. Some Latin American socialists enthusiastically declared themselves “orthodox socialists,” slavishly imitating the Soviet model of socialism. Facts soon proved that this Procrustean approach could hardly achieve breakthroughs in the Latin American revolution and dampened the enthusiasm of Latin American socialist revolutionaries. In 1926, Mariátegui gladly joined the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance founded by Haya de la Torre, hoping to carry out the socialist movement through the anti-imperialist alliance, and became a key member. However, due to differences of opinion on how to view imperialism, what kind of party to establish, and whether to take a revolutionary or reformist line, he angrily withdrew from the increasingly conservative alliance in 1928. At this point, Mariátegui clearly realized that neither dogmatism nor reformism could liberate Latin America. Combining his dialectical understanding of Marx’s thought gained during his on-the-ground investigation in Europe with a profound reflection on the Latin American revolution and reality, Mariátegui proposed that to establish socialism in Latin America, it was necessary to change the backward situation by exposing the specific practical problems of each Latin American country and to create a Latin American-style socialist state.

20世纪20年代伊始，刚成立不久的拉美共产党普遍面临一个问题，就是受到苏联和共产国际的教条指导，机械化地执行一条路线、对各国实际问题不作区分的做法，使拉美社会主义运动陷入僵化。一些拉美社会主义者热衷宣称自己是“正统的社会主义者”，对苏联社会主义模式亦步亦趋。事实很快证明，这种削足适履的做法难以使拉美革命取得突破，并挫伤了拉美社会主义革命者的积极性。1926年，马里亚特吉欣然加入阿亚·德拉托雷创立的美洲人民革命联盟，希望通过反帝联盟开展社会主义运动，并成为关键成员，但因对如何看待帝国主义、建立什么样的政党、走革命还是改良路线等产生意见分歧，1928年愤然退出日趋保守的联盟。至此，马里亚特吉清醒地认识到，教条主义与改良主义都无法解放拉美。马里亚特吉结合欧洲实地考察时对马克思思想的辩证理解，以及对拉美革命和现实的深刻反思，提出在拉美建立社会主义，必须要通过揭露拉美各国具体实际问题来改变落后的面貌，创建拉美式的社会主义国家。

Mariátegui’s method of indigenizing analysis was inspired by the “Indian agitator” Ezequiel Urviola from the southern Peruvian city of Puno. Urviola wrote *The Storm in the Andes*, in which the indigenous Indians appear as historical subjects rather than objects subservient to the West. He fiercely refuted everything associated with Western civilization, ruthlessly criticized the brutal autocracy of the Peruvian large estate owners and government gendarmes over the Peruvian proletariat, and announced the arrival of a “new indigenous era.” This extreme indigenist awakened Mariátegui’s Latin Americanist consciousness. Mariátegui appreciated the lines in *The Poem of the Sun People*: “This lyrical praise brings us closer to the indigenous truth than the cold criticism of a neutral observer.” Mariátegui showed enthusiasm for indigenous culture, held the criticism of those European “neutral observers” in contempt, and, facing attacks from the Communist International, used the courage of “approaching the indigenous truth” to clearly pioneer the Latin Americanization of Marxism. He analyzed: “Everyone talks about Marxism, but very few understand Marxism, especially the dialectical method which is the foundation of Marxism. In other words, this method is entirely based on facts and proceeds from reality. It is not a compilation of rigid principles equally applicable to all eras and all social forms, as some mistakenly see it.” In Mariátegui’s view, dogmatists were merely bookworms who understood only the surface of Marxism; they could not deeply grasp the actual needs of Latin American real society, nor could they analyze Marxism with an open, inclusive, and flexible perspective. In an era when dogmatism prevailed, he creatively proposed the idea of Latin Americanizing Marxism and indigenizing socialism, becoming the first true Latin American Marxist thinker. His method of indigenizing analysis filled the gap left by the “zealous and superficial intellectuals” of Latin America, who could not provide effective research methods to guide socialist practice. Mariátegui wrote: “‘The new generation’ of Peruvians will use scientific research and the wise interpretation of facts to illuminate the indigenous manifestation… and assist in the process of making Peru truly belong to Peruvians.” In the foggy period of socialist development in the 1920s, Mariátegui grasped the dialectical thought of Marxism and discovered the key to solving the problems of Latin American socialism.

马里亚特吉的本土化分析方法受到秘鲁南部城市普诺的“印第安人煽动者”埃泽基尔·乌尔维奥拉（Ezequiel Urviola）的启发。乌尔维奥拉写下了《安第斯山脉的暴风雨》，其中土著印第安人以历史主体者的身份出现，而不是臣服于西方的对象。他激烈地驳斥一切与西方文明相关的东西，无情地批判秘鲁大庄园主和政府宪兵对秘鲁无产阶级的野蛮专制，宣布一个“新土著时代”的到来。这位极端的本土主义者唤醒了马里亚特吉的拉美化认知。马里亚特吉欣赏《太阳人的诗》中所写的：“这种抒情的赞美使我们更接近本土的真理，而不是中立观察者冰冷的批评。”马里亚特吉对本土文化表现出热忱，对欧洲那些“中立观察者的批评”予以蔑视，面对来自共产国际的攻讦，他用“接近本土真理”的勇气旗帜鲜明地开启马克思主义拉美化之先河。他分析道：“所有的人都在谈论马克思主义，但是了解马克思主义尤其是懂得辩证方法是马克思主义的基础的人却非常少。换句话说，这种方法完全以事实为根据和从现实出发。它不是一些同样适用于一切时代和一切社会形态的僵化了的原理的汇编，一些人那样看它是错误的。”在马里亚特吉看来，教条主义者只是了解马克思主义皮毛的书虫，他们无法深入洞察拉美现实社会的实际需要，更无法用开放、包容、灵活的眼光分析马克思主义。在教条主义盛行的年代，他开创性提出马克思主义拉美化、社会主义本土化思想，成为第一位真正的拉美马克思主义思想家。他以本土化分析方法填补了拉美“狂热且肤浅的知识分子”无法提供有效指导社会主义实践的研究方法的缺憾。马里亚特吉写道：“‘新一代的’秘鲁人将利用科学研究和对事实的智慧诠释来阐明本土展现……并协助使秘鲁真正属于秘鲁人的进程。”在20世纪20年代社会主义发展迷雾重重的时期，马里亚特吉把握住马克思主义辩证思想，发现了解决拉美社会主义问题的钥匙。

II. The Original Contributions of Mariátegui’s Latin Americanized Socialist Thought

二、马里亚特吉拉美化社会主义思想的原创性贡献

The Latin Americanization of Marxism inevitably confronts the task of integrating socialist theory with Latin American local reality. Those who stick to the old ways see only the conclusions of Marxism, but fail to see that Marxism provides only a method. During his exile in Europe, Mariátegui deeply grasped the essence of Lenin’s indigenized socialist thought, and after returning to his country in 1923, he declared himself “an avowed Marxist.” He believed that it was impossible to mechanically copy the European theory of socialist revolution; instead, it was necessary to carry out indigenized creation. Relying on his dialectical understanding of Marxism and his deep insight into Latin American reality, he put forward a set of indigenized socialist theories suited to Latin American reality.

马克思主义拉美化必然面临社会主义理论与拉美本土实际相结合的课题。墨守成规的人只看到马克思主义的结论，却看不到马克思主义提供的仅仅是方法。在欧洲流放期间，马里亚特吉深刻地领会了列宁本土化社会主义思想的精髓，1923年回国后宣称自己成为“一个供认不讳的马克思主义者”。他认为，不能照搬照抄欧洲的社会主义革命理论，而要进行本土化创造。凭借对马克思主义的辩证理解和对拉美现实的深入洞察，他提出了一套符合拉美现实的本土化社会主义理论。

1. Adhering to the Use of the Basic Principles of Marxism to Analyze Local Problems

1．坚持用马克思主义基本原理分析本土问题

Mariátegui, centering on the basic principle of “playing a role according to the characteristics of each country and nation,” used Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods to analyze Latin American issues, formulating revolutionary theories and strategies suited to Latin American realities. In the 1920s, Latin American socialist revolutions guided by dogmatic thought reached a dead end, and many questioned whether Marxist theory, born in Europe, was suitable for Latin America. Mariátegui, however, did not hesitate but creatively proposed the idea of adapting Marxism to Latin America, based on his prior extensive research into Marxist theory and Latin American realities. Mariátegui was the first to study Peru’s national conditions in his *Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality*. He divided Peruvian history into three periods: the Inca Empire period, the Spanish colonial period, and the Peruvian Republic period. First, the Inca Empire period (11th–16th centuries). Peru’s civilizational center was in the Andes, where there existed a primitive communist mode of life among the indigenous Indians. In tribal communes, land was held in common ownership, managed uniformly by a council, which also decided other public affairs. Land cultivation followed age and gender divisions, with collective labor; the elderly and village chiefs organized and supervised production activities, and products were distributed equally, with extra consideration for the elderly, the weak, or those who contributed more. Tribal members were filled with a spirit of equality, mutual aid, fraternity, and solidarity. For this reason, Mariátegui claimed that Peru could continue this primitive communist mode of life and thereby develop a modern Peruvian socialist system. Second, the Spanish colonial rule period (16th–early 19th centuries). During this period, Latin America and North America began to diverge; Latin America was not as fortunate as North America, receiving almost exclusively nobles, clergy, and rogues, along with the medieval spirit of Christianity. In the later colonial period, Latin America became the “raw material factory” and “back garden” of Europe and America. In Mariátegui’s view, it was precisely the brutal invasion of the Spanish colonizers that interrupted Peru’s primitive capitalist development process. Third, the period of the independent Republic of Peru after 1821. During this period, Peru shook off Spanish colonial rule, became an independent state, and embarked on a relatively autonomous development path. However, like other Latin American countries, Peru, having been deeply integrated with the colonial system for too long, found it difficult to completely break free from old colonial development patterns. At the same time, former feudal lords disguised themselves as the bourgeoisie of the republican period and continued to exploit the proletariat, meaning that remnants of feudal forces still existed in Peru. By the early 20th century, Mariátegui faced the national question of how to overthrow the two great mountains of colonialism and feudalism. [6]6 The “two great mountains” (两座大山) is a classic Chinese revolutionary metaphor, popularized by Mao Zedong, referring to imperialism and feudalism as oppressive forces that must be overthrown. Here it is adapted to the Latin American context.

马里亚特吉围绕“根据每个国家和民族的特点发挥作用”这个基本原则，利用马克思主义立场、观点和方法分析拉美问题，制定出符合拉美现实的革命理论与策略。20世纪20年代，在教条主义思想指导下的拉美社会主义革命走入死胡同，很多人对产生于欧洲的马克思主义理论是否适合拉美提出质疑，而马里亚特吉并无迟疑，而是开创性地提出马克思主义拉美化的主张，这是基于他前期所做的大量马克思主义理论和拉美现实的研究工作。马里亚特吉率先在《秘鲁七论》中对秘鲁国情进行了研究。他将秘鲁历史分为三个时期：印加帝国时期、西班牙殖民时期、秘鲁共和国时期。其一，11—16世纪的印加帝国时期。秘鲁的文明中心在安第斯山区，那里出现过土著印第安人的原始共产主义生活模式。在部落公社里，土地实行公有制，由议事会统一掌管，其余公共事务也由议事会决议。土地耕种时按照年龄与性别分工，进行集体劳动，老年人与村长是生产活动的组织者和监督者，劳动产品平均分配，同时对年老体弱者或出力较多者予以照顾。部落成员之间充盈着平等、互助、友爱和团结的气氛。正因为如此，马里亚特吉声称秘鲁可以延续这种原始共产主义生活模式，进而发展出秘鲁现代化社会主义制度。其二，16—19世纪初的西班牙殖民统治时期。在该时期，拉美与北美洲开始分化，拉美没有北美洲那么幸运，输送给拉美的几乎都是贵族、教士和恶棍，再有就是基督教的中世纪精神。殖民统治后期，拉美成了欧美的“原料厂”和“后花园”。在马里亚特吉看来，正是由于西班牙殖民者的悍然入侵，才阻断了秘鲁原始的资本主义发展进程。其三，1821年之后的秘鲁独立共和国时期。在该时期，秘鲁摆脱了西班牙的殖民统治，成为独立国家，走上相对自主的发展道路，但秘鲁和其他拉美国家一样，由于同殖民体系交融太久，一时很难完全摆脱旧殖民统治发展。同时，先前的封建主乔装打扮成共和国时期的资产阶级，继续剥削无产阶级，这意味着秘鲁还是存在着封建势力残余。到20世纪初，马里亚特吉面临的是如何推翻殖民主义和封建主义两座大山的民族之问。

*Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality* is a manifesto for adapting Marxism to Latin America. In the book, Mariátegui used methods such as example argumentation, classical citations, and data illustration, attempting to clarify seven issues in Peru using historical materialism: “the evolution of the economy, the Indian problem, the land problem, the progress of public education, the religious factor, regionalism and centralism, and the examination of literature.” Among these, “the evolution of the economy,” “the Indian problem,” and “the land problem” can be classified as research on the economic base, while “the progress of public education,” “the religious factor,” “regionalism and centralism,” and “the examination of literature” can be classified as research on the superstructure. It is particularly noteworthy that Mariátegui devoted nearly half of the book to an in-depth exposition of “Indian literature,” expressing a strong intention to revive indigenous literature. He believed that the revival of Latin American nativism could not omit cultural revival, including literature, art, and entertainment. In the independent Republic of Peru, its literature remained an echo of colonial literature, devoid of national characteristics. Mariátegui recognized the important influence of culture on a nation’s independence, called for the “decolonization” of culture, and emphasized that Peruvian literature should be rooted in its own soil to achieve the independence and freedom of the national spirit.

《秘鲁七论》是马克思主义拉美化的宣言书。在书中，马里亚特吉采用举例论证、引经据典、数据说明等方式，试图用唯物史观澄清秘鲁“经济演变状况、印第安人问题、土地问题、公共教育的进程、宗教因素、地方主义和中央集权主义、对文学的审理”七个议题。其中，“经济演变状况”“印第安人问题”“土地问题”可归为经济基础研究，“公共教育的进程”“宗教因素”“地方主义和中央集权主义”“对文学的审理”可归为上层建筑研究。需要特别指出的是，马里亚特吉花了全书近1/2的篇幅对“印第安文学”进行深入阐述，表达出对复兴本土文学的极大意图。他认为，拉美本土主义的复兴不能遗漏包括文学、艺术、娱乐在内的文化复兴，而在独立后的秘鲁共和国，其文学仍旧作为殖民文学的应声虫，毫无民族特色。马里亚特吉看到了文化对一国独立的重要影响，号召文化“去殖民化”，强调秘鲁文学应植根于本国土壤，以实现民族精神之独立自由。

After returning from exile in Europe in 1923, Mariátegui threw himself into the socialist movement with high enthusiasm, teaching at the González Prada Popular University, founded by Haya de la Torre for the working and peasant classes. During his teaching, he introduced his experiences in Europe to domestic youth and the public, specifically covering post-World War I European reforms, Soviet communist construction, and Gandhi’s “nonviolent non-cooperation” movement in India, thereby broadening their global perspective, vision, and popular wisdom, and igniting their revolutionary fervor. In his lectures, he conversed cordially with students, using this to gain a deep understanding of Peruvian society. In 1925, he planned a socialist violent revolution in Peru similar to those in Europe, but due to insufficient response from the working and peasant classes, the movement suffered a heavy blow. Through a series of subsequent practices, he recognized the importance of “revolutionary consciousness” for carrying out the socialist revolutionary cause—that is, revolutionary theory must precede revolutionary action. He wrote: “Even the most advanced and enlightened Peruvian workers need education and cultural preparation to effectively participate in a powerful movement.” As a young Marxist, he had already mastered Marxism-Leninism by the early 20th century, skillfully using Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods to expose and analyze local problems, and guided by Marxism to solve local problems.

1923年从欧洲流放回国后，马里亚特吉以高昂的热情投身社会主义运动，前往阿亚·德拉托雷为工农阶级创立的冈萨雷斯·普拉达大学（González Prada Popular University）授课。任教期间，他将自己在欧洲的见闻介绍给国内青年和民众，具体涉及第一次世界大战后的欧洲改革、苏俄共产主义建设、印度甘地“非暴力不合作”运动等，以开启他们的世界格局、视野和民智，激发他们的革命热情。他在演讲中与学生亲切交谈，借此深入了解秘鲁社会。1925年，他策划在秘鲁开展一场类似欧洲的社会主义暴力革命，但由于工农阶级响应不够，运动受到重创。在随后一系列的实践中，他认识到“革命意识”对于开展社会主义革命事业的重要性，即有革命理论先导才有革命行动。他写道：“即使是最先进和最开明的秘鲁工人，也需要教育和文化准备，才能有效地参与一种强有力的运动。”作为一名青年马克思主义者，他在20世纪初已经熟练掌握马克思列宁主义，巧妙运用马克思主义立场观点方法揭露和分析本土问题，并以马克思主义为指导解决本土问题。

2. Opening Up a Latin Americanized Socialist Revolutionary Path

2．开辟拉美化社会主义革命道路

The Chilean philosopher Helio Gallardo, in evaluating Mariátegui, stated, “He was one of the first to develop a revolutionary socialist thought from Latin American reality—‘thinking Latin America.’” In Mariátegui’s time, many Latin American thinkers both rejected capitalism and denied communism, envisioning a “third path”: reformist paths, a “moderate line” of peacefully seizing power, cross-class alliances, and so on. These reformist paths were mercilessly criticized by Mariátegui: “I am a revolutionary… I will never understand other political realms: those of mediocre reformers, tamed socialism, and farcical democracy. Moreover, if revolution requires violence, authority, and discipline, then I endorse violence, authority, and discipline.” To this end, he insisted on opening up a nationalized revolutionary path based on the violent seizure of power, combined with the actual conditions of each country.

智利哲学家赫利奥·盖勒多（Helio Gallardo）在评价马里亚特吉时称，“他是最早从拉美现实中发展出革命社会主义思想的人之一——‘思考拉美’”。在马里亚特吉同时期，许多拉美思想家既排斥资本主义又否认共产主义，设想走“第三条道路”：改良道路、和平夺取政权的“温和路线”、超阶级联盟等。这些改良主义道路遭到马里亚特吉的无情批判：“我是一个革命者……我永远也不会理解其他的政治领域：那些平庸的改革者、被驯服的社会主义和闹剧式的民主的领域。此外，如果革命需要暴力、权威和纪律，那么，我赞同暴力、权威和纪律。”为此，他坚持在暴力夺取政权的基础上，结合各国实际情况，开辟本国化的革命道路。

Why choose socialist revolution? Mariátegui’s answer was that Peru had already attempted a bourgeois revolution to establish the Republic of Peru, formally enacting decrees to protect the rights of the working and peasant classes, such as land distribution and the abolition of unpaid labor. However, because the power of discourse was in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat remained oppressed by feudalism and capitalism. Mariátegui believed that whether it was the race problem or the education problem, it ultimately came down to the “problem of economic ownership.” If the economic system did not change, any solution would be a superficial remedy. Mariátegui wrote: “The proletariat cannot accomplish great historical creative undertakings if it merely takes the shortening of the working day and a slight wage increase as its ideal. It must stand not only above vulgar pragmatism that only seeks to fill its belly, but also above the nihilistic tendencies and needs of bad influence. The revolutionary spirit is the creative spirit.” Furthermore, the capitalist reformist path led by Peruvian populist leader Haya de la Torre had already proven that the idea of achieving socialism through reform had limited effect; Peruvian society called for the arrival of socialist revolution.

为什么选择社会主义革命？马里亚特吉给出的答案是，秘鲁已经尝试过资产阶级革命建立秘鲁共和国，在形式上颁布了维护工农阶级权利的法令，如分配土地、废除无偿劳动等，但由于话语权掌握在资产阶级手中，无产阶级依然受到封建主义和资本主义的压迫。马里亚特吉认为，不论是种族问题还是教育问题，归根结底是“经济所有权”问题，如果经济制度不改变，任何解决方案都是隔靴搔痒。马里亚特吉写道：“无产阶级仅仅把缩短工作日和提高一点工资作为自己的理想，是不能进行巨大的历史创造事业的。不仅要比只是追求填饱肚皮的粗鄙的实用主义站得高一些，而且要比起不良影响的虚无主义意向和需要站得高一些。革命精神就是创造精神。”此外，秘鲁民众主义领导人阿亚·德拉托雷领导的资本主义改良道路已经证明，通过改良方式实现社会主义的主张效果有限，秘鲁社会呼唤社会主义革命的到来。

Mariátegui directed the revolutionary spearhead directly at feudalism and imperialism. He believed that, due to the collusion between imperialist and feudal forces, the feudal forces cloaked in the “republic’s outer garment” were a stubborn malady difficult to eradicate. First, the “feudalism” problem. This problem was concretely manifested in the land exploitation by large estate owners and the oppression of Indigenous people, with the oppression of Indigenous people being subsidiary to the land problem. Therefore, the most fundamental and effective means was land revolution, distributing land ownership to the peasants. He pointed out: “The Indigenous problem arises from our country’s economy, and its root lies in the land ownership system. As long as the feudal nature of the ‘gamonal’ [local boss or cacique] persists, any attempt to solve the problem through administrative measures or police means, through educational methods or the construction of transportation projects, will only be cosmetic or palliative work.” [7]7 “Gamonal” refers to a local political boss or large landowner in the Andean region, exercising feudal-like power over Indigenous peasants. Second, the “imperialism” problem. Historically, Peru had been successively invaded by colonial powers such as Spain, Portugal, Britain, and France, which controlled and plundered Peru’s wealth through political, economic, and military means. Mariátegui pointed out: “The best valleys on the coast are planted with cotton and sugarcane, not because these lands are only suitable for these crops, but because these crops are currently of great importance to British and American merchants.” [8]8 Mariátegui, *Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality* (1928), a foundational text of Latin American Marxism analyzing Peru’s economic, social, and cultural structures. Under the penetration of the suzerain states, the post-independence Republic of Peru remained at the mercy of imperialism. Mariátegui believed that Peru urgently needed to carry out a land revolution internally and abolish imperialist “privileges” externally, in order to achieve true independence and freedom for Peruvian society.

马里亚特吉将革命矛头直指封建主义和帝国主义。他认为，由于帝国主义与封建主义势力的勾结，披着“共和国外衣”的封建势力顽疾难除。首先，“封建主义”问题。这一问题具体表现为大庄园主的土地剥削问题和印第安人受压迫问题，其中印第安人受压迫问题依附于土地问题。因此，最根本、最有效的手段是土地革命，将土地所有权分配给农民。他指出：“土著人问题是由我国的经济产生的，其根源就在于土地所有制。只要‘酋长’（‘gamonal’）的封建性依然存在，任何想用行政措施或警察手段，用教育的方法或兴办交通工程来解决问题的企图，都是只治其表的或修饰性的工作。”其次，“帝国主义”问题。在历史上，秘鲁曾先后受到西班牙、葡萄牙、英国和法国等殖民国家的入侵，这些国家通过政治、经济、军事等手段控制和掠夺秘鲁财产。马里亚特吉指出：“沿海最好的谷地都种植棉花和甘蔗，这并不是因为这些土地只适于这些作物，而只是因为目前这些作物对英、美商人具有重要意义。”在宗主国的渗透下，独立后的秘鲁共和国依旧受帝国主义的摆布。马里亚特吉认为，秘鲁迫切需要对内进行土地革命，对外取消“帝国主义”特权，以实现秘鲁社会真正的独立自由。

So, on whom should the revolution rely? Mariátegui was convinced that it should rely on the Peruvian proletariat, including the Indigenous people. First, Mariátegui had already recognized that the path of relying on the petty and middle bourgeoisie for revolution was unviable, and would only once again degenerate into a hypocritical bourgeois democratic revolution or reformism. He said that even if the petty and middle bourgeoisie hated the big bourgeoisie for squeezing their living space, their class nature determined that they could not do without collusion with capitalism. On the contrary, the Indigenous people of Peru constituted two-thirds of the total population, were deeply oppressed, and had strong revolutionary demands. Whether viewed from the perspective of population size or class nature, they were the only choice for revolutionary forces. He said: “In Peru, the masses—the working class—make up four-fifths of the Indigenous people. If our socialism is not united in defense of the Indigenous people—our socialism will not be Peruvian socialism—nor will it be socialism.” [9]9 Mariátegui, from his writings on the Indigenous question and socialism. Moreover, the Indigenous people also had an innate communist complex. Their ancestors had lived in primitive communist village communities, and this primitive communist sentiment would impel the Indigenous people to welcome and support the arrival of socialist revolution.

那么，依靠谁来革命？马里亚特吉确信应该依靠包括土著印第安人在内的秘鲁无产阶级。首先，马里亚特吉已经认识到，依靠中小资产阶级进行革命的道路是走不通的，只会再次沦为虚伪的资产阶级民主革命或改良主义。他说，就算中小资产阶级也憎恨大资产阶级挤占他们的生存空间，但其阶级性质决定他们离不开与资本主义的勾结。相反，秘鲁土著印第安人占总人口的2/3，受压迫深重，革命诉求强烈，无论从人口数量看还是从阶级性质看，都是革命力量的不二选择。他说：“在秘鲁，群众——工人阶级——占据了印第安人的4/5。如果我们的社会主义没有与印第安人的辩护团结起来的话——我们的社会主义就不会是秘鲁人的社会主义——也不会是社会主义。”并且，土著印第安人还有天生的共产主义情结。他们的祖先曾生活在原始共产主义村社中，这种原始的共产主义情感将促使印第安人欢迎并支持社会主义革命的到来。

Mariátegui envisioned that the Peruvian socialism to be built after its establishment would, on the basis of preserving the traditional village communities of the original Indigenous peoples, eliminate the autocratic elements within Inca “primitive communism,” integrate the achievements of modern civilization into national life, and ultimately build a “Indo-American socialist state” characterized by diligence, simplicity, discipline, and the enjoyment of collectivism and shared labor.

马里亚特吉设想建成后的秘鲁社会主义将在保留原始印第安民族传统村社的基础上，剔除印加“原始共产主义”中的专制成分，将现代文明成果融入国民生活，最终建成勤劳、朴实、守纪律、享受集体主义和共同劳作的“印第安美洲社会主义国家”。

3. Using Latin American Reality to Build Communist Consensus

3．利用拉美现实凝聚共产主义共识

In the process of putting theory into practice, Mariátegui gradually discovered that the unarmed Latin American proletariat could hardly match the materially well-endowed bourgeoisie and displayed low morale and low cohesion in battle. For this reason, he believed it was urgently necessary to find a mobilization strategy suited to Latin America’s actual conditions. Although there is no definitive evidence that Mariátegui met Gramsci during his exile in Europe from 1919 to 1923, his practice indeed contained elements of Gramscian thought, deeply understanding ideological (cultural) hegemony.

在将理论付诸实践的过程中，马里亚特吉逐渐发现手无寸铁的拉美无产阶级难以与物资雄厚的资产阶级匹敌，并且在战斗中表现出低斗志与低凝聚力。为此，他认为迫切需要找到一条符合拉美实际情况的动员策略。尽管没有确切材料证明马里亚特吉在1919—1923年流放欧洲期间见过葛兰西，但他的实践中确实蕴含葛兰西思想的成分，深谙意识形态（文化）领导权。

Mariátegui had visited Italy and witnessed the failure of the Italian socialist revolution, attributing one of its causes to the Italian Communist Party’s failure to unite the domestic socialist forces. At that time, Latin America faced the same predicament. Especially after the Sixth Congress of the Communist International, [10]10 The Sixth Congress of the Communist International (1928) adopted a sectarian “class against class” line, which often clashed with the specific conditions of colonial and semi-colonial movements. under the interference of the Comintern, the thought of adapting Marxism to Latin America fell into confusion, and some early Latin American Marxists slid into the camp of populism. Against this backdrop, establishing a united front for the proletarian revolution became particularly urgent. Inspired by the educational and mobilization methods of the Chilean workers’ movement leader Recabarren, [11]11 Luis Emilio Recabarren (1876–1924), Chilean workers’ leader and founder of the Communist Party of Chile, known for his educational and agitational methods. Mariátegui took the lead in using cultural propaganda to prepare for the establishment of a united front (party).

马里亚特吉曾到访意大利，目睹了意大利社会主义革命的失败，将其原因之一归为意大利共产党没有把国内社会主义力量团结起来。当时，拉美也面临着同样的困境。特别是在共产国际第六次代表大会后，受共产国际干涉，马克思主义拉美化思想混乱，一些早期拉美马克思主义者滑向民众主义阵营。在这种背景下，建立无产阶级革命统一战线显得尤为迫切。受智利工人运动领袖雷卡瓦伦教育与宣传动员方式的启发，马里亚特吉率先利用文化宣传为建立统一战线（政党）作准备。

First, he founded proletarian newspapers and periodicals with a clear-cut stance. In his early years, Mariátegui had already founded magazines such as *La Razón*, *El Trabajo*, and *Claridad*. Marked by the founding of *Amauta* in 1926, he achieved a true awakening in terms of cultural hegemony. His original intention in founding *Amauta* was “to raise, clarify, and understand Peruvian problems from a scientific and doctrinal point of view.” [12]12 *Amauta* (Quechua for “wise teacher” or “sage”) was a cultural and political magazine founded by Mariátegui in 1926, serving as a platform for Marxist and avant-garde thought in Latin America. The content of *Amauta* covered politics, art, literature, and the scientific revolutionary movement, always standing on the side of the Latin American proletariat to serve the socialist movement. In fact, Mariátegui had an even more far-reaching vision, attempting to use *Amauta* to attract more Latin American intellectuals to join the “vanguard movement represented by the magazine” and lead the trend of progressive popular magazines. In 1928, celebrating the second anniversary of *Amauta*’s founding, he wrote: “On our banner, we inscribe a great and simple word: socialism… In these two years, *Amauta* has been a magazine of ideological definition… For us, the work of ideological definition seems to have been completed.” [13]13 Mariátegui, from his 1928 anniversary editorial in *Amauta*. *Amauta* became an important publication for understanding the ideology of the Peruvian socialist movement in the early 20th century.

第一，创办旗帜鲜明的无产阶级报刊。马里亚特吉早年已创办《理性报》《劳动》《光明》等杂志，以1926年创办的《阿毛塔》为标志，他在文化领导权方面实现了真正觉醒。他创立《阿毛塔》的初衷是“从科学和教条的观点来提出、澄清和理解秘鲁问题”。《阿毛塔》的内容涉及政治、艺术、文学以及科学革命运动，始终站在拉美无产阶级阵营为社会主义运动服务。事实上，马里亚特吉有着更为远大的设想，试图用《阿毛塔》来吸引更多拉美知识分子投身“杂志代表的先锋派运动”，引领平民进步杂志潮流。1928年，他在庆祝《阿毛塔》创刊两周年时写道：“在我们的旗帜上，我们题写了一个伟大而简单的词：社会主义……在这两年中，《阿毛塔》一直是一本关于意识形态界定的杂志……对我们来说，意识形态界定的工作似乎已经完成了”。《阿毛塔》成为透视20世纪初秘鲁社会主义运动意识形态的重要刊物。

Second, he supported the establishment of proletarian schools, allowing the proletariat to receive free education. As early as in “The Process of Public Education” in his *Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality*, Mariátegui deeply analyzed the state of education in the Republic of Peru, arguing that education was monopolized by the bourgeoisie and poisoned by three foreign cultures: “the Spanish heritage, French and North American culture.” [14]14 Mariátegui, *Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality*, chapter on public education. To break the barriers of the ruling class’s monopoly on education, after returning to Peru in 1923 he went to teach at the González Prada Popular University, [15]15 The González Prada Popular University (Universidad Popular González Prada), founded in 1921 in Lima, was a free educational institution for workers and peasants, named after the Peruvian intellectual Manuel González Prada. spreading his overseas experiences to the worker and peasant classes, inspiring their revolutionary fighting spirit, and emphasizing in various places, such as the *Program of the Peruvian Socialist Party*, the importance of providing free education to the Latin American proletariat.

第二，支持开办无产阶级学校，让无产阶级接受免费教育。马里亚特吉早在《秘鲁七论》“公共教育的进程”中就深入剖析了秘鲁共和国教育的现状，认为秘鲁教育为资产阶级所垄断，并遭到“西班牙遗产、法国和北美文化”三种外来文化的荼毒。为了打破统治阶级垄断教育的藩篱，1923年回国后他前往冈萨雷斯·普拉达人民大学授课，向工农阶级宣扬自己在海外的见闻，激发他们的革命斗志，并在《秘鲁社会党的党纲》等不同地方强调使拉美无产阶级接受免费教育的重要性。

Third, he founded a vanguard party led by the Latin American proletariat. Faced with the early 20th-century argument that the Latin American worker and peasant classes were still too ignorant to lead the socialist revolution, and with the growing populist forces led by the petty and middle bourgeoisie, Mariátegui recognized that the time to establish a Peruvian proletarian party could not be delayed. In October 1928, with the help of eight socialists including Julio Portocarrero, Avelino Navarro, and Hinojosa, Mariátegui announced the formal establishment of the Peruvian Socialist Party (renamed the Peruvian Communist Party in May 1930) and was elected its General Secretary. In Article 9 of the party’s founding program, he clearly stipulated: “The Peruvian Socialist Party is the vanguard of the proletariat. In the struggle to realize class ideals, it is the political force bearing the heavy responsibility of leading the proletariat,” [16]16 The Peruvian Socialist Party (Partido Socialista Peruano), founded in 1928, was renamed the Peruvian Communist Party in 1930 after joining the Comintern. thereby defending the proletariat’s revolutionary leadership. From then on, in the face of the confused thought of adapting Marxism to Latin America, Mariátegui found the magic weapon of the united front for the Peruvian socialist revolution.

第三，创立由拉美无产阶级领导的先锋政党。面对20世纪初拉美工农阶级尚处于愚昧中无法领导社会主义革命的说辞，中小资产阶级引领的民众主义势力日益庞大，马里亚特吉认识到筹建秘鲁无产阶级政党的时间不能拖延了。1928年10月，在胡里奥·波托卡雷罗、阿维利诺·纳瓦罗、伊诺霍萨等8名社会主义者的帮助下，马里亚特吉宣布正式成立秘鲁社会党（1930年5月更名为秘鲁共产党），并被选举为党总书记。他在建党纲领第九条中明确规定，“秘鲁社会党是无产阶级的先锋队。在争取实现阶级理想的奋斗过程中，它是担负着引领无产阶级重任的政治力量”，从而捍卫了无产阶级的革命领导权。自此，面对马克思主义拉美化思想混乱的局面，马里亚特吉为秘鲁社会主义革命找到了统一战线这一法宝。

In leading the struggle of the united front, Mariátegui discovered that the Peruvian proletariat was not prepared for the arrival of communist society, exhibiting problems such as revolutionary slackness and fear. He believed that, in order to achieve a complete victory for the Peruvian socialist revolution, it was necessary to find a good prescription for the Latin American proletariat to strengthen their communist ideals and convictions. In 1926, while writing the *Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality*, he had already grasped the possibility of Latin American traditions serving the communist cause. Mariátegui pointed out: “We instinctively inherited socialist thought from the Inca Empire.” [17]17 Mariátegui, from his writings on the Inca Empire and its “agrarian communism.” Therefore, once the Indigenous people understood socialism and communism, they would regard it as a continuation of their own way of life.

在领导统一战线的斗争中，马里亚特吉发现秘鲁无产阶级没有为共产主义社会到来做好准备，存在革命懈怠与惶恐等问题。他认为，为了使秘鲁社会主义革命取得彻底胜利，必须为拉美无产阶级找到坚定共产主义理想信念的良方。1926年，他在写作《秘鲁七论》时已领会拉美传统服务于共产主义事业的可能性。马里亚特吉指出，“我们本能地从印加帝国中继承了社会主义思想”。因此，当土著印第安人理解了社会主义共产主义之后，将会视之为自己生活方式的一种延续。

First, using indigenous primitive communities to awaken Latin American masses’ value identification with “communism.” A communist mode of life did indeed exist in Latin America and was preserved during the period of colonial rule and the era of independent republics. The Latin American thinker Hildebrando Castro Pozo held that “the ayllu or community retained its natural characteristics, like a family organization, and its main constituent elements continued to exist after the Spanish conquest of the American continent.” Although the primitive communist model differs from the communism envisioned by Marx, this did not prevent Mariátegui from using the communist tradition to inspire the indigenous people to fight for their national traditions. In Mariátegui’s view, revolutionary consciousness might take some time to form, “but once the Indians make socialist ideas their own, they will serve them with discipline, tenacity, and strength.” He even believed that the surviving indigenous communities could be transformed into modern cooperatives.

其一，利用印第安原始村社唤醒拉美民众对“共产主义”的价值认同。拉美确实存在过共产主义生活模式，并在殖民统治时期和独立共和国时期保存下来。拉美思想家希尔德布兰多·卡斯特罗·波佐（Hildebrando Castro Pozo）认为：“艾柳或村社保留了它的自然特性，犹如一个家庭组织，在西班牙征服美洲大陆之后，其主要构成因素仍旧继续存在着。”尽管原始共产主义模式不同于马克思设想的共产主义，但这不妨碍马里亚特吉利用共产主义传统激发印第安人为民族传统而战。在马里亚特吉看来，革命意识可能需要一段时间才能形成，“但是，一旦印第安人将社会主义理念作为他们自己的理念，他们就会以一种纪律、坚韧和力量为之服务”。他甚至认为，残存的印第安村社可以转变为现代合作社。

Second, excavating indigenous nature worship to achieve social change. Mariátegui once quoted Valcárcel’s study of the economic life of Tawantinsuyu [18]18 The Quechua name for the Inca Empire., stating: “In the tradition of our country’s inhabitants, the land is the common mother; not only food, but even human beings are born from her womb… The worship of ‘Pachamama’ is exactly the same as the worship of the sun, and just as the sun does not belong to any individual, the earth does not belong to any individual.” Mariátegui believed that for the indigenous people, the Republic of Peru was merely a new exploiter that had driven out the old colonizers and occupied their land. For a people as attached to rural customs and peasant psychology as the indigenous, depriving them of their “mother earth” inflicted both material and spiritual harm. To achieve the re-appropriation of land ownership for the indigenous, it was necessary to endow the national sentiment with rationality, awaken their ancient consciousness, and make them endorse the revolution to restore their land rights.

其二，发掘印第安人自然崇拜实现社会变革。马里亚特吉曾引用巴尔卡萨尔研究塔万廷苏约（印加帝国国名）经济生活的话指出：“在我国居民的传统中，土地是共有的母亲，不仅食物，而且连人都是从它的腹中产生的……崇拜‘帕查妈妈’和祟拜太阳是完全一样的，而且正如太阳不属于任何个人一样，地球也不属于任何个人。”马里亚特吉认为，对印第安人而言，秘鲁共和国只是赶走旧殖民者而又占领他们土地的新剥削者，对于印第安这样固守农村习惯与农民心理的民族而言，剥夺他们的“土地母亲”对其造成了物质与精神的双重伤害。为了实现印第安人对土地所有权的重新占有，必须赋予民族情感上的合理性，唤醒他们的古老意识，使他们赞成恢复其土地占有权的革命。

Third, constructing spiritual forces to tap the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. To enable Latin Americans to possess the spiritual strength for socialist revolution, Mariátegui considered it necessary to delve deeply into the revolutionary elements within Latin American traditions. Latin Americans have a primitive worship of mystical forces, and this constitutes a national opportunity. He pointed out: “The materialism of socialists contains all the possibilities of spiritual, ethical, and philosophical elevation.” In his view, communism could be regarded as a faith capable of guiding people away from ignorance and toward the radiant other shore of communism. As Georges Sorel said, the historical experience of the early 20th century shows that contemporary revolutionary myths or social myths can occupy people’s profound consciousness as completely as ancient religious myths once did. This is an inevitable product of Latin America’s particular national conditions.

其三，构建精神力量挖掘无产阶级革命潜能。为了让拉美人拥有从事社会主义革命的精神力量，马里亚特吉认为有必要深挖拉美传统中的革命性元素。拉美人对神秘力量有着原始崇拜，这便是民族契机。他指出：“社会主义者的唯物主义包含精神的、伦理的和哲学的提升的所有可能性。”在他看来，共产主义可以被视作一种信仰，能指引人们摆脱愚昧、走向共产主义的光辉彼岸。如同乔治·索雷尔（Georges Sorel）所言，20世纪初的历史经验表明，现在的革命神话或社会神话可能像古代宗教神话一样完全占领人们的深刻意识。这是拉美特殊国情的必然产物。

Mariátegui always held that the spiritual and intellectual preparation of the proletariat was a necessary condition for achieving socialist revolution. Mariátegui consistently strove to confront the reality of Peru, hoping to find a broad path for Peruvian socialist revolution by utilizing traditional culture, practices, and the specific national conditions. Facing the difficult transformation from theory to reality, Mariátegui understood clearly: “It is very necessary to create a class consciousness. The organizers know well that most workers possess a spirit of cooperation and mutual aid. This spirit should be developed and cultivated until it becomes a class spirit.” Therefore, with a deep understanding of Latin American history and reality, he made great creations in areas such as proletarian education, socialist newspapers and periodicals, and the use of Latin American traditions to tap revolutionary potential, thereby pushing Latin American socialist revolution from theory to reality.

马里亚特吉始终认为，无产阶级在精神和智力上的准备是实现社会主义革命的必要条件。马里亚特吉一直在努力正视秘鲁现实，希望利用传统文化、实践及特殊性国情为秘鲁社会主义革命找到实现的通途大道。面对理论向现实的艰难转化，马里亚特吉清楚：“创建一种阶级意识是很有必要的。组织者很清楚，大多数工人有合作和互助精神。这种精神应该被发挥与培育起来，直到它成为一种阶级精神。”因此他在深谙拉美历史与现实的情况下，从无产阶级教育、社会主义报刊、利用拉美传统发掘革命潜能等方面出发进行了伟大创造，促使拉美社会主义革命从理论走向现实。

III. The Historical Influence and Contemporary Reflection of Mariátegui’s Thought on the Latin Americanization of Marxism

三、马里亚特吉马克思主义拉美化思想的历史影响与现实反思

Mariátegui, born in the same era as Gramsci and Mao Zedong, is the father of Latin American Marxism. The thought of these three figures shares commonalities: all advocated integrating Marxism with their own concrete national realities, championed the path of socialist indigenization, and regarded “concrete analysis of concrete conditions” as the “living soul” of Marxism. In the 20th century, the Sinicization, Latin Americanization, and Africanization of Marxism intertwined and appeared together, pushing the nationalization of Marxism to a climax and jointly radiating new vitality into Marxism.

与葛兰西、毛泽东出生于同一时代的马里亚特吉，是拉美马克思主义之父。三人的思想有着共通之处，都提倡结合本国具体实际，主张社会主义本土化道路，将“具体问题具体分析”视为马克思主义“活的灵魂”。20世纪马克思主义中国化、拉美化、非洲化交织呈现，将马克思主义民族化推向高潮，共同焕发出马克思主义新的生命力。

1. Historical Influence

1．历史影响

Mariátegui was the first in Latin America to break through the dogmatic shackles of Marxism, initiating the process of the Latin Americanization of Marxism. In the few months after Mariátegui’s death in 1930, the reactionary government of Leguía in Peru was overthrown, and his successors placed the issues of the indigenous people, economic sovereignty, and anti-imperialism on the agenda. Luis Manuel Sánchez Cerro recognized that “the problem of the assimilation of the indigenous is the fundamental problem of Peru,” distributing some land to the indigenous and providing them with planting funds and technical support. At the same time, Oscar R. Benavides nationalized the Sechura oil fields on the northern coast of Peru, attempting to obstruct imperialist control over Peru. After Mariátegui’s death, the Peruvian government did indeed carry out reforms to a certain extent in accordance with his will, but this was far from sufficient. Unexpectedly, in the years following Mariátegui’s death, his indigenized socialist ideas took root in Cuba. During Mariátegui’s lifetime, the Cuban newspaper *Avance* had jointly promoted Mariátegui’s socialist propositions with the magazine *Amauta*, and his *Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality* could be found everywhere in Cuba. Among others, Che Guevara, during his travels in Latin America, engaged in in-depth exchanges on Mariátegui’s thought with Hugo Pesce, one of the founders of the Peruvian Communist Party, forming an inclusive and open revolutionary thought. Fidel Castro, the founding father of Cuban socialism, repeatedly read Mariátegui’s works during the two years following his imprisonment in 1953, believing that Cuba too should follow a non-dogmatic, flexible, and open revolutionary line, emphasizing the revolutionary potential of the peasantry and the value of indigenous culture, and pondering how to ignite the revolutionary enthusiasm of its own proletariat. These factors helped make Cuba the first socialist country in Latin America, a status it maintains to this day.

马里亚特吉率先在拉美突破马克思主义教条化藩篱，开启了马克思主义拉美化的进程。在1930年马里亚特吉逝世后的几个月，秘鲁莱吉亚反动政府被推翻，继任者把印第安人问题、经济主权问题和反帝国主义问题提上了议程。桑切斯·塞罗（Luis Manuel Sanchez Cerro）认识到“印第安人的同化问题是秘鲁的基本问题”，把部分土地划分给印第安人，并为他们提供种植资金和技术上的支持。同时，奥斯卡·R.贝纳维德斯（Oscar R. Benavides）将秘鲁北部沿海塞楚腊（Sechura）油田收归国有，试图阻扰帝国主义对秘鲁的控制。马里亚特吉逝世后，秘鲁政府的确在一定程度上按照他的意志进行改革，但远远不够。意料之外的是，在马里亚特吉逝世后的几年里，他的本土化社会主义思想在古巴落地生根。马里亚特吉在世期间，古巴《前进报》曾联合《阿毛塔》杂志积极宣扬马里亚特吉的社会主义主张，《秘鲁七论》在古巴随处可见。其中，切·格瓦拉在拉美旅行期间，曾与秘鲁共产党创立者之一的乌戈·佩塞（Hugo Pesce）就马里亚特吉思想进行深入交流，形成一种包容开放的革命思想。古巴社会主义国父菲德尔·卡斯特罗（Fidel Castro）在1953年入狱后的两年内，曾多次翻阅马里亚特吉著作，认为古巴也要走一条非教条化的、灵活开放的革命路线，强调农民的革命潜力、土著文化的价值，思考如何激发本国无产阶级的革命热情。这些促使古巴成为拉美第一个社会主义国家，并发展至今。

Mariátegui believed that “indigenous hope is absolutely revolutionary,” and its motive and soul were “mythical socialist ideas”; only socialism could put an end to feudalism and imperialism. At the same time, without the indigenous masses, Peruvian socialism would have no future. These highly insightful and creative words still echo across the Latin American continent today. At a critical stage in Latin American political and intellectual development, “Mariátegui was able to creatively combine a wide range of academic currents and political trends, using his profound knowledge and experience to uniquely integrate Marxist thought and the most dynamic currents of European culture into the evolving national and Third World consciousness of Peru and Latin America.” This is the precious legacy he left to posterity.

马里亚特吉认为，“本土的希望绝对是革命性的”，它的动机和灵魂是“神话般的社会主义思想”，只有社会主义才能结束封建主义和帝国主义。同时，如果没有土著群众，秘鲁社会主义就没有未来。这些极具洞察力和创造性的话语，至今仍回荡在拉美大陆。在拉美政治和思想发展的关键阶段，“马里亚特吉能够创造性地结合广泛的学术思潮和政治趋势，利用其渊博的知识和经验，独创性地把马克思主义思想和欧洲文化中最具活力的潮流融入秘鲁与拉美正在不断发展的国家和第三世界意识”，这是他留给后人的宝贵财富。

In the latter half of the 20th century, left-wing forces, including the Communist Parties of Latin America, became aware of the contemporary value of Mariátegui’s advocacy of indigenization and engaged in self-reflection. “In the past, when they [the Communist Parties of Latin America — author’s note] formulated policies, they copied foreign models, divorced themselves from reality, and were long on empty talk but short on concrete action. They neither accurately reflected the long-term interests of the broad masses of social strata nor promptly reflected their current urgent demands. Consequently, it was difficult to attract more masses to rally around the Party, causing the Party’s strength to develop slowly or stagnate.” During the Cold War, the innovative step taken by the Communist Parties of Latin America was to shift from a dogmatic approach to Marxism toward the nationalization of Marxism. In the 1960s, countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia successively proposed developing or innovating socialism. Since the latter half of the 20th century, the independent consciousness of the indigenous Indian peoples of Latin America has risen markedly. They have explicitly demanded the return of powers belonging to the Indian nations and have repeatedly resisted the ruling governments through means such as demonstrations, marches, and violent revolution. These movements have taken the proletariat, including the Indians, as their main body and demanded changes to deep-seated issues such as land and education. Mariátegui’s thought provided spiritual nourishment for the Indian nations to launch revolutions and offered a theoretical model for the Latin Americanization of Marxism. Mariátegui is well-deservedly the father of Latin American Marxism. 2. Realistic Reflection. From the initial emergence of the embryonic form of Latin American indigenized socialist thought in the 1920s to the present, the Latin American socialist movement has undergone nearly 100 years of exploration. Why have the Communist Parties of Latin America and the Latin American left failed to lead Latin America onto the broad road of socialism? This merits our reflection. First, the exploration of the nationalization of Marxism is a long and arduous process. Latin America has repeatedly proposed theoretical innovations for the Latin Americanization of Marxism, but under the influence of internal and external pressures, these were often not put into practice or were abandoned halfway. The failure to persist in the localized study of Marxism in keeping with the times is the fundamental reason why Latin America missed out on Marxism. Second, the struggle between capitalism and socialism has been unceasing. Since the birth of the socialist state of Cuba, Western countries led by the United States have maintained a high-pressure posture toward the Latin American socialist movement. Many Latin American proletarian revolutionaries have been brutally suppressed by reactionary forces in practice. This is an important reason for the decline of Marxism in Latin America. Third, in the process of developing Marxism, advanced Latin American intellectuals violated or denied the basic theories of Marxism, causing the Latin American socialist movement to deviate into heresy — for example, the Shining Path in Peru. This is the direct reason why Latin American Marxism has found it difficult to win the trust of the people. In this regard, Mariátegui’s thought has played an important cautionary role for later generations.

20世纪后半叶，包括拉美共产党在内的左翼意识到马里亚特吉本土化主张的时代价值，并作出反思。“过去它们（拉美共产党——引者注）制定政策照抄外国模式，脱离实际，空多实少，既没有贴切地反映广大社会阶层群众的长远利益，也没有适时地反映出它们当前的迫切要求，因此难以吸引更多的群众向党靠拢，致使党的力量发展较慢或停滞不前。”冷战时期，拉美共产党作出的创新之举就是由教条主义地对待马克思主义转向把马克思主义民族化。20世纪60年代，巴西、阿根廷、智利、秘鲁、哥伦比亚、玻利维亚等国先后提出要发展或创新社会主义。20世纪后半叶以来，拉美土著印第安民族独立意识高涨，明确表示要拿回属于印第安民族的权力，多次通过游行示威、暴力革命等方式反抗现统治政府。这些运动都以包括印第安人在内的无产阶级为主体，要求变革土地和教育等深层问题。马里亚特吉思想为印第安民族发起革命提供了精神滋养，为拉美化马克思主义提供了理论典范，马里亚特吉是当之无愧的拉美马克思主义之父。 2．现实反思、 自20世纪20年代拉美本土化社会主义思想初现雏形至今，拉美社会主义运动已历经近100年的探索，为何拉美共产党及拉美左翼未能带领拉美走上社会主义康庄大道？这值得我们反思。第一，马克思主义本国化探索是一个漫长且艰难的过程，拉美曾多次提出马克思主义拉美化的理论创新，但在内外压力的影响下，往往未付诸实践或半途而废，没有坚持马克思主义与时俱进的本土化研究，这是导致拉美错过马克思主义的根本原因。第二，资本主义与社会主义斗争不止，自古巴社会主义国家诞生后，以美国为首的西方国家一直对拉美社会主义运动保持高压态势，很多拉美无产阶级革命者在实践中遭到反动势力残酷镇压，这是马克思主义在拉美衰退的重要原因。第三，拉美先进知识分子在发展马克思主义的过程中违背或否认马克思主义基本理论，致使拉美社会主义运动走向异端，如秘鲁光辉道路等，这是拉美马克思主义难以取信于民的直接原因。对此，马里亚特吉的思想对后世产生重要的警示作用。

First, from the perspective of Mariátegui’s tendency toward the Latin Americanization of Marxism, the integration of Marxism with the concrete realities of each country is an inevitable law of the development of Marxism. As a “Leninist” Latin American Marxist, Mariátegui once again proved that for socialist practice under the guidance of Marxism to achieve victory, it is necessary to proceed from the Marxist methodology, concretely analyze the concrete realities of each country, and form basic policies and guidelines for solving problems. Otherwise, it is impossible to achieve the ultimate victory of the socialist revolution and construction. In the October Revolution, Lenin applied the Marxist methodology, integrated Marxism with the concrete realities of Russia, formed the “theory of the victory of socialism in one country,” and embarked on the socialist path. During the process of socialist construction, Lenin proceeded from reality and formed policies such as “state capitalism,” “war communism,” and the “New Economic Policy,” regarding Russian socialism as a transitional form toward a higher stage of communism. Lenin stated: “No Marxist has ever considered Marx’s theory as a universally binding historical-philosophical formula, as something that goes beyond the explanation of a certain socio-economic formation.” After the October Revolution, Mariátegui quickly applied Leninism to Latin America and Latin Americanized Marxism. This is a model worthy of study by Communists worldwide.

首先，从马里亚特吉马克思主义拉美化趋向来看，马克思主义与各国具体实际相结合是马克思主义发展的必然规律。作为“列宁式”的拉美马克思主义者，马里亚特吉再次证明，马克思主义指导下的社会主义实践要取得胜利，必须从马克思主义方法论出发，具体分析各国具体实际，形成解决问题的基本方针政策，否则就不可能取得社会主义革命和建设的最终胜利。在十月革命中，列宁就是运用马克思主义方法论，将马克思主义与俄国具体实际相结合，形成了“一国胜利论”，走上了社会主义道路。在社会主义建设过程中，列宁更是从实际出发，形成了“国家资本主义”“战时共产主义”“新经济政策”等方针政策，将俄国社会主义看作向更高阶段的共产主义过渡的形式。列宁说道：“从来没有一个马克思主义者认为马克思的理论是一种必须普遍遵守的历史哲学公式，是一种超出了对某种社会经济形态的说明的东西。”马里亚特吉在十月革命后迅速将列宁主义运用到拉美，把马克思主义拉美化，这是一个值得全世界共产党人学习的典范。

Second, whether it is the nationalization of Marxism or the indigenization of socialism, it must be based on adhering to the basic principles of Marxism. A survey of the history of the development of Marxism and the history of the socialist movement makes it easy to draw a basic conclusion: only by studying Marxism and socialism in practice can Marxism be truly practiced and can socialism be promoted in depth. Similarly, the transformation of socialism in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and African countries at the end of the 20th century also shows that only by adhering to the Marxist methodology and the leadership of the vanguard organization of the proletariat can one continue to advance on the socialist path. Lenin once said: “Only a party guided by an advanced theory can fulfill the role of an advanced fighter.” The socialist movement must be guided by Marxist theory, and Marxism can only play its methodological role in practice. Therefore, the problem of the indigenization of socialism must never transcend the basic principles of Marxism. If the basic principles are discarded and practice is allowed to develop recklessly, that is to abandon Marxism. At the same time, the socialist revolution must be led by the vanguard organization of the proletariat. “Only a party that organizes truly universal exposure work can become the vanguard of the revolutionary forces.” If the leadership of the vanguard organization of the proletariat is abandoned, that is to abandon socialism. Therefore, the vanguard of the proletariat must represent the interests of the entire people and serve the people wholeheartedly; otherwise, it loses its standpoint and original aspiration. The primary reason why many former socialist countries failed to continue on the socialist path, or why their socialism ultimately failed, is that they abandoned the leadership of the Communist Party.

其次，无论是马克思主义民族化还是社会主义本土化，都必须以坚持马克思主义基本原理为基础。纵观马克思主义发展史和社会主义运动史，不难得出一个基本结论，只有在实践中研究马克思主义和社会主义，才能真正践行马克思主义，才能推动社会主义向纵深发展。同样，20世纪末东欧、拉美和非洲各国社会主义的转型，也说明只有坚持马克思主义方法论和无产阶级先锋队组织的领导，才能在社会主义道路上继续前进。列宁曾说：“只有以先进理论为指南的党，才能实现先进战士的作用。”社会主义运动必须以马克思主义为理论指导，而马克思主义也必须在实践中才能发挥其方法论作用。因此，社会主义本土化的问题决不能超越马克思主义的基本原则，如果丢掉基本原则，放任实践胡乱发展，就是放弃马克思主义。同时，社会主义革命必须由无产阶级的先锋队组织来领导。“只有把真正全民的揭露工作组织起来的党，才能成为革命力量的先锋队。”如果放弃无产阶级先锋队组织的领导，那就是放弃了社会主义。因此，无产阶级先锋队必须是代表全体人民利益、全心全意为人民服务的，否则就失去了它的立场与初心。许多曾经的社会主义国家之所以未能继续走社会主义道路，或者其社会主义最终失败了，最首要的原因是它们摒弃了共产党的领导。

Third, socialism must be studied in practice. Lenin once believed: “All nations will inevitably arrive at socialism, but they will not all arrive at it in exactly the same way; each nation will have its own peculiarities in this or that form of democracy, in this or that form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the speed of socialist transformation of various aspects of social life.” This means that scientific socialism must be indigenized in practice and must be combined with the actual conditions of each nation. As an undertaking unprecedented in history, every step forward in socialism requires us to study its political, economic, cultural, and other aspects, to propose timely coping strategies, and to promptly shift the Party’s focus of work and central tasks. After the consolidation of socialist political power, it is necessary to fully develop democracy, enable all working people to participate in state management, fully mobilize the labor enthusiasm of the broad masses of the people, develop socialist productive forces, and raise the living standards of the working people.

再次，社会主义必须在实践中加以研究。列宁曾认为：“一切民族都将走向社会主义，这是不可避免的，但是一切民族的走法却不会完全一样，在民主的这种或那种形式上，在无产阶级专政的这种或那种形态上，在社会生活各方面的社会主义改造的速度上，每个民族都会有自己的特点。”这是说，科学社会主义在实践中必须是本土化的，必须与各民族的实际情况相结合。社会主义作为前无古人的事业，每前进一步都需要我们去研究其政治、经济、文化等各个方面，适时地提出应对的策略，及时地转变党的工作重心、中心任务。在社会主义政权巩固之后，充分发扬民主，让全体劳动人民参与国家管理，充分调动广大人民群众的劳动积极性，发展社会主义生产力，提高劳动人民的生活水平。

Finally, the indigenization of socialism must always struggle against capitalism. Socialism grows on the foundation of capitalism. Although socialism and capitalism are a pair of contradictions, mutually influencing and mutually constraining each other, capitalism is the enemy of socialism, and we must never forget to guard against capitalism’s interference, sabotage and obstruction (for example, the United States’ blockade of Cuba for more than 50 years). Ever since human society had its first socialist state, the Western capitalist countries have never ceased their containment of and obstruction to socialism. They always brandish the big sticks of “democracy” and “freedom,” whitewash their own “universal values,” and adopt every means to split the political forces of socialist countries and incite the masses to confront their governments. In Latin America and Africa, many socialist countries have moved toward a multiparty system. On the surface this is their own choice, but in essence it is the result of manipulation by Western countries. Our country is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on an alliance of workers and peasants; all power in the state belongs to the people. The people being masters of the country is the essence and core of socialist democratic politics. In the world, there will never be a single democracy that is universally applicable, nor can there be a single set of values that can be imposed on all countries. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “Democracy is not an ornament, nor is it something

最后，社会主义的本土化必须始终与资本主义进行斗争。社会主义是在资本主义的基础上成长起来的，虽然社会主义与资本主义是矛盾的双方，相互影响、相互制约，但资本主义是社会主义的敌人，我们决不能忘记防范资本主义的干扰、破坏与阻碍（例如美国对古巴封锁了50多年）。自从人类社会有了第一个社会主义国家以来，西方资本主义国家从来就没有中断过对社会主义的遏制与阻挠。他们总是挥舞着“民主”“自由”的大棒，粉饰自己的“普世价值”，采取一切手段分化社会主义国家的政治力量，煽动人民群众对抗政府。在拉美与非洲，许多社会主义国家走向多党制，表面上看是他们自己的选择，但实质上是西方国家操纵的结果。我国是工人阶级领导的、以工农联盟为基础的人民民主专政的社会主义国家，国家一切权力属于人民。人民当家作主是社会主义民主政治的本质和核心。在世界上，决不会有一种民主是通用的，决不会有一种价值观可以强加给各国。习近平总书记指出：“民主不是装饰品，不是用来做摆设的，是要用来解决人民需要解决的问题的。”民主不是少数国家的专利，而是各国人的权利。“评价一个国家政治制度是不是民主的、有效的，主要看国家领导层能否依法有序更替，全体人民能否依法管理国家事务和社会事务、管理经济和文化事业，人民群众能否畅通表达利益要求，社会各方面能否有效参与国家政治生活，国家决策能否实现科学化、民主化，各方面人才能否通过公平竞争进入国家领导和管理体系，执政党能否依照宪法法律规定实现对国家事务的领导，权力运用能否得到有效制约和监督。”

On the 75th anniversary of Mariátegui’s death, the National Assembly of Venezuela carried out a series of commemorative activities and stated in relevant documents: “Mariátegui’s thought remains a source for understanding the world workers’ movement and socialist movement, and an eternal source of thought and guide to action for Latin American revolutionaries.” Entering the 21st century, a survey report by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean pointed out that, as of 2020, the poor population in Latin America numbered approximately 200 million, accounting for one-third of the region’s total population, of whom nearly 80 million were in a state of extreme poverty, with a wide gap between rich and poor and serious social problems. From April 8 to 10, 2018, representatives of 11 communist parties from 9 Latin American countries convened a “Meeting of Latin American Communist Parties” in Lima, the capital of Peru, and held that “socialism remains full of vitality, and is the hope of humanity both now and in the future,” and that it is “the only choice for the Latin American people.” In recent years, from the resurgence of left-wing parties in power in Latin America and their friendly interactions with communist parties of other countries, it is not difficult to see that Latin American left-wing parties are still striving to realize the socialist ideal, and that Mariátegui’s thought has great practical significance for Latin America in the 21st century.

马里亚特吉逝世75周年时，委内瑞拉国民议会开展了一系列纪念活动，并在相关文件中指出：“马里亚特吉思想依然是了解世界工人运动和社会主义运动的源泉，是拉美革命者永恒的思想的源泉和行动的指南。”进入21世纪，联合国拉美地区经委会调查报告指出，截至2020年，拉美贫困人口约2亿，占拉美总人口的1/3，其中近8000万人处于极度贫困状态，贫富差距悬殊，社会问题严重。2018年4月8—10日，来自拉美9国11个共产党的代表在秘鲁首都利马召开“拉美共产党会晤”，认为“社会主义仍充满活力，无论现在和将来都是人类的希望”，是“拉美人民的唯一选择”。近年来，从拉美左翼政党执政复苏态势以及与他国共产党友好互动中，不难看出拉美左翼政党仍在为实现社会主义理想而努力，马里亚特吉思想在21世纪的拉美具有极大的现实意义。

Mariátegui’s Latin Americanized Marxist thought is the dialectical unity of Marxist theory and reality, of universality and particularity. As early as 1928, Mariátegui presciently pointed out: “Although, like capitalism, socialism may have been born in Europe, it is not a specifically or exclusively European socialism. It is a global movement. In this movement, no country operating within the orbit of Western civilization is excluded.” Socialism is the universal future of humanity. Because the national conditions of different countries vary, we must also endow socialism with a localized life; this will be a more concrete socialism. Standing 100 years later, looking back at Mariátegui’s thought, the most precious legacy he left to later generations is to treat socialism with the “living soul” of Marxism.

马里亚特吉的拉美化马克思主义思想是马克思主义理论与现实、普遍性与特殊性的辩证统一。早在1928年，马里亚特吉预见性地指出：“尽管与资本主义一样，社会主义可能诞生于欧洲，但它并不是明确的或特殊的欧洲式的社会主义。这是一种全球性运动。在这种运动中，在西方文明轨道内运行的国家没有一个被排除在外。”社会主义是人类的普遍性未来。由于各国国情不同，我们又要赋予社会主义以本土化生命，这将是更为具体的社会主义。站在100年后的今天，回望马里亚特吉思想，他留给后人最宝贵的财富，就是用马克思主义“活的灵魂”对待社会主义。

(Author’s bio: Ling Zhehong, Research Intern, Center for Studies of Marxism Abroad, Zhejiang Normal University)

（作者简介：凌哲宏，浙江师范大学国外马克思主义研究中心研究实习员）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心