The Latin American Left’s View of Indigenous Issues: Problems, Perspectives, and Evolution

For a long time, the indigenous question has been a specific problem in Latin America. From indigenous protests in Bolivia to the Zapatista movement in Mexico, it is evident that the indigenous question remains a practical issue awaiting resolution in Latin American countries. The indigenous question concerns not only political-economic propositions such as land ownership and class differentiation, but also philosophical categories such as cultural sovereignty and epistemic justice. Latin American left-wing scholars have always placed the indigenous question at the core of theory, stemming from its special significance for the revolutionary path in the region. Marx’s critical analysis of European colonial structures provided the theoretical tools for understanding the essence of the Latin American indigenous question. In his discussion of the Irish question, he profoundly pointed out that eliminating the English landed aristocracy “in Ireland is not simply an economic question; it is at the same time a national question, since the landlords there are not, like those in England, the traditional dignitaries and representatives of the country, but the mortally hated oppressors of the nation.” [1]1 Karl Marx, “Outline of a Report on the Irish Question,” delivered to the German Workers’ Educational Society in London on December 16, 1867. The passage is from Marx’s preparatory notes. This thesis reveals that colonial rule combines the dual exploitation of economic deprivation and national oppression: the colonizers violently expropriate indigenous land, destroy their social structures, and forcibly incorporate the oppressed nation into the capitalist labor system. This analytical framework of historical materialism has become the theoretical tool for Latin American left-wing scholars to analyze the indigenous question in their region. As a meeting point of theoretical innovation and practice within the Latin American left, the theoretical analysis of the indigenous question by Latin American scholars not only enriches the interpretive dimensions of left-wing theory but also has practical implications for understanding contemporary Latin American problems. This article collectively refers to the views and understandings of Latin American left-wing scholars on the indigenous question as the Latin American left’s view of indigenous issues. At present, this question has not yet formed a unified conceptual system but is rather a constructive object of study assembled from numerous differentiated positions and viewpoints.

长期以来，土著问题是拉美的一个特定问题。从玻利维亚的土著抗议到墨西哥的萨帕塔运动，无不表明土著问题至今仍是拉美国家有待解决的现实问题。土著问题既关乎土地所有制、阶级分化等政治经济学命题，也涉及文化主权、认知正义等哲学范畴。拉美左翼学者始终将土著问题置于理论核心，源于其对该地区革命道路的特殊意义。马克思对欧洲殖民结构的批判性分析，为理解拉美土著问题的本质提供了理论工具。他在论述爱尔兰问题时深刻指出，消灭英国土地贵族“在爱尔兰不仅是一个单纯的经济问题，同时还是一个民族问题，因为那里的地主不像在英国这样是世袭的显贵和代表人物，而是令人深恶痛绝的民族的压迫者”。这一论断揭示了殖民统治兼具经济剥夺与民族压迫双重剥削性质，殖民者通过暴力剥夺土著土地，摧毁其社会结构，并将被压迫民族强制纳入资本主义劳动体系。这种历史唯物主义的分析框架，成为拉美左翼学者解析本地区土著问题的理论工具。作为拉美左翼理论创新与实践的交汇点，拉美学者对土著问题的理论分析不仅丰富了左翼理论的阐释维度，而且对于理解拉美当代问题具有现实启示意义。本文将拉美左翼学者对土著问题的看法与认识统称为拉美左翼的土著观，当前这一问题尚未形成统一的观念体系，而是由众多差异化的立场与观点汇集而成的建构性研究对象。

I. Focal Problems in the Latin American Left’s View of Indigenous Issues

一、拉美左翼土著观的焦点问题

The indigenous question is a fundamental problem in the field of the Latin American left. Any critical interpretation attempting to interpret Latin American reality, contradictions, and liberation cannot avoid analyzing and reflecting on the indigenous question. The discussion of the indigenous question by Latin American left-wing scholars mainly focuses on three major topics: the definition of the indigenous subject, the characterization of the indigenous question, and the solutions to the indigenous question.

土著问题是拉美左翼领域的基本问题。任何试图解读拉美现实、矛盾和解放的批判性阐释，都避不开对土著问题的分析与思考。拉美左翼学者对土著问题的探讨主要聚焦于对土著主体的界定、对土著问题的定性以及土著问题的解决方案三大议题。

(1) The Definition of the Indigenous Subject

（一）对土著主体的界定

“Indian” is a specific term for indigenous people in Latin America, referring to flesh-and-blood indigenous groups, but its definition is often vague, resulting in the question of who exactly is an “Indian” still having no clear answer. In Latin America, left-wing scholars have formed diverse propositions around the definition of Indians, represented by the “sub-proletariat” thesis, the “internal colonialism” thesis, and the “passive construction” thesis.

“印第安人”是拉美对土著的一个特定称谓，指代有血有肉的土著群体，但其定义往往较为模糊，致使究竟谁才是“印第安人”的问题至今没有明确的答案。在拉美，左翼学者围绕印第安人的界定问题形成了以“次生无产阶级”论、“内部殖民主义”论和“被动建构”论为代表的多样化命题。

The representative of the “sub-proletariat” thesis is the Mexican left-wing scholars Ricardo Pozas and Isabel Horcasitas. These two scholars believe that “Indians” are a sub-proletariat and cannot participate in class struggle before their proletarianization, while class struggle is the necessary path for structural change in society. Therefore, “Indians” must undergo detribalization.

“次生无产阶级”论的代表是墨西哥左翼学者里卡多·波萨斯（RicardoPozas）和伊萨贝尔·霍尔卡西塔斯（IsabelHorcasitas）。两位学者认为，“印第安人”是次生无产阶级，在其无产阶级化之前无法参与阶级斗争，而阶级斗争是社会结构变革的必经之路，为此，“印第安人”必须实现去部落化。

The representative of the “internal colonialism” thesis is the Mexican left-wing scholar Vicente Lombardo Toledano. He pointed out that post-independence Mexico practiced a form of internal colonialism, in which the Mestizos occupied a dominant position, playing the role of the colonizing nation, while “Indians” were reduced to an exploited nation. Given that Mexico is a multi-ethnic nation, he argued that “Indians” refer to the multi-ethnic aggregate within Mexico that is exploited by the Mestizos.

“内部殖民主义”论的代表是墨西哥左翼学者维森特·隆巴多·托莱达诺（VicenteLombardoToledano）。他指出，独立后的墨西哥实行的是一种内部殖民主义，其中梅斯蒂索人占据主导地位，扮演殖民民族的角色，而“印第安人”沦为被剥削民族。鉴于墨西哥是一个多民族国家，他认为“印第安人”指的就是墨西哥境内受到梅斯蒂索人剥削的多民族集合体。

The representative of the “passive construction” thesis is the Bolivian Marxist Álvaro García Linera. He believes that “Indian” is neither a race nor a culture, but that “Indians” are constantly being racialized and alienated as a different culture. This is because, in constructing exploitative ethnic relations, a clear definition of the subordinate race must be established. Within this type of view, the Peruvian left-wing scholar José Carlos Mariátegui’s “serf” thesis interprets this problem from the perspective of Marxist political economy. Mariátegui did not regard “Indians” as a nation, nor as a group with different cultures, but as serfs within an unjust social structure. He pointed out that “‘the Indian’ represents not only a type, a subject matter, a theme, and a race, but also a people of a country, a race, a tradition, and a spirit.”

“被动建构”论的代表是玻利维亚马克思主义者阿尔瓦罗·加西亚·利内拉（ÁlvaroGarcíaLinera）。他认为，“印第安人”不是一个种族，也不是一种文化，但“印第安人”不断被种族化和异类文化化，这是由于在建构剥削性的民族关系中，必须对附属种族进行明确的限定。在此类观点中，秘鲁左翼学者何塞·卡洛斯·马里亚特吉（JoséCarlosMariátegui）的“农奴”论从马克思主义政治经济学视角出发对这一问题进行了阐释。马里亚特吉没有视“印第安人”为一个民族，也没有视其为拥有不同文化的群体，而是将其视为不公平社会结构中的农奴。他指出，“‘印第安人’不仅代表一种典型、一种题材、一种主题和一种人种，还代表一个国家的人民、一个种族、一种传统和一种精神”。

(2) The Characterization of the Indigenous Question

（二）对土著问题的定性

The indigenous question originates from the Spanish colonial conquest of Latin America and the multiple oppressions of indigenous people. First, the colonizers deprived indigenous people of their means of production and incorporated them into a servile labor system. Second, the colonizers destroyed the traditional cultures of indigenous societies, cultural elements that had been the foundation of pre-Spanish indigenous societies. Finally, to consolidate colonial rule, the colonizers introduced other races, further dismantling the traditional structures of indigenous societies. These actions by the colonizers broke the natural developmental trajectory of indigenous societies. After the independence of Latin American countries, capitalism was established as a political and economic system in Latin America, but Latin American capitalism could not break through feudal fetters, and the national bourgeoisie was unable to fulfill its historical mission. Thus, Latin America formed a deformed, semi-feudal form of capitalist development with Latin American characteristics. The severance of political ties with the former suzerain did not change Latin America’s social structure; on the contrary, it further solidified and strengthened the original class and social structures. Consequently, the oppressed and exploited condition of indigenous groups has not fundamentally changed during the republican period after independence. Furthermore, the existence of the latifundio system [2]2 The latifundio system refers to a system of large landed estates, a legacy of Spanish colonialism, characterized by extreme land concentration in the hands of a few landowners and the exploitation of peasant labor, often through tenancy or debt peonage. is also an important factor in the persistence of the indigenous question to this day.

土著问题源于西班牙对拉美的殖民征服以及对土著人的多重压迫。首先，殖民者剥夺了土著人的生产资料，将他们纳入奴役性的劳动体系；其次，殖民者破坏了土著社会的传统文化，这些文化要素曾是前西班牙时期土著社会的基石；最后，为巩固殖民统治，殖民者引入其他人种，进一步瓦解了土著社会的传统结构。殖民者的上述行为打破了土著社会的自然发展轨迹。拉美各国独立后，资本主义作为一种政治经济制度在拉美建立，但拉美的资本主义无法突破封建桎梏，民族资产阶级无力完成其历史使命，拉美由此形成了一种具有拉美特色的、畸形的、半封建式的资本主义发展形态。与前宗主国政治联系的断裂非但没有改变拉美的社会结构，反而进一步固化并强化了原有的阶级和社会结构。因而，土著群体被压迫、被剥削的境况在独立后的共和时期始终没有得到根本改变。此外，大地产制度的存在也是土著问题延续至今的重要因素。

Based on the above historical background and concrete realities, Latin American left-wing scholars have reached a broad consensus on how to characterize the indigenous question, generally agreeing that the essence of the indigenous question is a socio-economic problem. This is also the key marker distinguishing the left-wing view of indigenous issues from liberal, conservative, and positivist views. For example, the Bolivian left-wing scholar José Antonio Arze argued that the essence of the indigenous question is precisely a socio-economic problem, not a racial problem as defined by liberals and positivists. Arze profoundly revealed two core problems arising from the Spanish colonial conquest of Latin American indigenous people: the deprivation of the means of production and the destruction of culture. He emphasized that the root of the indigenous question lies in their situation, and the reason their situation is difficult to change is that they have not escaped their disadvantaged position in the socio-economic structure. Arze further pointed out that after the independence of Latin American countries, land remained in the hands of a few large landowners, which not only limited the development and utilization of land but also made the income of tenant farmers increasingly meager. Arze stated that the detested system of forced labor still existed, while the property of indigenous communities gradually shrank under the greedy expansion of landowners, and small farmers often became victims of bank mortgage loans. Arze clearly indicated the connection between the indigenous question and the land question, arguing that land exploitation and the deprivation of the means of production are the main problems faced by Bolivia’s indigenous people.

基于上述历史背景与具体现实，拉美左翼学者对于如何定性土著问题达成广泛共识，普遍认为土著问题的实质是社会经济问题，这也是区分左翼土著观与自由主义、保守主义、实证主义土著观的关键标志。譬如，玻利维亚左翼学者何塞·安东尼奥·阿尔塞（JoséAntonioArze）认为，土著问题的实质就是社会经济问题，而非自由主义者和实证主义者定义下的种族问题。阿尔塞深刻揭示了西班牙殖民者对拉美土著的征服所产生的两个核心问题：生产资料的剥夺和文化的破坏。他强调，土著问题的根源在于他们所处的境况，其境况之所以难以改变是因为他们没有摆脱社会经济结构中的不利地位。阿尔塞进一步指出，拉美各国独立后土地仍掌握在少数大地主手中，这不仅导致对土地的开发利用有限，还使得佃农的收入日益微薄。阿尔塞表示，令人憎恶的工役制度仍然存在，而土著公社的财产在地主贪婪的扩张下逐渐缩水，同时，小农经常成为银行抵押贷款的牺牲品。阿尔塞明确指出了土著问题与土地问题的关联性，认为土地遭受剥削和生产资料被剥夺是玻利维亚土著面临的主要问题。

Mariátegui also stressed: “All theories on the indigenous question that ignore or evade its essence as a socio-economic problem are nothing but futile theoretical exercises, sometimes even mere wordplay, doomed to lose all credibility. Some of these theories, though well-intentioned, are no exception. In fact, without exception, these theories serve only to conceal or distort the substance of the problem. Socialist critique, by contrast, discovers and elucidates this problem, because it seeks the root of the problem not in the country’s administrative, judicial or religious mechanisms, nor in its racial duality or plurality, nor in its cultural or moral condition, but in its economic structure. The indigenous problem originates in our economic system, and its crux lies in the system of land ownership. As long as the rule of the ‘feudal latifundist’ persists, any attempt to solve the problem through administrative measures or educational means will remain superficial and piecemeal work.”

马里亚特吉也强调：“所有关于土著问题的理论，凡是忽略或回避其作为社会经济问题这一本质的，都不过是些徒劳的理论推演，有时甚至只是文字游戏，注定要彻底丧失信誉。其中某些理论虽出于善意，亦不能幸免。实际上，这些理论无一例外地仅用于掩盖或歪曲该问题的实质。社会主义批判则发现并阐明了这一问题，因为它从国家经济结构而非其行政、司法或宗教机制中，亦非从其种族二元性或多元性中，更非从其文化或道德状况中，去探寻问题的根源。土著问题根源于我们的经济制度，其症结在于土地所有制。只要‘封建大庄园主’的统治依然存在，任何试图通过行政措施或教育手段来解决该问题的努力，都将是肤浅的、枝节的工作。”

(3) Solutions to the Indigenous Problem

（三）土著问题的解决方案

Latin American left-wing scholars hold that the subordinate economic and social position of indigenous groups is rooted in the historical process by which they were forcibly incorporated into the capitalist economic system, a process traceable to the Spanish colonial conquest. They emphasize that only by integrating the indigenous problem into the process of socialist revolution can the class oppression structure of capitalism be thoroughly broken. Within this framework of solutions, left-wing scholars of different schools clearly diverge in their understanding of the path of social formation evolution and the role of indigenous subjectivity. Some advocate the proletarianization of indigenous people, some advocate integrating indigenous people into the capitalist modernization process of the existing nation-state, and still others advocate that indigenous groups directly launch a socialist revolution to reshape their historical subject position.

拉美左翼学者认为，土著群体在经济与社会层面的从属地位，根植于其被强制纳入资本主义经济体系的历史进程，这一进程可追溯至西班牙殖民征服时期。他们强调，只有将土著问题纳入社会主义革命进程中加以解决，才能彻底打破资本主义的阶级压迫结构。在此解决方案内，不同流派的左翼学者对社会形态演进路径及土著主体性作用的认识存在明显分歧。有的主张使土著无产阶级化，有的主张让土著融入既有民族国家的资本主义现代化进程，还有的主张由土著群体直接发动社会主义革命，重塑其历史主体地位。

Scholars holding the first view emphasize that the proletarianization of indigenous groups is a higher and necessary stage in the process of historical development. They argue that the universalization of capitalist relations of production will inevitably lead to the dissolution of indigenous communities and the integration of their members into the proletariat. Although this process originates in an unjust capitalist system, scholars of this school point out that proletarianization itself — the transformation of indigenous members into wage laborers entering capitalist relations of production — is the objective basis for nurturing class consciousness and revolutionary consciousness. It is precisely through this fundamental shift in the positioning of relations of production that indigenous people can become a proletarian force capable of overthrowing the capitalist system and establishing a socialist regime. In short, this solution presupposes a path of transformation: indigenous person — proletarian — human being.

持第一种认识的学者强调，土著群体的无产阶级化是历史发展进程中一个更高且必要的阶段。他们认为，资本主义生产关系的普遍化进程将不可避免地导致土著社群解体，其成员融入无产阶级队伍。虽然这一过程源于不公正的资本主义体系，但该流派学者指出，无产阶级化本身，即土著成员转变为雇佣劳动者进入资本主义生产关系，是孕育阶级意识与革命意识的客观基础。正是通过这种生产关系定位的根本转变，土著人才能成为推翻资本主义制度、建立社会主义政权的无产阶级力量。简言之，该解决方案预设了一条转化路径：土著人—无产者—人。

Scholars holding the second view advocate integrating indigenous groups into the existing modernization process of the nation-state. The representative figure holding this position, Toledano, emphasizes that indigenous people should be integrated into the economic development framework of Mexico’s capitalist nation-state. Based on this position, Toledano’s early program focused on cultural integration, with particular emphasis on the role of education. He advocated promoting national communication through education, arguing that schools should take on the responsibility of teaching indigenous groups Spanish and enhancing mutual understanding. To this end, he proposed an educational plan that transcended traditional models, aiming to establish an educational system combining integrationism and humanism, and recommended implementing bilingual teaching, with a view to promoting integration with mainstream society while protecting the characteristics of Indian culture. However, it is noteworthy that Toledano’s thinking did not stop there. After visiting the Soviet Union in 1935, he attempted to draw on Soviet experience in handling ethnic issues to address Mexico’s indigenous problem. Against this background, he put forward another set of ideas focused on ethnic policy, advocating the implementation of full political autonomy, the promotion of indigenous dialects, the creation of independent sources of economic production, the collectivization and industrialization of agricultural labor, the abolition of private land ownership, and the establishment of schools providing education in indigenous dialects with the support of the industrial proletariat. It is not difficult to see that Toledano’s second set of proposals placed greater emphasis on ethnic autonomy and structural reform, and compared with the capitalist nation-state framework and its cultural integration path on which the first set of proposals relied, there were significant differences in both conceptual and practical orientation.

持第二种认识的学者主张将土著群体整合进既有的民族国家现代化进程。持此立场的代表性人物托莱达诺强调，土著应融入墨西哥资本主义民族国家的经济发展框架。基于此立场，托莱达诺的早期方案侧重于文化整合途径，尤其重视教育的作用。他主张通过教育促进民族交流，认为学校应承担起教授土著群体西班牙语、增进相互理解的责任。为此，他提出超越传统模式的教育计划，旨在建立融合主义与人文主义的教育体系，并建议实施双语教学，以期在保护印第安文化特性的前提下促进其与主流社会的融合。然而值得注意的是，托莱达诺的思考并未停留于此。1935年访问苏联后，他试图借鉴苏联处理民族问题的经验以应对墨西哥的土著问题。在这一背景下，他提出了另一套侧重于民族政策的构想，主张实行完全的政治自治，推广土著方言，创造独立的经济生产来源，推动农业劳动的集体化与工业化，废除土地私有制，并在工业无产阶级的支持下建立提供方言教育的学校。不难发现，托莱达诺的第二套方案更侧重于民族自治与结构性改革，与第一套方案所依托的资本主义民族国家框架及其文化整合路径相比，在理念与实践取向上存在显著差异。

Left-wing scholar Mariátegui, holding the third view, advocated awakening the class consciousness of indigenous people so that they become subjects of their own liberation. He profoundly pointed out that indigenous people should play a leading role in the socialist revolution. He believed that education and ideological enlightenment should start with rural proletarianized indigenous people, because their position in the working class was increasingly prominent, and they needed more attention and cultivation of class consciousness in trade union activities. Mariátegui argued that indigenous people could more easily establish class consciousness by building close ties with their compatriots. Once the class consciousness of indigenous people was awakened, their unique traditions would enable them to play a key role in national and class solidarity. Mariátegui’s proposed indigenous revolutionary strategy involved several key areas. First, he advocated implementing a socialist agricultural policy. This policy aimed to transform indigenous communities into agricultural cooperatives, making them the basic units of the socialist state. Second, agricultural credit should be completely controlled by the state to meet the needs of the national economy and promote agricultural development. At the same time, the state should control capitalist exploitative institutions, such as coastal latifundia, and protect workers’ rights through legislation. In addition, he encouraged small-scale cultivation in mountainous areas, provided land to small tenant farmers, and promoted agricultural education. Mariátegui firmly believed that these measures would further strengthen the class consciousness of Indians, which was crucial for them to realize their revolutionary potential in the socialist struggle. Mariátegui advocated integrating the above strategies into the programs of workers’ organizations, believing that only by turning ideas into action could the socialist revolution take root and flourish among indigenous people.

持第三种认识的左翼学者马里亚特吉主张唤醒土著人的阶级意识，使其成为自我解放的主体。他深刻指出，土著人在社会主义革命中应当扮演领导者的角色。他认为，教育和思想启蒙应以农村无产阶级化的土著人为出发点，这是因为他们在工人阶级中的地位日益凸显，且在工会活动中需要更多的关照与阶级意识的培养。马里亚特吉认为，土著人通过与同胞建立紧密联系，能更容易地树立阶级意识。一旦土著人的阶级意识觉醒，他们独特的传统将使其在民族和阶级团结中发挥关键作用。马里亚特吉提出的土著革命策略涉及多个关键领域。首先，他提倡实施社会主义农业政策。这一政策旨在将土著社区转型为农业合作社，使其成为社会主义国家的基本单元。其次，农业信贷应完全受国家控制，以满足国民经济的需要，促进农业发展。同时，国家应控制资本主义剥削机构，如沿海大庄园，并通过立法保障工人权益。此外，他还鼓励在山区进行小规模种植，为小佃农提供土地，并推广农业教育。马里亚特吉坚信，这些措施将进一步增强印第安人的阶级意识，而这对于他们在社会主义斗争中发挥革命潜能至关重要。马里亚特吉主张将上述策略融入工人组织的纲领中，认为只有将理念转化为行动，社会主义革命才能在土著人中扎根并开花结果。

II. Perspectives and Shifts in the Latin American Left’s View of Indigenous Peoples

二、拉美左翼土著观的视角与流变

The historical shifts in the Latin American left’s view of indigenous peoples are deeply embedded in the process of adapting Marxism to the Latin American context, giving rise successively to three representative positions. Influenced by “Eurocentrism,” a “mechanical view of indigenous peoples” emerged that ignored the concrete conditions of Indians and advocated their proletarianization; influenced by “Soviet-centrism,” a “reformist view of indigenous peoples” emerged that adopted a compromising stance and advocated integrating Indians into the modernization process of the capitalist nation-state; and when Mariátegui, the outstanding representative of the adaptation of Marxism to the Latin American context, combined the universal principles of Marxism with the concrete realities of his own country, pursuing the dialectical unity of universality and particularity, a “revolutionary view of indigenous peoples” was formed that emphasized the historical subject position of Indians and advocated that Indians launch a socialist revolution.

拉美左翼土著观的历史流变深嵌于马克思主义拉美本土化的发展进程，先后形成了三种具有代表性的立场。受“欧洲中心主义”的影响，形成了忽视印第安人具体境况、主张印第安人无产阶级化的“机械土著观”；受“苏联中心论”的影响，形成了秉持妥协立场、主张印第安人融入资本主义民族国家现代化发展进程中的“改良土著观”；而当拉美马克思主义本土化的杰出代表马里亚特吉将马克思主义普遍原理与本国具体实际相结合，追求普遍性与特殊性的辩证统一时，则形成了强调印第安人历史主体地位、主张印第安人发动社会主义革命的“革命土著观”。

(1) The Mechanical View of Indigenous Peoples

（一）机械土著观

From the very beginning of the introduction of Marxism, the tendency toward “Eurocentrism” ran through the evolution of Latin American left-wing movements and currents of thought, and had a negative impact on the theoretical explorations and practical activities of the Latin American left. “The ‘Eurocentric’ tendency confines itself to mechanically transplanting to Latin America the models of economic and social development used to explain the historical process of 19th-century Europe; it demands that every aspect of European reality as presented through the studies of Marx and Engels must find its counterpart in Latin America, so as to force reality to ‘conform’ to theory by cutting the feet to fit the shoes.” [3]3 The Chinese phrase “削足适履” (cutting the feet to fit the shoes) is a classical idiom meaning to apply a rigid, inappropriate solution to a problem, forcing reality to fit a preconceived theory. In understanding the indigenous problem, the mechanical view of indigenous peoples actually fell into the rut of “Eurocentrism,” displaying an overly simplified logic and a very negative stance, the essence of which was an evasion of the indigenous problem.

自马克思主义传入伊始，“欧洲中心主义”倾向始终贯穿于拉美左翼运动和思潮的演进历程之中，并对拉美左翼的理论探索与实践活动产生了负面影响。“‘欧洲中心主义’倾向把自身局限于将那些用以解释欧洲19世纪历史进程的经济社会发展模式机械地移植到拉美，它要求经由马克思、恩格斯研究所呈现出来的欧洲现实的每一个方面，都必须设法在拉美找出对应物，以便削足适履地逼迫现实去‘符合’理论”。在对土著问题的认识中，机械土著观实际上陷入了“欧洲中心主义”的窠臼，表现出过于简化的逻辑和十分消极的立场，其实质是对土著问题的回避。

Specifically, scholars holding this view argue that the indigenous question is a product of pre-capitalist relations. They infer that as pre-capitalist relations transform into capitalist relations, indigenous identity will disappear, and indigenous people will inevitably become part of the proletariat. They believe that historical development necessarily proceeds step by step along the path of feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. In this process, the liberation of indigenous people is the starting point of a chain of revolutions. First comes the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal bourgeois-democratic revolution aimed at ending the feudal oppression and colonial exploitation suffered by indigenous people, followed by the socialist revolution. According to this logic, the solution to the indigenous question lies in their proletarianization; once proletarianized, indigenous people will struggle for their own equal status and rights, and the establishment of a socialist system will effectively resolve the indigenous question. This view of indigenous people advocates downplaying their identity and solving the various problems they face by proletarianizing them.

具体来说，持此观点的学者认为，土著问题是前资本主义关系的产物。他们推断，随着前资本主义关系转变为资本主义关系，土著人的身份就会消失，从而不可避免地成为无产阶级。他们认为历史发展必然沿着封建主义、资本主义、社会主义的路径逐步前进。在这一进程中，土著人的解放是一连串革命的起点。首先是旨在终结土著人所遭受的封建压迫与殖民剥削的反帝反封建的资产阶级民主革命，随后是社会主义革命的到来。根据这一逻辑，土著问题的解决方案就在于其无产阶级化，无产阶级化后的土著将为追求自身平等地位与权利而斗争，而社会主义制度的建立将有效解决土著问题。这种土著观主张淡化土著人的身份，通过使土著无产阶级化来解决他们面临的各种问题。

The overwhelming majority of early Latin American left-wing parties adhered to the above-mentioned mechanical view of indigenous people. This understanding is rooted in a teleological and linear view of history, which neglects the specificity of ethnic and racial issues as well as the complexity of historical development, mechanically transplants the general principles of Marxism onto the Latin American indigenous question, and fails to fully consider the unique historical and social realities of Latin American countries. While championing revolutionary ideals, they showed indifference to the unique history and actual conditions of indigenous people, ignored the specific circumstances and ethnic demands they faced, and thus fell into theoretical narrowness and practical blindness.

绝大多数早期的拉美左翼政党都秉持上述机械土著观。这种认识根植于一种目的论与线性的历史观，忽视了民族和种族问题的特殊性以及历史发展的复杂性，将马克思主义的一般原理机械移植到拉美土著问题上，未能充分考虑拉美国家特有的历史和社会现实。他们在推崇革命理念的同时，对土著人的独特历史和现实状况漠不关心，忽视土著人所面临的具体境况与民族诉求，从而陷入理论的狭隘性和实践的盲目性。

(2) The Reformist View of Indigenous People

（二）改良土著观

The reformist view of indigenous people tends to mechanically transplant the Soviet Union’s ethnic policies into Latin American societies. On the indigenous question, this view acknowledges the existence of indigenous people as an ethnic group and offers a series of explanations. Although its proposed solutions to the indigenous question clearly lean toward sympathy for Indigenous people, its arguments actually imply an intention to integrate indigenous people into the framework of capitalist modernization development in various Latin American countries. Compared with the mechanical view, this perspective, while not ignoring the existence of Latin American indigenous groups, lacks an in-depth understanding of different cultures and different ethnic groups. Typical representatives of this school in Latin America include Vicente Lombardo Toledano of Mexico and José Antonio Arze of Bolivia.

改良土著观倾向将苏联的民族政策照搬到拉美本土社会中。在土著问题上，这种观点承认土著作为种族群体的存在，并对土著问题进行了系列阐释。尽管其提出的土著问题解决方案明显倾向于同情印第安人，但其主张实际上隐含着将印第安人融入拉美各国资本主义现代化发展框架中的意图。相较于机械土著观，这种观点虽然没有忽视拉美土著群体的存在，但却缺乏对不同文化和不同民族群体的深入了解。拉美这一流派的典型代表包括墨西哥的托莱达诺和玻利维亚的何塞·安东尼奥·阿尔塞。

Toledano’s progressiveness lies in his rejection of the liberal and positivist theoretical path of explaining social development through racial hierarchy, stating that any view that takes race as the root of social progress or backwardness is a distortion of history. To promote the integration of indigenous people into the national development process, he emphasized that the indigenous question is essentially not a problem of indigenous people themselves, but a problem of national development. This assertion objectively aligned with the needs of Mexican capitalist development to integrate labor and expand markets. Unfortunately, despite declaring that he would promote the socialization of Mexico, Toledano’s practice did not break through the capitalist framework. To facilitate the integration of indigenous people into Mexico’s post-revolutionary economic development, he wholesale transplanted the Soviet Union’s minority policies, advocated making indigenous people shed their marginalized situation through proletarianization, and emphasized that material integration takes precedence over natural assimilation at the cultural level. But in reality, since the colonial period, indigenous people have always been forced to participate in Mexico’s socioeconomic operations; their marginalization is in fact a result of systematic exclusion, and this exclusion is precisely a component of the exploitative system. Toledano reduced the indigenous question to a question of marginalization, obscuring the inherent exclusionary mechanisms of the exploitative system. His view of indigenous people entrusted the cause of liberation to the modernization process of the capitalist nation-state, completely negating indigenous subjectivity.

托莱达诺的进步性在于他否定了自由主义与实证主义以种族优劣论解释社会发展的理论路径，表示任何将种族作为社会进步或落后根源的观点都是对历史的曲解。为推动土著融入国家发展进程，他强调本质上土著问题并非土著自身问题，而是国家发展问题。这种论断客观上契合了墨西哥资本主义发展对整合劳动力与扩大市场的需求。遗憾的是，尽管宣称将推动墨西哥社会主义化，但托莱达诺的实践却未突破资本主义框架。为促使土著融入墨西哥革命后的经济发展，他全盘移植苏联少数民族政策，主张通过无产阶级化使土著摆脱边缘化处境，强调物质整合优先于文化层面的自然同化。但实际上，自殖民时期始，土著始终被迫参与墨西哥社会经济运行，其边缘化实为被系统性排斥，这种排斥恰是剥削制度的组成部分。托莱达诺将土著问题简化为边缘化问题，遮蔽了剥削制度的内在排斥机制，其土著观将解放事业托付于资本主义民族国家现代化进程，彻底否定了土著主体性。

Arze’s progressiveness lies in his proposal of a practical path for achieving socialist transformation, namely, in the short term through cultural enlightenment and political integration, and in the long term relying on capitalist development to achieve the proletarianization of indigenous people. Arze advocated first launching a bourgeois-democratic revolution to end the imperialist-feudal system, establishing a united front led by the proletariat encompassing indigenous people and the petty bourgeoisie, and then, after the development of productive forces, transitioning to a socialist revolution. This theory is embodied in the statutes of the Bolivian University Federation, which he dominated in drafting, where the construction of a worker-peasant alliance, the integration of Latin American student organizations, and land redistribution were established as three major programs. Furthermore, Arze advanced practice by founding the Party of the Revolutionary Left (Partido de la Izquierda Revolucionario, PIR) to incorporate indigenous representatives, establishing the Institute of Sociology to conduct research on Andean communities, and so on. Unfortunately, Arze’s view of indigenous people contains structural contradictions. The statutes of the Party of the Revolutionary Left downgraded indigenous people to a secondary force requiring transformation through proletarianization, with revolutionary leadership reserved exclusively for the urban working class. The eventual dissolution of the Party of the Revolutionary Left exposed the political opportunist nature of its theory’s identification with national capitalist reform.

阿尔塞的进步性在于他提出了实现社会主义变革的实践路径，即短期通过文化启蒙与政治整合，长期依托资本主义发展实现土著无产阶级化。阿尔塞主张先发动资产阶级民主革命终结帝国主义封建主义体系，建立无产阶级领导的涵盖土著与小资产阶级的联合阵线，待生产力发展后转向社会主义革命。该理论体现于其主导制定的玻利维亚大学联合会章程，其中工农联盟建构、拉美学生组织整合与土地再分配被确立为三大纲领。此外，阿尔塞通过创立左派革命党（PartidodelaIzquierdaRevolucionario，PIR）吸纳土著代表、设立社会学研究所开展安第斯社区研究等推进实践。遗憾的是，阿尔塞的土著观存在结构性矛盾。左派革命党章程将土著降格为需经无产阶级化改造的次要力量，革命领导权专属城市工人阶级。左派革命党的最终解散暴露出其理论对民族资本主义改良的认同的政治投机本质。

In summary, the reformist view of indigenous people represented by Toledano and Arze essentially adopts a compromising stance, attempting to mechanically transplant the Soviet model while ignoring the particularities of Latin American societies. Its plan to integrate indigenous people into the modernization process of capitalist nation-states not only failed to allow society to share wealth but instead made indigenous people more suited to the exploitative system. The reformist view subordinates the interests of the proletariat to the developmental logic of the bourgeoisie; even when implemented in the form of policies, the main beneficiaries remain capitalism rather than indigenous groups. Capitalism’s instrumental use of indigenous people continues the logic of colonial rule, while the compromising stance of Toledano and Arze ultimately reduced their theory to a patchwork tool for reformism within the system.

综上所述，以托莱达诺与阿尔塞为代表的改良土著观本质上持妥协立场，试图机械移植苏联模式，忽视拉美社会特殊性，其使土著融入资本主义民族国家现代化进程的方案，非但未能让社会共享财富，反让土著更适配剥削体系。改良土著观将无产阶级利益从属于资产阶级发展逻辑，即便以政策形式实施，主要受益者仍是资本主义而非土著群体。资本主义对土著的工具化利用延续殖民统治逻辑，而托莱达诺与阿尔塞的妥协立场，使其理论最终沦为体制内改良主义的修补工具。

(3) The Revolutionary View of Indigenous People

（三）革命土著观

The indigenization of Marxism in Latin America occurred in the process of Marxists in the region consciously resisting “Eurocentrism” and “Soviet-centrism.” The revolutionary view of indigenous people in Latin American Marxism took shape through the conscious sublation of “Eurocentrism” and “Soviet-centrism,” emphasizing that while adhering to the basic positions of Marxism, theory must be rooted in the history and reality of Latin America itself, with particular attention to drawing revolutionary动力 from indigenous groups themselves. Compared with the earlier mechanical view, which simply reduced the indigenous question to a class question, or the reformist view, which reduced it to a question of marginalization, the revolutionary view not only regards indigenous people as oppressed objects but also as subjects of historical change, emphasizing the core position of their self-organization and political agency in the revolutionary process. This theoretical path finds systematic expression in the thought of José Carlos Mariátegui and Clotario Blest Riffo.[n]

拉美马克思主义本土化是在该地区马克思主义者自觉抵制“欧洲中心主义”“苏联中心论”的过程中进行的。拉美马克思主义的革命土著观形成于对“欧洲中心主义”与“苏联中心论”的自觉扬弃，强调在坚持马克思主义基本立场的同时，将理论植根于拉美本土的历史与现实，尤其注重从土著群体本身汲取革命动力。相较于此前将土著问题简单归结为阶级问题的机械土著观或边缘化问题的改良土著观，革命土著观不仅将土著视为被压迫的客体，更视其为历史变革的主体，强调其自我组织与政治能动性在革命进程中的核心地位。这一理论路径在马里亚特吉与利内拉的思想中得到了系统表达。

Mariátegui’s view of indigenous people is built on a profound analysis of Peruvian social structure. He clearly stated that the essence of the indigenous question is the land question, and its substance is the continuation of class oppression within the legacy of colonial structures. From this, he proposed that Peru could achieve a direct transition from a semi-feudal state to socialism through a worker-peasant alliance, a non-capitalist path. This path treats the national-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution as a dialectical unity, integrating the demands of indigenous peasants into the revolutionary program of the proletariat. Mariátegui emphasized that although the Peruvian working class was not yet mature, it must assume the responsibility of leading the revolution, while the indigenous peasants, who constitute the majority of the population, form the basic allied force of the revolution. In practice, he advocated cultivating the class consciousness and organizational capacity of indigenous people through establishing libraries and learning centers, promoting community education, and publishing worker-peasant newspapers and periodicals, thereby transforming them from passive “objects of proletarianization” into conscious revolutionary participants. This stands in stark contrast to the mechanical view, which simply treats indigenous people as a passive group “awaiting proletarianization,” emphasizing the dialectical relationship between consciousness-raising and self-liberation.

马里亚特吉的土著观建立在对秘鲁社会结构的深刻剖析之上。他明确提出，土著问题的本质是土地问题，而其实质则是阶级压迫在殖民遗留结构中的延续。由此，他提出秘鲁可经由工农联盟实现从半封建状态直接向社会主义过渡的非资本主义道路。这一路径将民族民主革命与社会主义革命视为辩证统一体，将土著农民的诉求整合进无产阶级的革命纲领中。马里亚特吉强调，尽管秘鲁工人阶级尚不成熟，但其必须承担领导革命的责任，而占人口多数的土著农民则构成革命的基本同盟军。他在实践中主张通过建立图书馆与学习中心、推广社区教育、发行工农报刊等方式，培育土著的阶级意识与组织能力，使其从被动的“无产阶级化对象”转变为自觉的革命参与者。这一点与机械土著观中将土著简单视为“待无产阶级化”的被动群体形成鲜明对比，强调意识觉醒与自我解放的辩证关系。

Linera advanced the localization of the revolutionary view of indigenous peoples on the basis of Mariátegui. He proposed that in countries such as Bolivia, where the indigenous population constitutes the majority, Marxism must integrate with the traditional value system of Indianismo to form a revolutionary theory with local characteristics. Its core concept, the “Ayllu,” is not only a pre-colonial form of community organization but also a political unit bearing historical culture and collective identity. Linera argued that the socialist revolution in Bolivia should not be seen as a transplant of a foreign ideology, but rather as a process of constructing “community socialism” based on the Ayllu tradition. He criticized the limitations of traditional Indianismo and Katarismo in their political objectives, emphasizing that indigenous groups cannot stop at cultural resistance or anti-discrimination struggles but must strive for political power, achieving the unity of national self-determination and socialist state-building. Within this framework, seizing state power is not the starting point of revolution but the inevitable result of indigenous self-organization and the development of class consciousness. National self-determination is not a separatist demand but a prerequisite for a voluntary multi-ethnic alliance and the formation of a socialist community.

利内拉在马里亚特吉的基础上推进了革命土著观的在地化建构。他提出，在玻利维亚这类土著人口占多数的国家，马克思主义必须与印第安主义（Indianismo）的传统价值体系相融合，形成具有本土特质的革命理论。其核心概念“艾柳”（Ayllu）不仅是一种前殖民时期的社区组织形式，更是承载历史文化与集体认同的政治单位。利内拉主张，社会主义革命在玻利维亚不应被视为外来意识形态的移植，而应是基于艾柳传统的“社群社会主义”的建构过程。他批判传统印第安主义与卡塔里主义（Katarismo）在政治目标上的局限性，强调土著群体不能仅停留于文化抵抗或反歧视斗争，而必须争取政治权力，实现民族自决与社会主义国家建设的统一。在这一框架中，夺取政权不是革命的起点，而是土著自我组织与阶级意识发展的必然结果。民族自决也不是分离主义的诉求，而是多民族自愿联盟与社会主义共同体形成的前提。

In summary, the unique contribution of the revolutionary view of indigenous peoples within the Latin American Marxist lineage lies in its transcendence of the binary opposition that treats the indigenous question as either a “derivative of class” or a “marginal special case.” Instead, it makes the historical experience, organizational models, and political demands of indigenous groups a core component of revolutionary strategy. Both Mariátegui and Linera emphasized that indigenous liberation is not a product bestowed by external forces but a process of self-liberation achieved by indigenous peoples themselves through the awakening of class consciousness and political struggle. This stance not only distinguishes itself from the mechanical view of indigenous peoples, which treats them as passive objects of history, but also surpasses the tendency in the reformist view to emphasize economic integration while neglecting power structures. It reflects a dual breakthrough in Latin American Marxism in terms of theoretical subjectivity and revolutionary practice.

综上所述，革命土著观在拉美马克思主义谱系中的独特贡献在于它超越了将土著问题视为“阶级派生”或“边缘特殊”的二元对立，转而将土著群体的历史经验、组织模式与政治诉求视为革命战略的核心组成部分。马里亚特吉与利内拉均强调，土著解放并非外部力量赋予的产物，而是其自身在阶级意识觉醒与政治斗争过程中实现自我解放。这一立场不仅与机械土著观将土著视为历史被动客体的观点相区别，也超越了改良土著观中偏重经济融合而忽略权力结构的倾向，体现出拉美马克思主义在理论主体性与革命实践性上的双重突破。

III. Basic Characteristics and Limitations of the Latin American Left’s View of Indigenous Peoples

三、拉美左翼土著观的基本特征与局限性

Overall, the Latin American Left’s view of indigenous peoples exhibits the basic characteristics of subjectivity, diversity, and criticality.

总体而言，拉美左翼土著观具有主观性、多元性和批判性的基本特征。

Subjectivity refers to the fact that the Latin American Left’s view of indigenous peoples is a subjective judgment made by Latin American left-wing scholars based on their own specific historical and social circumstances. The characteristic of subjectivity is rooted in the dual identity dilemma of Latin American intellectuals. As critics of capitalism, they must deconstruct the cognitive violence of the colonial knowledge system. As theoretical producers of local liberation movements, they must directly confront the existential paradox of indigenous societies in the process of modernization. This duality is particularly evident in Mariátegui’s conception of Inca socialism, where he reinterpreted the Ayllu commune of the Inca Empire as a pre-capitalist germ of communism. This understanding contains both a resistance to Eurocentric historical narratives and a theoretical vision of incorporating local traditions into the Marxist explanatory framework. This subjectivity is not an accidental deviation of individual cognition but an inevitable product of specific historical conditions. When Latin American leftists in the early 20th century attempted to apply Marxist class analysis to the Andean region, they had to confront the complex reality of the interweaving of the persistent remnants of colonial rule and the emerging relations of production of early capitalism. This forced intellectuals to reshape their cognition within the dialectical relationship between the economic base and cultural traditions.

主观性，指拉美左翼土著观是拉美左翼学者基于自身及特定历史和社会环境作出的关于土著问题的主观判断。主观性特征根植于拉美知识分子的双重身份困境。作为资本主义的批判者，他们需解构殖民主义知识体系的认知暴力。而作为本土解放运动的理论生产者，又必须直面土著社会在现代化进程中的生存悖论。这种双重性在马里亚特吉的印加社会主义构想中体现得尤为明显，他将印加帝国的艾柳公社重新阐释为前资本主义的共产主义萌芽，这种理解既包含着对欧洲中心主义历史叙事的反抗，也呈现出将本土传统纳入马克思主义解释框架的理论愿景。这种主观性并非个体认知的偶然偏差，而是特定历史条件的必然产物。当20世纪初的拉美左翼试图将马克思主义的阶级分析法应用于安第斯山区时，不得不面对殖民统治固有遗存与资本主义萌芽期生产关系相交织的复杂现实，这迫使知识分子们在经济基础与文化传统的辩证关系中重塑认知。

Diversity refers to the fact that the Latin American Left’s view of indigenous peoples has not formed a unified conceptual system but is a constructive research concept composed of numerous differentiated positions and viewpoints, presenting a cognitive landscape of diverse interweaving and complex interaction. The formation of diversity stems from the strategic differentiation of Latin American left-wing scholars in addressing the indigenous question. This differentiation essentially reflects the shaping effect of the differing national conditions across Latin American countries on the view of indigenous peoples. The need for the modernization development of a capitalist nation-state after the Mexican Revolution gave rise to the Latin American view of indigenous peoples represented by Toledano, which held a compromising stance and a reformist tendency. In contrast, the Katarismo movement in Bolivia nurtured an indigenous Marxism represented by Linera, which emphasized national self-determination and community struggle. These differentiated theoretical constructions and practical choices together weave the cognitive spectrum of the diversity of the Latin American Left’s view of indigenous peoples, and their internal tensions precisely constitute the driving force for theoretical innovation.

多元性，指拉美左翼土著观并没有形成统一的观念体系，而是由众多差异化的立场与观点汇集而成的建构性的研究概念，呈现出多元交织、复杂互动的认知图景。多元性的形成源于拉美左翼学者应对土著问题的策略分化，这种分化本质上反映了拉美地区不同国家境况的差异对土著观的形塑作用。墨西哥革命后对资本主义民族国家现代化发展的需求，催生出以托莱达诺为代表的持妥协立场与改良倾向的拉美土著观。而玻利维亚的卡塔里主义运动则孕育出以利内拉为代表的强调民族自决与社群斗争的印第安马克思主义。差异化的理论建构与实践选择，共同编织成拉美左翼土著观多元性的认知光谱，其内在张力恰恰构成了理论创新的动力源泉。

Criticality refers to the fact that the Latin American Left’s view of indigenous peoples not only criticizes imperialist oppression and capitalist exploitation of indigenous peoples but also critiques the marginalization of indigenous status, rights, and culture under unequal social structures. The critical dimension in the Latin American Left’s view of indigenous peoples presents a unique dialectical structure. This critique is directed both at external mechanisms of oppression and at internal cognitive limitations. At the material level, it exposes the exploitation and plunder of indigenous peoples by the capitalist system; at the cultural level, it critiques the denigration of indigenous ways of knowing by the colonial knowledge system, revealing how the so-called progressive discourse of capitalist modernization stigmatizes indigenous communities as backward and barbaric. It is noteworthy that this criticality always maintains a theoretical self-awareness of self-reflection. This self-critical consciousness attempts to open up new cognitive spaces beyond capitalist modernity through an ontological conceptual reconstruction.

批判性，指拉美左翼土著观不仅批判帝国主义的压迫和资本主义对土著的剥削，而且批判不平等社会结构下土著地位、权利和文化的边缘化。批判性维度在拉美左翼土著观中呈现出独特的辩证结构，这种批判既指向外部压迫机制，也针对内部认知局限。在物质层面，揭露资本主义制度对土著的剥削与掠夺；在文化层面，批判殖民主义知识体系对土著认知方式的贬抑，揭露所谓资本主义现代化进步话语如何将土著社区污名化为落后与野蛮的代名词。值得注意的是，这种批判性始终保持着自我反思的理论自觉。这种自我批判意识试图通过存在论层面的概念重构，在资本主义现代性之外开辟新的认知空间。

At the same time, due to social and historical reasons, the Latin American Left’s view of indigenous peoples inevitably suffers from limitations such as theoretical weakness, lack of practicality, prominent one-sidedness, and deviation from scientificity.

同时，拉美左翼的土著观由于社会历史原因，又不可避免地存在理论性薄弱、实践性缺失、片面性凸显与科学性偏离的局限。

First, the Latin American Left’s view of indigenous peoples is theoretically weak. Both the mechanical view and the reformist view within the Latin American Left merely copy, transplant, and dogmatically understand the basic principles of Marxism. Due to their neglect of Latin America’s concrete reality, they lack innovation at the theoretical level. The revolutionary view, based on the national conditions of each country, creatively interprets Marxism. However, the revolutionary view only solves the problem of overcoming dogmatism and integrating the basic principles of Marxism with the concrete reality of each country; it has not formed a complete, systematic, and scientific theoretical system. In fact, the lack of systematic theoretical expression and theoretical depth is a defect of the entire Latin American Marxist philosophy. As Marta Harnecker stated, “Latin American Marxism faces a theoretical crisis, a practical crisis, and an organizational crisis, and the theoretical crisis is the crux.” Renzo Llorente also clearly pointed out that “Latin American Marxist philosophy has a distinct characteristic of being overly focused on applied local practical issues, resulting in a loss of theoretical rigor and conceptual precision.”

首先，拉美左翼的土著观理论性薄弱。拉美左翼中的机械土著观与改良土著观都只是照搬移植和教条化理解马克思主义的基本原理，由于忽视了拉美具体现实而在理论层面缺乏创新。革命土著观立足本国国情，对马克思主义进行了创造性解读，但革命土著观仅仅解决的是克服教条化与把马克思主义基本原理同本国具体实际相结合的问题，并没有形成一整套系统全面科学的理论体系。实际上，缺乏体系化的理论表达与理论深度是整个拉美马克思主义哲学存在的缺陷。正如玛尔塔·哈内克尔（MartaHarnecker）所言，“拉美马克思主义面临理论危机、实践危机和组织危机，而理论危机是结症所在”。R.略伦特（RenzoLlorente）也明确指出，“拉美马克思主义哲学具有过于专注本土现实问题的应用化倾向而致使其理论性与概念严密性疏失的鲜明特点”。

Second, the Latin American Left’s view of indigenous peoples lacks practicality. Dominated by the mechanical view, Latin American dogmatists actually evaded the indigenous question, so the practicality of their view is out of the question. Although the holders of the reformist view claim to take Marxism-Leninism as their guiding ideology, in practice they placed this guiding ideology within the framework of capitalist development. They proclaimed to have class consciousness but excluded a high proportion of indigenous peasants from the revolutionary process. In fact, the practice of the reformist view contributed to the national integration policies of capitalist states, while also betraying their self-proclaimed Marxist revolutionary stance. The revolutionary view also suffers from a lack of practicality. Mariátegui’s proposed Indo-American socialist program did not gain the participation of indigenous communities, nor did it express their demands in indigenous languages and logic, resulting in a failure to effectively integrate theory with the subjects of social change. Furthermore, in the process of translating indigenous Marxism into practice, Linera voluntarily abandoned the stance of socialist revolution, leading to a rupture between practice and theory.

其次，拉美左翼的土著观实践性缺失。受机械土著观的支配，拉美教条主义者实际上回避了土著问题，其土著观的实践性也就无从谈起。而改良土著观持有者尽管声称以马列主义为指导思想，但在实践中却将这一指导思想置于资本主义发展框架之下。他们宣称要有阶级意识，却将高比例的土著农民排除在革命进程之外。事实上，改良土著观的实践为资本主义国家的民族一体化政策作出了贡献，同时也违背他们自诩的马克思主义革命立场。而革命土著观存在实践性缺失的不足。马里亚特吉提出的印第安美洲社会主义方案没有得到土著社区的参与，也没有以土著的语言和逻辑表达他们自己的诉求，从而导致理论与社会变革的主体没有有效融合。而印第安马克思主义在向实践转化的过程中，利内拉主动放弃了社会主义革命的立场，从而导致了实践与理论发生了断裂。

Third, the one-sidedness of the Latin American left’s view of indigenous peoples is prominent. Although Latin American left-wing scholars accurately grasped the essence of the indigenous question, namely socioeconomic issues, they neglected the importance of cultural, ideological, and symbolic factors in the construction of social classes, failing to deeply recognize that factors of consciousness mobilization beyond the economy may be the key driving force behind indigenous movements. Consequently, for most of the time, Latin American left-wing scholars were never able to engage in dialogue with indigenous movements, nor could they connect Marxist currents of thought and the political processes of urban workers’ movements with indigenous and peasant movements across Latin America, displaying a clear attitude of estrangement when dealing with cultural and national issues within nation-states. In their theoretical discussions, the linguistic, cultural, and historical diversity of the Latin American region did not receive the attention it deserved; these elements were marginalized, failing to become part of theoretical reflection, let alone showing concern for indigenous identity and cultural demands. For a long time, the indifferent attitude of Latin American left-wing scholars toward cultural characteristics and linguistic diversity meant that the potential value of these factors in social mobilization and class struggle was overlooked, often regarded as a compromise with little relevance to class struggle. It was precisely this attitude that constrained Latin American left-wing scholars’ understanding of cultural issues, cultural diversity, and identity demands, weakening their recognition of the potential mobilizing power contained within them.

再次，拉美左翼的土著观片面性凸显。尽管拉美左翼学者准确把握了土著问题的本质，即社会经济问题，却忽视了文化、意识形态和象征性因素在社会阶级建构中的重要性，未能深刻认识经济之外的意识动员因素或是激发土著人运动的关键动力。因此，在大部分时间里，拉美左翼学者始终未能与土著运动对话，也未能将马克思主义思潮、城市工人运动的政治进程与拉美各地的土著及农民运动联系起来，在处理民族国家内部文化及民族问题时，展现出明显的疏离态度。在其理论探讨中，拉美地区的语言、文化与历史多样性并未受到应有的重视，这些要素被边缘化，未能成为理论思辨的一部分，更遑论对土著人身份认同和文化诉求的关注。长期以来，拉美左翼学者对文化特性和语言多样性的冷漠态度，使得这些因素在社会动员和阶级斗争中的潜在价值被忽略，它们往往被视为一种妥协，与阶级斗争关系不大。正是这种态度制约了拉美左翼学者对文化问题、文化多样性和身份诉求的理解，削弱了拉美左翼学者对其所蕴含的潜在动员力量的认知。

Finally, there is a problem of scientific deviation in the Latin American left’s view of indigenous peoples. Although the revolutionary view of indigenous peoples overcame the two erroneous tendencies of the mechanistic view and the reformist view, combining the basic principles of Marxism with the concrete realities of Latin America and basing itself on the thought of scientific socialism to provide a dialectical interpretation of the indigenous question, the revolutionary view still exhibits a certain degree of scientific deviation.

最后，拉美左翼的土著观存在科学性偏离问题。尽管革命土著观克服了机械土著观和改良土著观两种错误倾向，将马克思主义基本原理与拉美具体实际相结合，以科学社会主义思想为基础，对土著问题进行了辩证的诠释。然而，革命土著观仍然存在一定程度上的科学性偏离。

Specifically, Mariátegui firmly believed in Georges Sorel’s theory of the revolutionary myth and, on this basis, constructed a myth about the socialist potential of the Andean Indians. He believed that the realization of socialism would be swift and direct, because the revolutionary front composed of workers and indigenous people possessed an unshakable faith. In Mariátegui’s view, this faith could be transformed into a myth that guides action, namely the myth of social revolution, which, once adopted, could ignite the revolutionary动力 of the masses. He emphasized that history is driven by myths; without myths, human existence cannot acquire historical meaning. Therefore, he advocated shaping such a myth among indigenous groups to bring them into the revolution.

具体而言，马里亚特吉坚信乔治·索雷尔（GeorgesSorel）关于革命的神话理论，并据此构建了关于安第斯印第安人社会主义潜力的神话。他认为，社会主义的实现将是迅速而直接的，因为工人和土著构成的革命阵线拥有坚不可摧的信仰。在马里亚特吉看来，这种信仰能够转化为引领行动的神话，即社会革命的神话，一旦被采纳，便能激发群众的革命动力。他强调，历史由神话推动，没有神话，人类的存在就无法获得历史意义。因此，他主张在土著群体中塑造这样一个神话，让他们参与到革命中来。

Mariátegui’s philosophical thought introduced many non-Marxist elements, which was both an emphasis on romanticism and voluntarism and a rejection of rationalism, scientism, and positivism. Michael Löwy believes that Mariátegui’s philosophical thought, which integrates multiple non-Marxist elements, is essentially a romantic revolutionary concept that opposes evolutionism, historicism, and rationalist philosophy. This indicates that “the Latin American localization of Marxism has a certain tendency toward subjectivism. Although the Latin American localization of Marxism is undoubtedly correct in opposing and criticizing mechanical determinism and economic reductionism, it cannot avoid the suspicion of overcorrection. In the process of localization, it has been overly accommodating to the subjectivist tendencies in local intellectual resources and theoretical traditions, thus leading to an excessive emphasis on subjective initiative, an overemphasis on the role of spirit, and especially an exaggeration of the role of religious myths—a subjectivist tendency that has clearly deviated from Marxist atheism.” [10]10 The quotation is from a Chinese-language source critiquing Mariátegui’s thought; the original Chinese text is cited by the authors. The scientific character of Marxism in liberating and developing productive forces was not emphasized or valued, which inevitably raises questions about whether the revolutionary view of indigenous peoples exhibits a certain scientific deviation.

马里亚特吉的哲学思想引入了许多非马克思主义元素，这既是对浪漫主义和意志主义的强调，也是对理性主义、科学主义和实证主义的拒斥。米歇尔·罗伊（Michaellöwy）认为，融合了多种非马克思主义元素的马里亚特吉哲学思想实质上是一种反进化论、历史主义和理性主义哲学的浪漫主义革命观念。这表明，“拉美本土化的马克思主义存在一定的主观化倾向，尽管拉美本土化马克思主义反对、批判机械决定论和经济还原论无疑是正确的，但它不免有矫枉过正之嫌，其本土化过程中过于迁就本土思想资源和理论传统中的主观化倾向，因而导致其存在过分强调主观能动性、过分重视精神作用、特别是夸大宗教神话作用的主观化倾向，显然已经偏离了马克思主义的无神论”。马克思主义中解放与发展生产力的科学性没有得到强调与重视，这就不得不令人质疑革命土著观在科学性上存在一定的偏离。

Although the Latin American left’s view of indigenous peoples has the above shortcomings, understanding and studying it constitutes an important supplement to the study of the left abroad. On the one hand, as a key piece of the puzzle in the field of Latin American left-wing philosophy, the historical transformation of the Latin American left’s view of indigenous peoples is closely related to the process and trends of the localization of Marxism in Latin America. Studying the Latin American left’s view of indigenous peoples helps us better understand how, in the process of accepting Marxism, peripheral countries gave birth to Marxist philosophical discourses that highlight their regional characteristics and unique national cultures. At the same time, it helps us recognize that the essence of the localization and nationalization of Marxism is to consciously resist and overcome the erroneous tendencies of “narrow localization” and “dogmatic universalization,” seeking to achieve a dialectical unity between the universality of the basic principles of Marxism and the particularity of a country’s concrete realities. This further helps us recognize that the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context must always adhere to the combination of the basic principles of Marxism with China’s concrete realities and with the fine traditional Chinese culture, in order to continuously manifest the charm and brilliance of the “living soul” of Marxism. [11]11 “Living soul” (活的灵魂) is a standard Chinese Marxist formulation referring to the essence of Marxism, often linked to Mao Zedong’s emphasis on seeking truth from facts (实事求是), the mass line (群众路线), and independence.

尽管拉美左翼的土著观存在上述不足，但对其进行认识和研究是对国外左翼研究的重要补充。一方面，拉美左翼的土著观作为拉美左翼哲学领域的一块重要拼图，其历史流变与马克思主义拉美本土化的进程与趋势密切相关。对拉美左翼的土著观的研究，有助于我们更好地理解边缘国家在接受马克思主义的过程中如何孕育凸显其地域特色与独特民族文化的马克思主义哲学话语，同时认识到马克思主义本土化、民族化的实质是自觉抵制、克服“狭隘在地化”与“教条普世化”的错误倾向，寻求达成马克思主义基本原理的普遍性与本国具体实际的特殊性的辩证统一，从而进一步认识到，马克思主义中国化要始终坚持马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际、中华优秀传统文化相结合，才能不断彰显马克思主义“活的灵魂”的魅力与光彩。

On the other hand, the study of the Latin American left’s view of indigenous peoples constitutes a theoretical opportunity to break through the binary research framework of Chinese and Western Marxist philosophy. For a long time, Chinese academic circles have been dominated by the Western Marxist paradigm, forming a rigid binary cognitive structure of East and West. This research pattern both obscures the diverse practical forms of Marxist philosophy in the context of globalization and leads to the systematic absence of non-Western Marxist philosophical lineages. By analyzing the creative integration of Latin American Marxism with indigenous Indian civilizations, it is possible not only to reveal the mechanisms of adaptation and interpretive flexibility of Marxist philosophy in non-Western cultural fields, but more importantly, to construct a pluralistic theoretical coordinate system that transcends Eurocentrism, enriching the connotation and extension of the study of Marxism abroad, thereby establishing a mechanism for cross-civilizational dialogue and promoting paradigm shifts in theoretical innovation and knowledge production.

另一方面，对拉美左翼土著观的研究构成突破中西方马克思主义哲学二元研究框架的理论契机。国内学界长期受西方马克思主义范式主导，形成固化的东西方二元认知结构，这种研究格局既遮蔽了全球化语境下马克思主义哲学的多元实践形态，也导致非西方马克思主义哲学谱系的系统性缺席。通过解析拉美马克思主义与印第安土著文明的创造性融合，不仅能揭示马克思主义哲学在非西方文化场域中的调适机制与阐释弹性，更重要的是建构起超越欧洲中心主义的多元理论坐标系，丰富国外马克思主义研究的内涵与外延，进而建立跨文明对话机制，推动理论创新与知识生产的范式转型。