The Development Logic, Internal Predicaments, and Way Out of the Latin Americanization of Marxism

At the beginning of the 20th century, Marxism gradually manifested a trend of diversification and localization. Following Lenin’s Russification of Marxism, José Carlos Mariátegui, the founder of the Peruvian Communist Party, initiated the process of the Latin Americanization of Marxism, providing much experience for the localization of Marxism. However, Latin American Marxists also faced many challenges in the localization of Marxism, which are closely related to their understanding of the essence of Marxism and the realities of Latin America. To explain its internal roots, it is necessary to trace back the course of the Latin Americanization of Marxism and expound on its historical inevitability and developmental mechanism.

20世纪伊始，马克思主义逐渐呈现出多样化与本土化的发展态势。继列宁将马克思主义俄国化后，秘鲁共产党的奠基人何塞·卡洛斯·马里亚特吉开启了马克思主义拉美化的历程，为马克思主义的本土化提供了诸多经验。然而，拉美马克思主义者在马克思主义本土化的问题上也面临诸多挑战，这与他们对马克思主义本质的理解以及拉丁美洲的现实息息相关。为了解释其内在根源，有必要回溯马克思主义拉美化的历程，阐述马克思主义拉美化的历史必然性及其发展机理。

I. From the End of the 19th Century to 1917: Mechanical Intermingling of Latin American Marxism and Indigenous Thought Currents

一、19世纪末至1917年：拉美马克思主义与本土思潮的机械杂糅

Since the Paraguayan War of Independence, the liberation movements of Latin American colonies surged. The Latin American continent, which had suffered over 300 years of colonial rule by Spain and Portugal, achieved liberation and independence one after another under the leadership of pioneers of the independence movement such as Simón Bolívar and José de San Martín. The primary tasks facing the independent Latin American countries were: what kind of political regime to establish? What economic path to take? What kind of dominant ideology to form? In a word, where was Latin America heading? For a time, political and economic currents such as utopian socialism, anarchism, syndicalism, Christian democracy, social democracy, and classical liberalism took turns on the stage. Amid the clamor of various currents, Marxism gradually entered Latin America and began to influence the choice of development paths for Latin American countries. In the 1880s, progressive intellectuals in Latin America began to disseminate Marxism and gradually put it into practice.

自巴拉圭独立战争以来，拉丁美洲殖民地解放运动风起云涌，遭受西班牙、葡萄牙长达300多年殖民统治的拉美大陆，在西蒙·玻利瓦尔、圣马丁·马托拉斯等独立运动先驱的带领下先后获得了解放和独立。独立后的拉美国家面临的首要任务是：在政治上建立什么样的政权？在经济上走什么样的道路？在思想上形成什么样的主导意识形态？一言以蔽之，拉美向何处去？一时间，空想社会主义、无政府主义、工团主义、基督教民主主义、社会民主主义、古典自由主义等政治经济思潮轮番登场。在各种思潮的喧嚣中，马克思主义逐渐进入拉美，开始对拉美国家发展道路的选择产生影响。1880年代，拉美的进步知识分子开始传播马克思主义并逐步将其付诸实践。

As an early Latin American Marxist, Juan B. Justo, the founder of the Argentine Communist Party, attempted to reconcile the revolutionary nature of Marxism with social Darwinism. In 1894, Justo founded the International Socialist Workers' Party in Argentina. The party was renamed the Socialist Party of Argentina in 1896, the Socialist Party of Argentina in 1900, and the Communist Party of Argentina split from it in 1918. In 1898, Justo translated and published the first complete Spanish-language edition of Volume 1 of *Capital* and began to disseminate Marxism in Latin America. However, Justo was not a staunch Marxist. At the end of the 19th century, he supported the "Declaration of Principles" proposed by the Socialist Party of Argentina, which advocated "abandoning the establishment of proletarian political power." Although he argued that his inspiration came mainly from Marx, he was actually influenced by the revisionists of the Second International, Eduard Bernstein and Jean Jaurès, as well as the positivist sociologists Auguste Comte, Émile Durkheim, and Herbert Spencer, opposing violent revolution and believing in the self-evolutionary capacity of capitalist society. In 1912, Justo was elected to the Argentine National Congress through elections and was elected President of Argentina in 1921. During his tenure, he promoted social reforms on the one hand, while adopting a tolerant attitude towards cooperation with the bourgeoisie or imperialism on the other, and was therefore regarded as a representative of the moderate wing of Marxism.

作为早期拉美马克思主义者，阿根廷共产党的奠基人胡安·胡斯托曾尝试将马克思主义的革命性与社会达尔文主义相调和。1894年，胡斯托在阿根廷创建了国际工人社会主义党。该党于1896年更名为阿根廷社会主义党，1900年更名为阿根廷社会党，1918年从中分离出阿根廷共产党。1898年，胡斯托翻译出版了首部完整的西语版《资本论》第1卷，并开始在拉美传播马克思主义。但是，胡斯托并非坚定的马克思主义者，19世纪末，他曾支持阿根廷社会主义党提出的“放弃建立无产阶级政权”的《原则宣言》。尽管他辩称其灵感主要来自马克思，但实际上却受到第二国际修正主义者爱德华·伯恩施坦、让·饶勒斯以及实证主义社会学家奥古斯特·孔德、埃米尔·涂尔干、赫伯特·斯宾塞等人的影响，反对暴力革命，相信资本主义社会有自我进化的能力。1912年，胡斯托通过竞选成为阿根廷国会议员，并于1921年当选阿根廷总统。他在执政期间一方面推行社会改革，另一方面又对同资产阶级或帝国主义合作持宽容态度，因此被视为马克思主义温和派的代表。

The renowned poet Manuel Ugarte was another early Marxist in Argentina, as well as a nationalist who opposed American and Spanish imperialism. In the early 20th century, he served as a permanent representative of the Socialist Party of Argentina in Europe, thereby establishing close ties with the Second International (Socialist International). Based on the reality of unequal development among Latin American countries, Ugarte emphasized national differences, opposed the Second International's proposal that "communism should aim to eliminate national (state) borders," and disagreed with the Second International on the question of the socialist path, arguing that socialists should not oppose their own nation, and that "socialism does not equal national suicide." As a revolutionary Marxist, Ugarte made significant contributions to the Latin Americanization of Marxism and laid the foundation for Latin American Marxism. However, as his contradictions with moderate Marxists like Justo intensified, Ugarte was marginalized within the party and expelled from the Socialist Party of Argentina in 1916, and the Latin Americanization of Marxism he championed also suffered setbacks.

著名诗人曼努埃尔·乌加特是另一位阿根廷的早期马克思主义者，同时也是一位反对美国和西班牙帝国主义的民族主义者。20世纪初，他曾作为阿根廷社会党的代表常驻欧洲，进而与第二国际（社会主义国际）建立了密切的联系。基于拉美各国发展不平等的现实，乌加特重视民族差异，反对第二国际提出的“共产主义应以消除国家（民族）边界为目标”的纲领，并在社会主义道路的问题上与第二国际意见相左，认为社会主义者不应反对自己的民族，“社会主义不等于民族自杀”。作为马克思主义革命派，乌加特为马克思主义拉美化作出了重要贡献，奠定了拉美马克思主义的基础。然而，随着其与胡斯托等马克思主义温和派的矛盾白热化，乌加特在党内被边缘化，并于1916年被开除出阿根廷社会党，他所致力于的马克思主义拉美化也遭遇挫折。

Luis Emilio Recabarren, a leader of the Chilean workers' movement, was also a representative figure of the early Latin American revolutionary Marxist faction. In 1912, he founded the Socialist Workers' Party of Chile, renamed the Communist Party of Chile in 1922. Inspired by "educational philosophy," Recabarren advocated using education and propaganda to mobilize workers, arm their minds with progressive ideas, awaken their subjective consciousness and revolutionary fighting spirit, and thereby launch a proletarian revolution. To this end, he took the lead in establishing proletarian schools and popularized this method of mobilization throughout the Latin American region, leading progressive intellectuals in Latin America to follow suit. Recabarren also actively engaged in media propaganda and education, founding several proletarian newspapers to give voice to the working class. In 1924, Recabarren committed suicide due to the failure of his struggle against the military dictatorship and his disappointment with the prospects of revolution.

智利工人运动领袖路易斯·埃米利奥·雷卡巴伦同样是早期拉美马克思主义革命派的代表人物。1912年，他创立了智利社会主义工人党，1922年改称智利共产党。受“教育哲学”启发，雷卡巴伦主张采用教育与宣传两种方式动员工人，以进步的思想武装工人头脑，唤醒他们的主体意识和革命斗志，进而发动无产阶级革命。为此，他带头兴办无产阶级学校，并将这种动员方式普及至整个拉美地区，致使拉美进步知识分子纷纷效仿。雷卡巴伦还积极致力于媒体宣传和教育，先后创办了多份无产阶级报刊，为劳工发声。1924年，雷卡巴伦因反对军事独裁的斗争失败以及对革命前景感到失望而自杀。

In summary, the early dissemination of Marxism in Latin America was, on the one hand, constrained by Latin American reactionary forces and the prevailing influence of positivism and Darwinian socialism in Latin America at the time. On the other hand, it also faced the difficulty that Marxism had not yet taken root among the masses in Latin America, especially in gaining resonance from the most oppressed indigenous peoples of Latin America. Consequently, some Marxists adopted a moderate stance to reconcile the revolutionary nature of Marxism, attempting to secure greater political space for Marxism in Latin America. Other Marxists, realizing that the proletariat had not yet been fully awakened, chose to engage in rational ideological enlightenment to mobilize the proletarian revolution. Thus, early Latin American Marxism could only, in its combination with Latin American indigenous radical leftism, give rise to currents such as syndicalism, which envisioned replacing the state with workers' self-management, ultimately degenerating into a utopia.

总之，马克思主义在拉美的早期传播，一方面受到拉美反动势力的钳制以及当时拉美盛行的实证主义和达尔文社会主义的影响，另一方面也面临马克思主义在拉美尚未扎根于群众、尤其难以获得受压迫最深的拉美土著的共鸣等难题。为此，一部分马克思主义者以温和立场调和马克思主义的革命性，试图让马克思主义在拉美获得更大的政治生存空间；另一部分马克思主义者则意识到无产阶级尚未充分觉醒，因而选择以理性的姿态进行思想启蒙，动员无产阶级革命。于是，早期的拉美马克思主义只能在与拉美本土激进左翼的结合中催生出工团主义等思潮，设想以工人自治代替国家，最终沦为一种乌托邦。

II. 1918–1959: The Struggle of Latin American Marxism against "Latin American Exceptionalism" and Dogmatism

二、1918—1959年：拉美马克思主义同“拉美例外论”和教条主义的斗争

The victory of the Russian October Revolution propelled world Marxism into a new era. Lenin's dialectical understanding and application of Marxism became a model for proletarian revolutions in various countries, and the wave of the localization of Marxism rapidly swept across Latin America. On the basis of in-depth study of Latin American national conditions, progressive Latin American intellectuals combined Marxist theory with the actual conditions of Latin American countries, engaged in dialectical creation, and pushed the Latin Americanization of Marxism to a new stage.

俄国十月革命的胜利推动了世界马克思主义走向新时代，列宁对马克思主义的辩证理解和运用成为各国无产阶级革命的典范，马克思主义本土化浪潮迅速席卷拉丁美洲。在深入研究拉美国情的基础上，拉美进步知识分子把马克思主义理论与拉美各国实际相结合并进行了辩证的创造，将马克思主义拉美化推向新阶段。

The Latin Americanization of Marxism began with a polemic against “Latin American exceptionalism.” The early practice of Latin American Marxism was once subjected to harsh criticism by intellectuals enamored of bourgeois thought. Influenced by the colonial metropoles, they argued that Marxism was a European product unsuited to Latin American realities. In response to this “Latin American exceptionalism,” José Carlos Mariátegui, known as the “father of Latin American Marxism,” pointed out: “Socialism cannot be a lifeless copy of the socialist system or a dogmatic application of Marxist thought. It must be a ‘heroic creation’; Latin American reality must give it life.” [1]1 José Carlos Mariátegui (1894–1930) was a Peruvian Marxist theorist, activist, and writer, often called the “father of Latin American Marxism” for his efforts to adapt Marxism to Latin American conditions. To this end, he not only raised the slogan “Marxism must be Latin Americanized” but also steered the Latin Americanization of Marxism from a mechanical mixture with local currents of thought onto the broad path of dialectical creation. During 1919–1923, Mariátegui lived in exile in Europe and came under the influence of Marxism. After returning to Peru in the summer of 1923, he completed his representative work, *Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality*, based on a painstaking study of Peru’s national conditions. As the title suggests, this work is a collection of seven essays, which together reflect the basic ideas of Mariátegui’s Latin Americanized Marxism. Its contents include: (1) identifying the indigenous peoples as the subject of the Peruvian proletarian revolution, because they were the most deeply oppressed by the colonizers and the bourgeoisie and possessed the strongest spirit of resistance; (2) exposing the truth that Euro-American imperialists sought to control Latin America, calling for the severing of imperialist privileges in Peru that secretly supported the Peruvian dictatorship and feudal remnants, since these privileges caused a multitude of social ills and made reform impossible; (3) finding a Peruvian-style path for the proletarian revolution; (4) opposing the dogmatization of Marxism and opposing the exclusion of the large number of Latin American religious believers from the revolutionary ranks, advocating the use of Latin American theology to build consensus, construct a Latin American reverence for communism, and thereby unleash their revolutionary potential; (5) emphasizing the important role of ideology in national development, advocating cultural “decolonization,” and arguing that Peruvian literature should be rooted in the native soil to achieve the independence and freedom of the national spirit, rather than perpetuating the Spanish colonial cultural tradition and weakening revolutionary will. *Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality* marks Mariátegui’s mature application of Marxist historical materialism to the analysis of Latin American society and Peruvian reality, correctly articulating the theoretical basis for the necessity of Latin Americanizing Marxism. To this day, Latin Americans still regard “Mariátegui’s Marxism as an early—and unique—example of a Latin American national Marxism.”

马克思主义拉美化是在与“拉美例外论”的论战中拉开序幕的。早期拉美马克思主义的实践曾遭受热衷于资产阶级思想的知识分子的横加指责，他们受殖民宗主国的影响，认为马克思主义是欧洲的产物，不适应拉美实际。针对这种“拉美例外论”，被称为“拉美马克思主义之父”的马里亚特吉指出：“社会主义不能是社会主义制度毫无生机的复制品或马克思主义思想的教条主义应用。它必须是一种‘英雄的创造’；拉美的现实必须赋予它生命。”为此，他不仅提出“马克思主义必须拉美化”的口号，而且将拉美化马克思主义从与本土思潮的机械杂糅引向了辩证创造的通途大道。1919—1923年，马里亚特吉流亡欧洲，受到马克思主义的影响。1923年夏回国后，他在潜心研究秘鲁国情的基础上完成了代表作《关于秘鲁国情的七篇论文》。顾名思义，这部著作由七篇论文汇集而成，集中反映了马里亚特吉的拉美化马克思主义的基本思想，内容包括：（1）为秘鲁无产阶级革命找到了革命的主体——印第安民族，因为他们受殖民者和资产阶级压迫最深、反抗意识最强；（2）揭露了欧美帝国主义企图控制拉美的真相，号召斩断暗中支持秘鲁独裁政权和封建残余势力的帝国主义在秘鲁的特权，因为它们使秘鲁社会百弊丛生、改革寸步难行；（3）找到了秘鲁式的无产阶级革命道路；（4）反对将马克思主义教条化，反对将人数众多的拉美宗教信徒拒之于革命队伍之外，主张利用拉美神学凝聚共识，构建起拉美人对共产主义的崇拜，从而激发他们的革命潜能；（5）重视意识形态对国家发展的重要作用，主张文化上的“去殖民化”，认为秘鲁文学应植根于本土，实现民族精神的独立和自由，而不是延续西班牙殖民文化传统，削弱革命斗志。《关于秘鲁国情的七篇论文》标志着马里亚特吉已经成熟地将马克思主义唯物史观运用于分析拉美社会和秘鲁现实，正确地阐述了马克思主义必须拉美化的理论依据。时至今日，拉美人仍然认为：“马里亚特吉的马克思主义是一个早期的——也是独特的——拉美民族马克思主义的典范。”

Unlike Mariátegui, another early Latin American Marxist, Julio Antonio Mella, placed greater hope in youth and intellectuals to lead the proletarian revolution. Although he acknowledged the immense revolutionary potential latent in the workers, peasants, and indigenous peoples, he believed they needed to be “civilized.” [2]2 Julio Antonio Mella (1903–1929) was a Cuban Marxist revolutionary and a founder of the Communist Party of Cuba. When founding the José Martí Popular University, Mella established “scientific education, political anti-dogmatism, and social justice” as its three principles, and he championed the spirit of independence and freedom of José Martí, the pioneer of Cuba’s liberation movement, advocating the close linkage of the proletarian revolution with the struggle against imperialist domination. He pointed out: “The decisive struggle to destroy imperialism… is not a very bourgeois national struggle, but a proletarian international struggle; only by eradicating the root of imperialism, that is, capitalism, will a truly free nation exist.” To this end, he believed that the Cuban revolution should exploit domestic class contradictions, launch a proletarian revolution, overthrow the forces of imperialism, capitalism, and feudalism in one fell swoop, and finally establish a new socialist state in Cuba.

与马里亚特吉不同，拉美另一位早期马克思主义者梅里亚更寄希望于青年和知识分子来领导无产阶级革命。尽管他承认工农和印第安人中蕴藏着巨大的革命潜力，但认为他们有待“开化”。在创办何塞·马蒂人民大学时，梅里亚将“科学教育、政治反教条主义和社会正义”作为三大原则，并推崇古巴解放运动先驱何塞·马蒂的独立自由精神，主张把无产阶级革命同反对帝国主义统治的斗争紧密联系起来。他指出：“摧毁帝国主义的明确斗争……并不是一个十分布尔乔亚的民族斗争，而是一个无产阶级的国际斗争，只有肃清帝国主义的根源，即资本主义，真正自由的国度才会存在。”为此，他认为古巴革命应当利用国内阶级矛盾，发动无产阶级革命，一举推翻国内帝国主义、资本主义和封建主义势力，最后建立古巴社会主义新国家。

In the two or three decades of the early 20th century, Latin American Marxists such as Mariátegui and Mella opened up promising prospects for the Latin Americanization of Marxism. However, after the successive deaths of these two thinkers, the process of Latin Americanizing Marxism began to face internal and external predicaments, forcing it to advance with difficulty in a struggle against dogmatism. Internally, some so-called “orthodox Marxists” dogmatized the directives of the Communist International, questioning the feasibility of the localization programs of Mariátegui and others, denouncing them as “heretics.” Externally, after World War I, the United States intensified its competition for interests in Latin America, while the Soviet Union, in order to counterbalance U.S. imperialism, attempted to mobilize the Latin American proletariat to launch revolutions. Against this backdrop, the task of Latin Americanizing Marxism fell to an outsider, Vittorio Codovilla. The Italian Codovilla joined the Italian Socialist Party in 1911, fled to Argentina in 1912 and joined the Argentine Socialist Party, quickly becoming a leader of its left wing. In 1917, he founded Argentina’s first Marxist newspaper, *El Internacionalista*. In 1918, the left wing of the Argentine Socialist Party split from the right wing, and subsequently the first communist party organization in Latin America, the International Socialist Party of Argentina, was established. In 1920, the International Socialist Party of Argentina was renamed the Communist Party of Argentina, and Codovilla, due to his work performance and ability, was given important responsibilities and became the head of the South American Secretariat of the Communist International. Thereafter, he simultaneously played the role of a vanguard of Latin American anti-imperialism and used his insights on the Latin Americanization of Marxism to influence the Soviet Union’s overall policy toward Latin America. In 1928, at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International, “the discovery of the Americas” became an important agenda item. [3]3 The Sixth Congress of the Communist International (Comintern) was held in Moscow in 1928 and adopted a radical leftist line, including the “Third Period” theory. However, the “Third Period” theory proposed at this congress was completely divorced from the actual revolutionary conditions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. [4]4 The “Third Period” theory, adopted by the Comintern in 1928, posited that capitalism was entering a final crisis of collapse, requiring communist parties to pursue immediate revolutionary offensives, a line that proved disastrous in many contexts. This theory held that capitalism had entered a period of total collapse, thereby placing the task of seizing power by the proletariat on the agenda, which misled communist movements in various countries and plunged them into difficulties. Subsequently, due to the outbreak of World War II, the U.S.-Soviet rivalry, and other reasons, the Latin American communist movement was required to submit to the interests of the Soviet Union and was influenced by Stalinism, Trotskyism, Browderism, and others. [5]5 Browderism refers to the policies of Earl Browder, leader of the Communist Party USA, who advocated class collaboration and peaceful coexistence with capitalism during and after World War II, later repudiated by the international communist movement. Dogmatism became prevalent, and the process of Latin Americanizing Marxism stagnated for more than 30 years.

在20世纪初的二三十年中，马里亚特吉和梅里亚等拉美马克思主义者开辟了马克思主义拉美化的美好前景。但是，在两位思想家相继逝世后，马克思主义拉美化进程开始面临内外困境，不得不在与教条主义的斗争中艰难前行。就内部而言，一些所谓的“正统马克思主义者”将共产国际的指示教条化，质疑马里亚特吉等人的本土化方案的可行性，将他们斥为“异端”。就外部来说，第一次世界大战后，美国加紧了对拉美利益的争夺，而苏联为与美帝抗衡，试图动员拉美无产阶级发动革命。在这种背景下，马克思主义拉美化的重任落到了一名外来者维多利奥·柯多维拉的身上。意大利人柯多维亚于1911年加入意大利社会党，1912年流亡阿根廷后加入阿根廷社会党，并很快成为该党左翼领导人。1917年，他为阿根廷创办了第一份马克思主义报纸《国际主义报》。1918年，阿根廷社会党左翼同右翼决裂，随后拉美第一个共产党组织——阿根廷国际社会党成立。1920年，阿根廷国际社会党改称阿根廷共产党，而柯多维拉因工作表现和能力突出受到重用，并成为共产国际南美书记处负责人。此后，他一边扮演拉美反帝急先锋的角色，一边以其马克思主义拉美化的见解影响苏联对整个拉美的政策。1928年，在共产国际第六次代表大会上，“发现美洲”成为一项重要议题。然而，这次会议提出的“第三时期”理论完全脱离了亚非拉各国革命的实际。该理论认为资本主义已进入全面崩溃时期，从而把无产阶级夺取政权的任务提上日程，结果给各国共产主义运动造成误导并使其因此陷入困境。随后，因二战爆发、美苏争霸等原因，拉美共产主义运动被要求服从苏联的利益，并受到斯大林主义、托洛茨基主义、白劳德主义等的影响，教条主义盛行，马克思主义拉美化进程也因此停滞了30多年。

By the 1950s, under the international environment of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry, Soviet leaders began to advocate a policy of peaceful transition to socialism, urging Latin American communist parties to come to power through elections. This led most Latin American communist parties to blindly believe in the inclusiveness of the capitalist system, and the exploration of Latin Americanizing Marxism thus turned toward social reform, giving rise to localized Latin American socialist practices such as “military socialism” and “cooperative socialism.” Vicente Lombardo Toledano, founder of the Popular Socialist Party of Mexico, combined Marxism with Mexico’s indigenous revolutionary thought in the practice of leading the Mexican labor movement, proposing a plan for socialist reform in cooperation with the government. To this end, in 1936 he formed the Confederation of Mexican Workers, and using historical materialism to analyze the ills of capitalist society, he called for “the unity of different class interests and full cooperation to support national industrialization,” attempting to continuously improve the living standards of Latin America’s lower classes through industrial innovation. In addition, he advocated making Marxism the guiding educational principle for university reform in Mexico.

到了1950年代，在美苏争霸的国际环境下，苏联领导人开始倡导社会主义和平过渡的方针，主张拉美共产党通过选举上台执政。这导致拉美大多数共产党盲目相信资本主义制度的包容性，马克思主义拉美化的探索也因此转向社会改良，从而催生出 “军事社会主义”“合作社会主义”等拉美社会主义本土化实践。墨西哥社会主义人民党创始人维森特·隆巴多·托莱达诺在领导墨西哥劳工运动的实践中将马克思主义与墨西哥本土的革命思想相结合，提出了与政府合作进行社会主义改革的设想。为此，他于1936年组建了墨西哥劳工联合会，并运用唯物史观分析资本主义社会的弊端，号召“不同阶级利益的统一、通力合作，支持国家工业化”，试图通过工业革新不断改善拉美底层民众的生活水平。此外，他还主张将马克思主义作为墨西哥大学改革的教育指导原则。

III. After 1960: Diverse Explorations of the Integration of Latin American Marxism with Local Realities

三、1960年后：拉美马克思主义与本土实际相结合的多元探索

The victory of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, along with the exploration of their own paths by socialist countries such as China, transformed the Soviet Union’s long-standing influence over Latin America, pushing the Latin Americanization of Marxism onto an open path of development and rekindling hope for the localized development of Marxism in Latin America. Politically, Latin American countries one after another emulated the Cuban Revolution and promoted socialism; economically, the Marxist “dependency theory” emerged in Latin America to explain and resolve the problem of uneven economic development in the region; culturally, enlightenment movements such as liberation theology, liberation philosophy, and liberation pedagogy strengthened the subjective consciousness of Latin American people, freeing them from the spiritual enslavement of Western capitalism.

1959年古巴革命的胜利，以及中国等社会主义国家对本国道路的探索，转变了苏联对拉美的长期影响，将马克思主义拉美化推向开放性的发展道路，重新燃起了拉美马克思主义本土化发展的希望。在政治上，拉美各国纷纷效仿古巴革命，推行社会主义；在经济上，拉美诞生了马克思主义的“依附理论”，用来解释并解决拉美经济发展的不平衡问题；在文化上，解放神学、解放哲学和解放教育学等启蒙运动强化了拉美民众的主体意识，使他们摆脱了西方资本主义的精神奴役。

(1) The Rise of Castroism and Guevarism

（一）卡斯特罗主义和格瓦拉主义的兴起

The Cuban Revolution was a model for Latin American socialist revolution. It not only cleared the way for the establishment of the first socialist country in the Western Hemisphere, but also stimulated a broad awakening among the底层民众 [grassroots masses] of Latin America. The guerrilla warfare led by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara completely defeated the regime of the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista, creating the “myth” of the Latin American proletariat defeating US imperialism through guerrilla warfare, and giving rise to the far-reaching “Castroism” and “Guevarism.” Castro once drew up a plan of struggle for Latin American revolutionaries: strengthen Party leadership, rely on revolutionary intellectuals, unite workers and peasants, exert a dynamic revolutionary spirit, adopt guerrilla warfare, wear down the enemy’s will, and strike at enemies from all sides. After the victory of the Cuban Revolution, under the guidance of Castroism, Cuba has unswervingly adhered to the socialist path for over 60 years, advocating social justice, people’s democracy, and Latin American unity. Therefore, it can be said that Castroism was a turning point in the Latin Americanization of Marxism.

古巴革命是拉美社会主义革命的榜样，它不仅为西半球建立第一个社会主义国家扫清了障碍，而且刺激了拉美底层民众的广泛觉醒。菲德尔·卡斯特罗和切·格瓦拉领导的游击战彻底击败了美国支持的独裁者富尔亨西奥·巴蒂斯塔政权，创造了拉美无产阶级通过游击战打败美帝的“神话”，也成就了影响深远的“卡斯特罗主义”和“格瓦拉主义”。卡斯特罗曾为拉美革命者绘制了斗争方案，即强化党的领导，依靠革命的知识分子，团结工农，发挥能动的革命精神，采取游击战争，消耗敌人的意志，打击来自各方面的敌人。古巴革命胜利后，在卡斯特罗主义的指导下，古巴坚持社会主义道路60多年不动摇，倡导社会公正、人民民主和拉美团结。因此可以说，卡斯特罗主义是马克思主义拉美化的一个转折点。

If Castro’s contribution to the Latin Americanization of Marxism was mainly concentrated in the revolutionary and political spheres, then Guevara’s spirit penetrated deeply into the socio-cultural sphere and became a symbol of the Western leftist movement. Guevara believed that the key to the victory of the Cuban Revolution lay in guerrilla warfare, and Guevarism also became synonymous with the “theory of the guerrilla focus” [foco theory]. After the establishment of the socialist system in Cuba, Guevara further proposed the theory of the socialist “new man.” He pointed out that measures such as the economic system, political rights, and cultural education would ensure that Cubans acquire entirely new material and spiritual armament, and through positive interaction with society, become “new men,” rather than the “alienated men” of capitalist society. As a former national leader in charge of Cuba’s economic construction, Guevara resolutely opposed dogmatism in both theory and practice. He believed that Marxism is open in essence, that Marxism must confront new problems with “intellectual audacity,” and cannot become a “cold scholasticism” or a defensive ideology. Therefore, it was Guevara who initiated the open process of the Latin Americanization of Marxism.

如果说卡斯特罗对马克思主义拉美化的贡献主要集中在革命和政治领域，那么格瓦拉的精神则深入到社会文化领域，并成为西方左翼运动的象征。格瓦拉认为，古巴革命胜利的关键在于游击战，而格瓦拉主义也成为“游击中心论”的代名词。古巴建立社会主义制度后，格瓦拉又提出了社会主义“新人”理论。他指出，经济制度、政治权利、文化教育等措施将保障古巴人获得全新的物质和精神武装，通过与社会产生积极的互动成为“新人”，而不是资本主义社会中“异化的人”。作为曾经分管古巴经济建设的国家领导人，格瓦拉在理论与实践中坚决反对教条主义，他认为马克思主义在本质上是开放的，马克思主义必须以“知性的勇猛”来应对新问题，不能成为“冰冷的经院哲学”和一种防御性思想。因此，正是格瓦拉开启了马克思主义拉美化的开放进程。

(II) The Formation of Dependency Theory and Liberation Philosophy

（二）依附理论和解放哲学的形成

In the late 20th century, the political practice of Latin American socialism encountered numerous difficulties. In the 1970s, the government of Salvador Guillermo Allende in Chile was overthrown, and the “Allende socialism” proposal for a peaceful transition to socialism failed. The Sandinista National Liberation Front of Nicaragua, which came to power in 1979, lost the 1990 election and became an opposition party. The Shining Path, which split from the Peruvian Communist Party in the 1970s and was active in Peru in the 1980s, once called for “fighting to establish a truly regime for the exploited classes,” but was listed as a terrorist organization in 1997, and its founder died in prison. In 1994, the Zapatista peasant uprising in Mexico, called “the first shot of resistance against neoliberalism in the post-Cold War era,” found it difficult to expand into a nationwide revolution and had to sign a peace agreement with the government in 1996. At the same time, the United States imposed a blockade on Cuba for over 50 years, causing unprecedented difficulties in its economic development. To prevent a second “Cuba” in Latin America, the United States went all out to turn Latin America into its “backyard,” continuously persecuting the Latin American left through military intervention and covert operations. Under these circumstances, Latin American Marxism skillfully penetrated into the economic and cultural spheres, creatively forming new achievements of the Latin Americanization of Marxism—dependency theory and liberation philosophy.

20世纪晚期，拉美社会主义的政治实践遭遇重重困境。1970年代，智利的萨尔瓦多·吉列莫尔·阿连德政府被推翻，“阿连德社会主义”提出的通过和平方式向社会主义过渡方案宣告失败。1979年上台执政的尼加拉瓜桑蒂诺民族解放阵线在1990年选举失利，沦为反对党。1970年代从秘鲁共产党中分离出来并于1980年代活跃于秘鲁的“光辉道路”曾号召“为建立真正属于被剥削阶级人民的政权而战斗”，但却在1997年被列为恐怖组织，其创始人也死于狱中。1994年，被称为“后冷战时代反抗新自由主义的第一枪”的墨西哥萨帕塔农民起义难以扩大成全国性的革命，不得不于1996年与政府签订和平协议。与此同时，美国对古巴实施了长达50多年的封锁，致使其在经济发展上遭遇了前所未有的困难。为了防止拉美出现第二个“古巴”，美国倾力将拉美打造成其“后花园”，通过军事干预和秘密行动不断迫害拉美左翼，在这种形势下，拉美马克思主义巧妙地深入到经济和文化领域，创造性地形成了马克思主义拉美化的新成果——依附理论和解放哲学。

In the mid-20th century, inspired by Marx’s theory of surplus value, the dichotomous analytical framework, and the “metropolis-colony” idea, Argentine economist Raúl Prebisch constructed the “center-periphery” theory. On this basis, Chilean scholar Enzo Faletto and Brazilian scholar and former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, among others, further developed Marxist dependency theory. Dependency theory holds that the capital-dominated world market forms a development structure of “large industrial centers” and “peripheral countries that provide raw materials for the large industrial centers.” Because the developed center countries dominate in technology, human resources, and resources, a phenomenon of dominating and exploiting the backward peripheral countries emerges, thus forming an economic dependency relationship between them. This economic dependency also brings about dependency in the political, cultural, and other fields. To achieve development, developing countries should break free from dependence on Western countries and prevent the invasion of Western countries in the economic, technological, ideological, and cultural spheres. Regarding this, the radical dependency school, represented by André Gunder Frank, one of the founders of world-systems theory, believed that only through revolution could peripheral countries completely escape the historical fate of being exploited. The reformist dependency school, represented by the famous Brazilian economist Celso Furtado, believed that center countries do not want to lose the cooperation of peripheral countries, so peripheral countries should rely on a strong government to maintain relations of equality, autonomy, and mutually beneficial development through negotiation or the establishment of organizations. Dependency theory organically combined Marxism with economic nationalism, drawing on Marx’s and Lenin’s analysis of the capitalist mode of production in terms of thought method and theoretical origin, while placing the development of the nation’s own economy first, expanding Marxist political economy’s research on how colonial countries develop their economies. The emergence of Marxist dependency theory made it a trend for Latin American countries in the second half of the 20th century to think about how to break free from dependence on Western countries in the economic, political, cultural, and other fields, marking the collective awakening of the Latin American nations. Therefore, dependency theory is also called the political economy of colonial countries or the Third World.

20世纪中叶，受马克思剩余价值理论、二分法分析框架、“宗主国—殖民地”等思想的启发，阿根廷经济学家劳尔·普雷维什构建了“中心—外围”理论。在此基础上，智利学者恩佐·法莱托和巴西学者、前总统费尔南多·恩里克·卡多佐等人进一步发展出马克思主义的依附理论。依附理论认为，资本主导的世界市场形成了“大工业中心”和“为大工业中心提供原材料的外围国家”这一发展结构，由于发达的中心国家在科技、人力、资源等方面占主导地位，于是出现了支配并剥削落后的外围国家的现象，从而形成了两者之间的经济依附关系，而这种经济依附还带来了政治、文化等领域的依附。发展中国家要实现发展，就应当摆脱对西方国家的依赖，阻止西方国家在经济、技术、思想、文化等领域的入侵。对此，以世界体系理论奠基人之一安德烈·冈德·弗兰克为代表的激进主义依附派认为，唯有通过革命，外围国家才能彻底摆脱被剥削的历史命运；而以巴西著名经济学家塞尔索·福尔塔为代表的改良主义依附派则认为，中心国家并不想失去外围国家的配合，因而外围国家应依靠强有力的政府，以谈判或建立组织的方式来维护平等自主、互利发展的关系。依附理论将马克思主义与经济民族主义有机地结合起来，在思想方法和理论渊源上汲取了马克思和列宁对资本主义生产方式的分析，同时又将本民族经济的发展放在第一位，拓展了马克思主义政治经济学关于殖民地国家如何发展经济的研究。马克思主义依附理论的产生，使20世纪下半叶拉美国家思考如何在经济、政治、文化等领域摆脱对西方国家的依附问题成为潮流，标志着拉美民族的集体觉醒，因此依附理论也被称为殖民地国家或第三世界的政治经济学。

Accompanying dependency theory was the emergence of liberation theology, liberation philosophy, and liberation pedagogy with strong Latin American characteristics. In the 1970s, some Latin American philosophers, represented by Leopoldo Zea, took the lead in challenging Western philosophy, attempting to construct a philosophy of the “Third World.” Zea believed: “Philosophy is consciousness, consciousness of the state of dependency, consciousness of the oppressed position; it is awakening to strive for liberation. Philosophy is no longer a project, but an attitude, an attitude to be used to establish a liberation philosophy, a non-alienated philosophy. This philosophy must liberate itself from European philosophy in a critical manner.” [6]6 Leopoldo Zea, “La filosofía como conciencia de la dependencia,” in *Filosofía de la historia americana* (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1978), p. 15. Thereafter, a large number of local philosophers based in the “Third World” and their liberation philosophies emerged in Latin America. For example, Enrique Dussel’s liberation ethics on the construction of “liberating the other,” Arturo Ardao’s discussion on the “westward shift” of the world cultural center, Augusto Salazar Bondy’s critique of Western capitalist culture as the “culture of the ruler,” Francisco Miró Quesada’s exposition on “humanism in a concrete environment,” and so on. In short, Latin American liberation philosophers attempted to break free from political, economic, and cultural dependence on European and American capitalism by restoring local culture, allowing the spiritual world of Latin Americans to undergo a “baptism.” This reflected the theoretical elevation of Latin American Marxism in the 1970s–1980s and fully demonstrated the belief of the Latin American people that they would no longer submit to Western powers and wanted to enter the 21st century with an independent and autonomous posture.

与依附理论相伴而生的还有极具拉美特色的解放神学、解放哲学和解放教育学。1970年代，以列奥波尔多·塞亚为代表的一些拉美哲学家率先对西方哲学发起挑战，尝试构建“第三世界”的哲学。塞亚认为：“哲学就是觉悟，就是意识到依附状态，意识到受压迫的地位，就是觉悟起来去争取解放。哲学已经不是一项规划，而是一种态度，要用这种态度来建立解放哲学，建立非异化的哲学。这种哲学必须以批判的方式从欧洲哲学中解放出来。”此后，拉美涌现出一大批立足“第三世界”的本土哲学家及其解放哲学，例如，恩里克·杜塞尔的解放伦理学对“解放他者”的建构，阿图罗·阿道关于世界文化中心“西移”的讨论，奥古斯托·萨拉扎·邦迪对作为“统治者文化”的西方资本主义文化的批判，弗朗西斯科·米罗·奎萨达关于“具体环境中的人本主义”的论述，等等。总之，拉美的解放哲学家尝试通过恢复本土文化摆脱对欧美资本主义的政治、经济和文化依附，让拉美人的精神世界接受“洗礼”，体现了1970—1980年代拉美马克思主义在理论上的提升，充分表明了拉美人民不再屈从于西方大国、想要以独立自主的姿态步入21世纪的信念。

(III) Cuba’s Socialist “Update” Practice and Chávez’s “21st Century Socialism” Strategy

（三）古巴社会主义的“更新”实践与查韦斯的“21世纪社会主义”战略

The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe brought severe tests to the world communist movement, and the Latin American communist parties also made strategic adjustments after experiencing the world communist movement’s vicissitudes of the 20th century. At that time, many thought that Cuba, having lost Soviet support, would not last long, yet it relied on the Cuban-style socialist reform to move into the 21st century and proposed “updating” the Cuban socialist model, whose main thrust was “structural change” and “conceptual innovation” in the economic and political spheres, in order to change the dependent development model, strengthen ties with other Latin American countries, emphasize efficiency while adhering to fairness and justice, reform the heavy bureaucratic system, promote a spirit of criticism and innovation, and oppose rigidity and dogmatism. The “updating” practice of Cuban socialism ultimately enabled it to peacefully survive the period of special difficulty.

苏联解体和东欧剧变给世界共产主义运动带来了严峻考验，拉美共产党也在历经20世纪风云变幻的世界共产主义运动后作出了策略调整。当时，很多人以为古巴在失去了苏联的支援后时日不多，但它却凭借古巴化社会主义改革走向了21世纪，并提出了“更新”古巴的社会主义模式，其主旨是经济、政治领域的“结构变革”和“观念革新”，以改变依附型经济发展模式，加强与拉美各国的联系，在坚持公平公正的前提下注重效率，改革沉重的官僚体制，发扬批评和创新精神，反对僵化和教条主义。古巴社会主义的“更新”实践最终使其和平渡过了特殊困难时期。

At the same time, in 1999, the Communist Party of Venezuela, together with domestic left-wing parties, formed the United Socialist Party and propelled Hugo Chávez to power, which was seen as a sign of the revival of socialism in Latin America. Represented by the “21st-century socialism” strategy proposed by Chávez, a “pink tide” surged in Latin America: after being elected president, Rafael Correa put forward the idea of building “21st-century socialism” in Ecuador; Bolivia’s first indigenous president, Evo Morales, advanced the value concepts of “Indigenous American socialism” and “socialism of good living”; Brazil’s first female president, Dilma Rousseff, inherited former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s “labor socialism” theory. Left-wing parties in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and other countries also successively launched moderate socialist reforms after taking office. They raised high the banner of “Latin American 21st-century socialism,” paid unprecedented attention to national identity, and put forward socialist concepts with ethnic characteristics such as indigenous identity, the principle of “good living,” equilibrium, and cosmic values. They pursued the construction of political systems reflecting multi-ethnic characteristics, the establishment of social models guaranteeing the rights and interests of indigenous peoples, and the exploration of practical systems such as the social values of indigenous peoples. They continuously drew inspiration from socialist thought and focused on the experience of “taking the foreign advanced construction models as the mainstay and using them for our own purposes.” Chávez pointed out: “We must reshape socialism, but it is not the Soviet socialism we saw.” Correa also pointed out: “Traditional socialism has a fixed model, and dogmatism is precisely a defect of traditional socialism. We cannot set a model for the new socialism; we must formulate a set of practical solutions based on the actual conditions of each country’s people.”

与此同时，1999年，委内瑞拉共产党联合国内左翼政党组建了“统一社会主义党”，推举乌戈·查韦斯上台执政，这被视为拉美社会主义复兴的标志。以查韦斯提出的“21世纪社会主义”战略为代表，在拉美掀起了“粉红色浪潮”：拉斐尔·科雷亚当选总统后提出了在厄瓜多尔建设“21世纪社会主义”的主张；玻利维亚第一位印第安人总统埃沃·莫拉莱斯提出了“印第安美洲社会主义”和“美好生活社会主义”的价值理念；巴西历史上首位女总统迪尔玛·罗塞夫继承了前总统路易斯·伊纳西奥·卢拉的“劳工社会主义”理论。阿根廷、智利、乌拉圭等国的左翼政党也在执政后相继推出了温和派的社会主义改革。他们高举“拉美21世纪社会主义”的旗帜，史无前例地关注民族身份，提出印第安民族身份、“美好生活”原则、均衡性、宇宙价值观等具有民族色彩的社会主义理念，追求构建体现多民族特色的政治体制、建立保障印第安人民权益的社会模式、发掘印第安民族的社会价值等实践体系，不断汲取社会主义思想的灵感，关注从外国先进的建设模式中“以我为主，为我所用”的经验。查韦斯指出：“我们必须重塑社会主义，但它不是我们看到的苏联社会主义。”科雷亚也指出：“传统社会主义有一个固定模式，教条主义就是传统社会主义的一个缺陷。我们不能给新的社会主义设定一个模式，而必须根据每个国家人民的现实情况来制定一套符合实际的解决方案。”

In short, since the second half of the 20th century, the Latin Americanization of Marxism has been deepening. After going through various explorations of socialist political, economic, and cultural theory and practice, the Latin Americanization of Marxism, in a new posture, has used the guerrilla strategy of the proletarian revolution to extend socialism to the American continent—this is a landmark achievement of Latin Americanized Marxism. With the penetration of Latin Americanized Marxist achievements such as liberation theology, liberation philosophy, and dependency theory into the political, economic, and cultural spheres, the Latin American people have begun to view Marxism with a more rational and mature mindset. Although “Latin American 21st-century socialism” still has various shortcomings, in the process of exploring Latin America’s development path and in the combination of Marxism with local realities, Latin American Marxism is increasingly displaying ethnic colors and characteristics of flexibility, openness, and diversity.

总之，20世纪下半叶以来，马克思主义拉美化不断走向深入。在历经形形色色的社会主义政治、经济和文化理论与实践探索后，马克思主义拉美化以一种新的姿态，运用无产阶级革命的游击策略，将社会主义扩展到美洲大陆，这是拉美化马克思主义的标志性成就。随着解放神学、解放哲学、依附理论等马克思主义拉美化成果深入到政治、经济和文化领域，拉美民众开始以一种更加理性和成熟的心态看待马克思主义。尽管拉美“21世纪社会主义”还存在着各种不足，但在探索拉美发展道路的进程中，在马克思主义与本土实际相结合的过程中，拉美马克思主义日益展现出民族色彩以及灵活、开放、多样化的特点。

IV. The Internal Predicaments of the Latin Americanization of Marxism and Its Way Out

四、马克思主义拉美化的内在困境及其出路

Although the Latin Americanization of Marxism has achieved fruitful results, it still faces many problems in both theory and practice.

马克思主义拉美化虽然取得了丰硕成果，但在理论和实践上仍面临诸多问题。

From a theoretical perspective, first, most Latin American countries, influenced by Trotskyism, Stalinism, and Browderism, have to a certain extent delayed the process of the Latin Americanization of Marxism, dissipated the forces exploring the localization of Marxism, and caused the practice of Latin American Marxism to fail to achieve breakthroughs similar to those of socialism with Chinese characteristics, instead repeatedly falling into disputes over different opinions. Second, some Latin American intellectuals, influenced by local culture or “Latin American exceptionalism,” have only seen partial conclusions of Marxism, superficially drawing inspiration from certain theoretical formulations while neglecting the methodological significance of Marxism, and have failed to elevate Marxism to an ideology, thus being unable to achieve ideological unity, which has affected the development of socialist practice. Third, some Latin American Marxists either regard the instructions of the Comintern and the Soviet Union and the successful experience of the Cuban revolution as infallible dogmas, or empty-mindedly chant the “famous sayings” of Latin American revolutionary leaders such as Guevara, Castro, and Mariátegui, without recognizing that “concrete analysis of concrete conditions is the living soul of Marxism,” and have failed to deeply understand that the key to the Latin Americanization of Marxism lies in using the Marxist methodology to analyze the real problems of Latin America in each period and formulate corresponding strategies and tactics.

从理论上看，其一，多数拉美国家受托洛茨基主义、斯大林主义、白劳德主义的影响，在一定程度上延缓了马克思主义拉美化的进程，涣散了马克思主义本土化探索的力量，导致拉美马克思主义的实践未能取得类似中国特色社会主义那样的突破，反而屡屡陷入不同意见的争论之中。其二，一些拉美知识分子受当地文化或“拉美例外论”影响，只看到马克思主义的部分结论，浅尝辄止地从某些理论表述中获取灵感，却忽视了马克思主义的方法论意义，没有将马克思主义上升为意识形态，因而无法达成思想上的统一，从而影响了社会主义实践的发展。其三，一些拉美马克思主义者或者把共产国际和苏联的指示以及古巴革命的成功经验等奉为圭臬，或者空喊格瓦拉、卡斯特罗、马里亚特吉等拉美革命领袖的“名言”，没有认识到“具体问题具体分析是马克思主义活的灵魂”，未能深刻理解马克思主义拉美化的关键在于用马克思主义方法论来分析拉美各个时期的现实问题，制定相应的战略策略。

From a practical perspective, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, the revolutionary will of the Latin American communist parties, as representatives of the Latin Americanization of Marxism, was impacted, and they fell into ideological and organizational chaos, with a large number of communists losing confidence in socialism. After entering the new century, most Latin American communist parties have found it difficult to come to power and can only serve as participating parties or opposition parties, making it hard for socialist ideas and goals to be reflected in national policies. The communist parties in many Latin American countries have even turned into social democratic parties. Although the vast majority of Latin American social democratic parties are politically left-leaning, and later established the “Socialist International” in an attempt to unite and jointly plan Latin America’s future development, overall, the socialist movement in the Latin American region has fallen into a low tide. Therefore, how to respond to reality, enhance the Party’s influence, win the recognition of the people, and obtain a majority of seats in elections has become a major issue urgently needing resolution for the communists of Latin American countries.

从实践上看，苏联解体、东欧剧变后，作为马克思主义拉美化代表的拉美共产党的革命意志受到冲击，在思想上、组织上陷入混乱，大批共产党人对社会主义失去信心。进入新世纪后，拉美共产党大都难以上台执政，只能作为参政党或在野党，这使社会主义的理念和目标难以在国家政策中得到体现。许多拉美国家的共产党甚至转向了社会民主党，虽然绝大多数拉美社会民主党都在政治上偏向左翼，后来还成立了“社会党国际”，试图团结起来共筹拉美的未来发展，但从总体上讲，拉美地区的社会主义运动陷入低潮。因此，如何应对现实，提高党的影响力，争取民众的认同，在选举中获取多数席位，成为拉美各国共产党人亟待解决的一个重大问题。

Based on the above analysis, reflecting on the process of the Latin Americanization of Marxism and the gains and losses of its practice, we believe that the development of the Latin Americanization of Marxism depends on a profound understanding and grasp of the following key points.

基于上述分析，反思马克思主义拉美化进程及其实践得失，我们认为，马克思主义拉美化的发展取决于深刻理解和把握以下要点。

First, it is necessary to deeply understand the totality of Marxism and resolutely oppose any socialism that attempts to break away from Marxism. Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism form an organic whole; any attempt to separate the three will lead to practical failure. Socialism without Marxism is not true socialism. Although many countries have proposed socialist goals since the 20th century—such as Nasserism in Arab countries, African communalism, liberation theology socialism in Latin America, and democratic socialism in Western Europe—these various forms of socialism have all departed from the guidance of Marxist theory, especially from the soul of socialism—historical materialism—thereby erasing the scientific nature of socialism. History has proven to date that those so-called reformed Marxism or reformed socialism cannot succeed. Only under the guidance of Marxist historical materialism can socialist revolution and construction move step by step toward victory.

第一，必须深刻理解马克思主义的总体性，坚决反对试图脱离马克思主义的社会主义。马克思主义哲学、政治经济学和科学社会主义是一个有机整体，任何试图将三者割裂开来的做法都将导致实践上的失败，没有马克思主义的社会主义不是真正的社会主义。尽管20世纪以来许多国家都提出了社会主义的目标，例如阿拉伯国家的纳塞尔社会主义、非洲的村社社会主义、拉美的解放神学社会主义、西欧的民主社会主义等，但是这些形形色色的社会主义都脱离了马克思主义理论的指导，尤其是脱离了社会主义的灵魂——历史唯物主义，从而抹杀了社会主义的科学性。迄今为止的历史证明，那些所谓改良的马克思主义或改良的社会主义不可能获得成功。只有在马克思主义的历史唯物主义指导下，社会主义革命和建设才能一步步走向胜利。

Second, the local indigenous peoples and their traditional culture are the profound foundation of the Latin Americanization of Marxism. Latin American indigenous peoples are at the very bottom of society in all aspects—political, economic, social, and cultural. They are the most important force for social change in Latin America, but their weak material and cultural foundations make it difficult for them to shoulder the great task of revolution. Therefore, the Latin American revolution must unite the local indigenous peoples and Indians, improve their economic base, political rights, and social status, cultivate their subjective consciousness, and enhance national cohesion. As Mariátegui pointed out: “One of the main roots of our socialist movement can be found in the socialism of our indigenous peoples.” In other words, without the participation of the indigenous masses, Latin American socialism has no future.

第二，本地土著及其传统文化是马克思主义拉美化的深刻基础。拉美土著在政治、经济、社会、文化等各个方面都处于社会最底层，他们是拉美社会变革的最重要力量，但物质和文化基础的薄弱又使其难当革命大任。因此，拉美革命必须团结当地土著和印第安人，提高他们的经济基础、政治权利和社会地位，培育他们的主体意识，提高民族凝聚力。正如马里亚特吉所指出的：“我们的社会主义运动主要根源之一，可以在我们的土著民族的社会主义中发现。”言下之意，如果没有土著群众的参与，拉美社会主义就没有未来。

Third, party building is the key to the success of the practice of the Latin Americanization of Marxism. In order to develop Latin American Marxism and consolidate Latin American socialism, it is necessary to build a political party capable of uniting the broad masses of the grassroots. History is the best textbook; the “pink tide” in Latin American countries at the beginning of the 21st century benefited precisely from this, when there were more than 20 communist parties throughout the Latin American region. At present, although the Latin American left has clear differences of opinion on some theoretical and practical issues, the basic orientation remains positive, and its strong resilience has not changed. As long as the Latin American communist parties can represent the fundamental interests of the broadest majority of the people, serve the people wholeheartedly, put forward a governing program that serves the majority, and consistently adhere to the guidance of Marxism, unify the ideological consciousness of the whole society, resist external interference, clearly struggle against erroneous ideas and political views that do not conform to the interests of the people, and win the support of the overwhelming majority of the masses, they can achieve the goals of national prosperity and the people’s well-being.

第三，政党建设是马克思主义拉美化实践获得成功的关键。为了发展拉美马克思主义、巩固拉美社会主义，必须建设一个能够团结广大底层群众的政党。历史是最好的教科书，21世纪初拉美各国的“粉色浪潮”正是得益于此，当时整个拉美地区共有20多个共产党。当前，虽然拉美左翼在一些理论和现实问题上存在明显的意见分歧，但基本面向依然向好，强大的韧劲没有改变。只要拉美共产党能够代表最广大人民的根本利益，全心全意为人民服务，提出为大多数人服务的施政纲领，并始终坚持以马克思主义为指导，统一全社会的思想意识，抵制外来干涉，旗帜鲜明地同不符合人民利益的错误思想和政治观点作斗争，争取绝大多数群众的支持，就能实现国家富强和人民富裕的目标。

Fourth, Latin American communists must face up to the historical experience of the Latin Americanization of Marxism and deeply research and explore socialism with Latin American characteristics. Lenin once pointed out: “Since socialism has become a science, it demands that people treat it as a science, that is, that they study it. It is necessary to spread the increasingly clear consciousness thus obtained among the workers with great enthusiasm.” Latin American communist parties should, in accordance with their national conditions, deeply study the various stages of the socialist path and their specific tasks, formulate corresponding guidelines and strategies, and on the basis of constantly reflecting on historical experiences and lessons, push Marxism toward indigenization, nationalization, and adaptation to the times. Today, Latin American communists are still spiritually inspired by early Marxists such as Mariátegui, Mella, and Recabarren, continuously drawing on their theoretical nourishment, and tirelessly exploring the Latin American socialist path. This is an arduous process, but the future is bright.

第四，拉美共产党人必须正视马克思主义拉美化的历史经验，深入研究和探索具有拉美特色的社会主义。列宁曾经指出：“社会主义自从成为科学以来，就要求人们把它当作科学来对待，就是说，要求人们去研究它。必须以高度的热情把由此获得的日益明确的意识传播到工人群众中去。”拉美共产党应当根据国情深入研究社会主义道路的各个阶段及其具体任务，制定相应的方针和策略，在不断反思历史经验教训的基础上将马克思主义推向本土化、民族化、时代化。如今，拉美共产党人仍然受到马里亚特吉、梅里亚、雷卡巴伦等早期马克思主义者的精神感召，不断汲取他们的理论养分，孜孜不倦地探索拉美社会主义道路，这是一个艰辛的过程，但前途是光明的。

(Authors: Zheng Xiangfu, Ling Zhehong, School of Marxism, Zhejiang Normal University)

（作者：郑祥福、凌哲宏，浙江师范大学马克思主义学院）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心