Historical
review of Marxism in Latin America
Pablo Guadarrama
González
Taken from
the book “Stripped of all fetish. Authenticity of Marxist philosophy in Latin
America”.
INCC University of Columbia. Central University of Las Villas.
Group of authors under the direction of Dr. P. Guadarrama UNINCCA, UCLV, 1999.
Chapter 1, pages 1 – 72
I. Antecedents.
The reception of Marxist ideas in Latin America began under very different premises to those of the European and United States world, due to the different development of capitalist relationships and, consequently, the worker’s movement. However, there are certain similarities due to the influence of philosophical and ideological currents that also had their representatives in this region.
One of the means expressing the dissatisfaction of large sectors of the population with the insufficiency of the independent process and with corrupt governments – either under the banner of liberalism or conservatism that fiercely disputed power – led to a flourishing of socialist and anarchist ideas. A greater part of revolutionary processes occurred during the second half of last century that already upheld the banner of ideas that were partially socialistic or anarchistic or, at least, their followers had an active participation in the process.
Historical research demonstrate that socialist and communist ideas were expressed in some social movements (1) and were reported in the press of many Latin American cities since the mid 19th century (2), specially as a results of the revolutionary processes in 1848 in Europe. But it was not simple process of reporting, but a patient work of assimilation and use of these ideas in an attempt to find solutions to the problems of this region, although the implantation of socialism was not proposed.
Utopian socialism, basically influenced by Saint Simon, had its representatives at an early date in the southern region (3) where European emigration brought the ideas over, as they did with Marxism.
Among the most noted Latin American utopian socialists (4) is the Argentine, Esteban Echeverría (1805 – 1851), author of the book, Socialist Dogma (1846) and the Cuban, Diego Vicente Tejera, (1848 – 1903) who proposed with his (system of practical socialism) not to alleviate the disease but ripped out from the roots” (5)
Important precedents of the spread of Marxism in Latin America in the past century, has been the task of journalists, many intellectuals who, although not directly linked to the workers movement and their struggles were aware of the most important events in their respective countries and, above all, in Europe, reflecting great events such as the Paris Commune in their publications. They also reported the course of ideas moving around them where Marxism increasingly gained strength. Included among them is the well-known Mexican, Juan Mata Rivera who published the first translation into Spanish of the Communist Manifesto in 1884.
Many of the persons who should be considered predecessors of Marxism in Latin America shared, at the same time, several philosophical concepts. For example: spiritualism, eclecticism, positivism, social Darwinism, etc. They therefore were unable to offer a harmonic and coherent picture of Marxist theory. The many weak points of their interpretation of the world would, at times, be attributed to Marxism when, in truth, they only knew and accepted some of the main theses, mostly those linked to politics, since the philosophical dimension was practically unknown.
II. Precursors.
The precursors of Marxist thought in Latin America did not place special importance on questions of cosmology, ontology and methodology. They were more concerned about studying the specific problems of each country and of each moment and to promote alternatives of social development that they considered appropriate for that region and time.
The diffusion of Marxist ideas in Latin America were the contribution of some Europeans who migrated to those land and who had experience in social struggles in the old continent, such as Pablo Zieroid in Mexico and German Ave-Lallemant in Argentina.
One of the first to identify with Marxism in Latin America was the Cuban Baliño (1848‑1926), who had lived in the United States during the eighties and had ties to Marxist ideas that were spreading across that country, although with some Lasalleant and reformist influence.
In his thoughts, in spite of not having a broad and deep knowledge of the works of Marx and Engels, due to his condition of a self-taught worker (6) he had a basic grasp of the materialist concept of history and the main categories of historic materialism.
Another who early represented Marxist ideas in the South was the Argentine, Juan Bautista Justo (1865‑1928), who translated The Capital. Despite his positivist formation and the stamp of liberal ideas, his socio-democratic affiliation leads to a greater identification with Marxism.
He contributed to the proper focus of Marxism in Argentina, about the role of science and technology in social development and in general, according to Hugo Biagini, contributing to “introduce to us the Marxist models of macro-historical interpretation” (7).
Luis Emilio Recabarren (1876-1924) in Chile is the father of the workers movement and self taught Marxist in that country, who considered that the dictatorship of the proletariat was a necessary step (8) but not indefinite to achievement a society where riches were fairly shared.
He actively entered the political battle in his country where he organized in Argentina the first Marxist workers movement in Latin America in 1912. Some of the outstanding points of his thoughts was offering one of the first Marxist evaluation about Latin American bourgeois parliamentarianism (9). Another important idea was his dialectic view of the transformation that should occur in man at the triumph of socialism.
In Cuba, the Cuban student leader, Julio Antonio Mella (1903-1929) is considered one of the first advocates of Marxism in Latin America. He insisted on the need of uniting workers with farmers, students and progressive intellectuals to confront the national bourgeoisie and foreign imperialism (10). One of the most significant battles was his battle against the Peruvian Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre of the Aprista movement underestimating the role of the working class in Latin America. However, he presented himself as a true follower of Marxism that he called Indo-American socialism (11). Haya de la Torre finally moved towards positions that increasingly countered socialism.
The Marxism of Mella, in spite of his youth, was much more labored than that of Baliño because utopian elements were left out and he considered the contributions of Lenin.
An important feature of the personality of Mella that would also appear in other Latin American Marxists was maintaining their own opinion on the transformations required for this region and their basic differences with the reality of the first socialist revolution in the world.
Unfortunately, this position was not maintained always and, at times, schematic copies importantly affected the vision of some Marxists in these lands.
Mella was a Marxist of his times, but looked to the future with no self-importance because, as a Marxist his capacity to “recognize an error and correct it is to be infallible” (12) and this is an important quality in a revolutionary. Also, he showed “absolute understanding and total identity with the cause he defended”(13). But, above all he had to be able to “apply Marxism to all problems” (14) that was not the same as applying a preconceived scheme but creatively as he could do.
With both Mella and the Peruvian José Carlos Mariátegui (1894-1930) Marxism achieved Latin American rots and was used as a true critical view to understand the transformations of a real reality and its structures, originally and authentically (15).
Due to his broad culture and manner of viewing things from a Marxist viewpoint, Mariátegui has been rightfully considered “an exponent of open Marxism” (16) and, undoubtedly, the most creative precursor.
His most important work, Seven essays on the interpretation of Peruvian reality, is a fundamental sample of how Marxism should be used effectively and creatively by a “convinced and confessed Marxist” (17) as he was considered, analyzing the most important socioeconomic problems such as the distribution of lands and other supra-structural factors not less important that he correctly pointed out, because of their effect in the Latin American world, as well as religious and ethnic.
Mariátegui was able to understand, critically and dialectically to the philosophical and political thoughts of his country as well as in the Europe of new times (18). He was also able to confront those who deviated from Marxist theory in his work, in defense of Marxism. In this writing as well as in many more, he foresaw the deep crisis that would occur in Marxism if appropriate action were not taken about the critical development of this theory and its revolutionary practice (19). In this sense, his work as a promoter of the socialist party of his country and fighter for the rights of the popular sectors was outstanding.
El Amauta, as he was also known came out against those aimed at “exaggerating, with self interest, the determinism of Marx” (20) and pointed out that “Marxism when shown to be revolutionary – when it has been Marxism (the underline is the author’s) – has never followed a passive and rigid determinism. This demonstrates his profound dialectical concept on social development and showed up those who, self-proclaimed Marxists, promoted a fatalistic and mechanical determinism; nothing further from authentic Marxism, whose essence was strongly revolutionary and presupposed an active participation of the historical subject.
Mariátegui was well aware that he could not find the answers in Marx nor all the recommendations to the new problems of the contemporary world, especially in Latin America. Therefore he had to move ahead although he was convinced that “Marxism is the only way to go and to go beyond Marx” (21). His unquestionable condition of an organic Marxist made him a paradigm for the new Marxist generations of Latin America.
Outstanding in the ranks of Marxism during the thirties, was the Argentine, Anibal Ponce (1898-1938) who had left behind positivism and, from the field of psychology, basically as university professor he placed greater attention in humanism, that was a common position of other contemporary Marxists with a Latin American philosophical view point. (22)
The work of Anibal Ponce is one of the most thorough in the direction of materialism and progressivism that arose in the Argentina of the previous century and reached is peak with José Ingenieros (23). Although his starting point was psychology, he delved into the fields of ethics, esthetics, sociology, historical philosophy and education with a definitely Marxist perspective, especially of the latter twenties; more so in Mexico where he lived his last years of life.
The battles Ponce waged in favor of Marxism did not only deal with purely social or political questions; instead he tried to offer the validity of a dialectic-materialist method in the nature of things. He recalled that Marx and Engels, for reasons of a political battle, understood that they had paid little attention to other spheres of biology, philosophy and art (24).
Although the previous scholars were the most important precursors, each Latin American country has theirs who, at different times, began the study, spreading the information and using Marxism, primarily to understand their corresponding national reality; as well as the study of the most varied general questions of an economic and social philosophy.
III. Continuators
Since the thirties a series of important events took place, such as the rise of fascism that began the Second World War and that would have great importance in the path of international communist movement and that would leave its mark in the development of Marxism in Latin America.
The policy of the III International or Communist International on recently created Latin American communist parties was followed by these first Marxists during the twenties at a time of position of class against class positions that rejected any alliance with any socialist tendency that did not accept the dictatorship of the proletariat (25).
Later, and since the thirties, a fundamental turn occurred towards creating anti-fascist popular fronts that included all the progressive forces. Some of these forces managed to take power as in France and Chile (26) producing renewed debates within Marxist thought.
But the particularities of Marxist development in Latin America did not depend simply on the influences that came over from Europe, although these had an important role. Above all, due to the degree of maturity that reached the contradictions among Latin American countries and the imperialist powers, basically with the United States as well as the national oligarchies – that even copied fascist methods – the budding national bourgeoisie and the popular masses.
During the thirties the Latin American Marxists considered new tasks. It was possible for the working class to take power as was observed in the battle against Machado in Cuba, the 1932 popular uprising in El Salvador, the attempt to set up a socialist republic in Chile, the Brazilian revolution of 1935, etc. These events always had an active participation of the communists.
In Peru, Marxism and very specially the thoughts of Mariátegui although, for several years, viewed with suspicion by the communist party had immediate continuity in Hildebrando Castro Pozo (1890-1945) also concerned about the proper treatment that materialist interpretation of history should have over the specific socioeconomic problematic of the Andean world and, in particular, the question of the Native Indian, expressed in his books: Nuestra comunidad indigena (Our aboriginal community) (1924) and Del ayllu al ccopertivismo (From the ayllu to Cooperativism) (1936).
Ricardo Martínez de la Torre worked in this direction as seen in his book: Apuntes para una interpretación marxista de la historia social del Perú (1935-1949) (Notes for a Marxist interpretation of social history in Peru) where he makes a careful study of class struggle and the anti-clerical and anti-imperialist positions in that country.
Victorio Codovilla (1894‑1970) and Alfredo L. Palacios(1880‑1966) were outstanding Marxist figures. The former arrived in Argentina in 1912 and, at first, joined the socialist party. Later he took the Stalinist line of the communist part and the so-called “orthodox” position of Marxism-Leninism. He did broad work as a political polemicist, especially against Peronist nationalism and against imperialist penetration in Latin America.
Codovilla’s misunderstanding of the Peronist movement allied him to the oligarchy to confront what he considered was a version of fascism.
From the thirties, Marxism in Latin America would be marked b the difference between the line of the recently founded communist parties that adopted the guidance of the Komintern (III International) – in the hands of Stalin until their dissolution during the II World War – and their theoretical basis on Marxist-Leninist doctrine, considered the only scientific interpretation of the work of Marx, Engels and Lenin against those considered by Moscow as traitors, revisionists, enemies of Marxism, etc. They included many Marxists and Leninists such as the Trotskyists and some socialists who confronted the concepts and policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
The philosophical expression “official” – understood to mean that following the Soviet line –, of the Argentine communist party was in the hands of Emilio Troise in his book Materialismo dialectico (1938)(Dialectic Materialism) where he identifies with Bujarin, Rosental and Stalin. He also put forward the theory of Marxism as a philosophical practice following identifying with the Italian, Antionio Labriolo.
Alfredo Palacios was against the Stalinist line and the Soviet version of socialism. He achieved prestige as the first socialist deputy of his country and well-known university law professor. However, his books dealt with political, philosophical, literary subjects, etc. He placed special attention on ideas about socialism, individual freedoms in that society (27) and the role of the working class, the battle for sovereignty and against imperialism.
From his philosophical position he tried to link socialist ideas with the best of liberal thought and noted the role of spiritual factors opposing economical interpretations of Marxism. He developed these ideas in his books El socialismo argentino y las reformas penales (1934), La defensa del valor humano (1939) (The defense of human values), En defensa de la libertad (1944) (In defense of freedom), La justicia social (1953)(Social justice) and Liberalismo económico (1959) (Economic liberalism), among others.
He dealt with the question of historical battles of the peoples of Latin America against the various forms of domination in his books Masas y élites en Iberoamérica (1960) (Masses and elite in Ibero-America and in Nuestra América y el imperialismo (1961) (Our America and imperialism). His open identification with the Cuban Revolution gave him confidence that socialism can be implanted in these lands under its own characteristics, as he wrote in his book Una Revolución Auténtica (An authentic Revolution) after his visit to Cuba.
In Argentina Marxist thought had expression in the brothers Rodolfo and Américo Ghioldi who, from the “Karl Marx” Center of Studies founded in 1912 (28), confronted liberal-bourgeois interpretations of Marxism.
Américo Ghioldi studied the specific aspects of socialist ideas in his country in his article El socialismo en la evolución nacional (1946) (Socialism in national evolution) and broadened his analysis in the general history of Marxism in his book, Marxismo, socialismo, izquierda, comunismo y la realidad argentina de hoy (1950) (Marxism, socialism, the left, communism and current Argentine reality). In the referred writing he assumed a critical perspective of the ultra-left sharing with the moderate socialist ideas of Henry Lefevre. Américo Ghioldi was also noted in his analyzes on pedagogical subjects and Argentine history.
Marxist thought in that country – mainly in the academic field – with special outstanding mention during the forties of Rodolfo Mondolfo (1877), historian of the philosophy that tried to rescue Marxism from the distortion of “official Marxism” in his books Marx y marxismo (Marx and Marxism)(1960) and El humanismo de Marx (1964) (The humanism of Marx) where he insists on the crucial element of Marxist philosophy defining it as realist and historical reality (29) as well as the role of practice. For him “ the dialectics of history is the dialectics of human praxis” (30) that can only be achieved through a deep change in conscience and the spiritual life of society and not merely with economic transformations.
The Argentine Silvio Frondizi (1907-1974) was a Marxist skeptic and founder of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolutionaria (Left Revolutionary Movement) opposed both the Stalinism of the communist party and social democracy reformism. He was one of the victims of the dictatorship. In life he achieved great prestige as university professor and author of the books: La integración mundial del capitalismo (World Integration of capitalism)(1947), El estado moderno (The modern state) (1954), La realidad argentina (The Argentine reality) (1956), La revolución cubana: su significación histórica (The Cuban revolution: its historical importance) (1961), Teorías políticas contemporáneas (Current political theories) (1965) y El materialismo dialéctico (Dialectic materialism) (1966).
By the end of the fifties he was convinced that Latin America had conditions for a socialist revolution but there were still some subjective conditions lacking and the main problem was unity among the masses, party and direction (31). He also defended the opinion that socialism, above all, would have to “insure for man political and spiritual freedom” (32).
The confrontation of Marxism with other philosophical currents in Latin American intellectual environment during the middle of the 20th century. It had one of its best expressions in the controversy concerning implanting in Mexico of a socialist education in the early thirties that included the Marxist Vicente Lombardo Toldedano (1894-1968) and the philosopher Antonio Caso, well-known representative of intuitionism and voluntarism.
He learned of Marxism through literature from the Soviet Union. Some of his critics (33) object that his Marxism never went beyond being “a vague materialistic philosophy” with a mechanistic concept of the objective laws of the world where subjective action was not sufficiently supported. Also his concept of the stage of historical development advising first to promote capitalist development and later move on to socialism led him to a form collaboration with some governments and a corporative concept of state; criticized by other Mexican Marxists.
Lombardo became a well known leader of the workers with great influence in all of Latin America and whose reformism was set down considering union struggles a means first, to promote bourgeois and national transformations (34) with negative consequences for the revolutionary movement that evolved into confrontations with the communist parties of the region (35) and other Marxist representatives of the area.
The confrontation between the different interpretations of Marxism gradually became more common in the Latin American milieu with the incorporation of Trotskyism and specially more during the time Leon Trotsky was in Mexico until his assassination in 1940. Until the last Trotsky recommended the Latin American proletariat to make their prospects for the future a reality through a permanent revolution and not wait for the emancipation of the developed countries to take up their own battle (36)
Trotskyist leaders appear in Latin America constructing movements and currents within world Marxist philosophies such as the Argentine worker, J. Posadas (1911-1981) who described Peronism as a kind of bourgeois nationalist movement with a proletariat base that knew how to fill the spaces left by communist movement. At the time he described Libya, Chile and Nicaragua as revolutionary states but considering of utmost importance to move from revolutionary nationalism to socialism. His original theory of partial regeneration as a phase of political revolution in the defunct USSR placed him in the ranks of Trotskyists.
Another important leader of that position was the Argentine Nahuel Moreno who studied the phenomenon of unequal and combined development in Latin American space.
Both in these cases as in the one of the Bolivian Guillermo Lora, his Trotskyist ideas were characterized by a mark unionism in all his political proposals and theoretical reflections.
The criticisms of Stalinism and his followers within the Latin American communist parties by the Trotskyists and other Marxists opposed to the concepts and practice of “real socialism” paved the way for the early appearance of several tendencies in Latin American Marxism such as Trotskyism, a form of academic Marxism, Marxism-Leninism in its Soviet version that later moved towards being pro-Chinese, pro-Albanian, pro-Cuban, etc.
On the one hand, what was known as the Marxist-Leninist interpretation was imposed identifying all theoretical production and political practice derived from the Soviet Union. After the II World War and with the rise of East European socialist states its radius of action was broader.
On the other hand, intellectuals of Marxist orientation, not always linked the communist parties of the region and who looked with certain appreciation some Marxist interpretations that began to appear in the western world.
Marxism began to gain acceptance gradually not only among political leaders but among important intellectuals and artists such as the Mexican painter, Diego Rivera, poets and writer like the Peruvian Cesar Vallejo, the Chilean Pablo Neruda, the Mexican José Revueltas and the Cubans Nicolás Guillén and Juan Marinello as well as other personalities of Latin American culture.
But, undoubtedly, the revelations of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956 about the crimes of Stalin and other great errors of Soviet policy importantly shook many Latin American Marxists. “The XX Congress of the USSR CP exposes and abandons many. Some understand and continue, others adjust and also continue, others withdraw but do not betray, simply shrugging their shoulders, turn around and never return” (37).
Among those affected by this process is the Mexican writer, José Revueltas (1914‑1976). In addition to important novels he wrote several works on historical problems such as La revolución mexicana y el proletariado (1938) (The Mexican revolution and the proletariat). But the most important was his book entitled Ensayo sobre un proletariado sin cabeza (1962) (Essay on the headless proletariat) published after his break with the communist party of his country, maintaining the historical non existence of a party of the workers in Mexico. Although he continues his defense of Marxism-Leninism he would continue to be, in the future, the ideological guide of the working class (38) but not the Stalinist version that he had agreed with before.
The reflections Revueltas makes on humanism found in Marxism and the critique of the several forms of alienation bred by capitalism, also expressed in his writings eventually moved to one of the subjects that garnered most attention in Marxist though in Latin America during the sixties.
After the October Revolution of 1917 all political and intellectual movements born in Latin America, necessarily had to take this important event into consideration for contemporary history. It was logical to find that some revolutionary processes that appeared in Latin America – such as the campesino uprising in El Salvador in 1932, the Cuban Revolution in 1959 or the Sandinist Revolution found it necessary to define their position in face of the options socialism presented, not only as an idea, but also as a project already in practice.
The incorporation of schemes of the Russian Revolution into Latin American reality was observed with the first attempts to create soviets in Cuba and other countries in the area. However, all the failures of Latin American revolutionary movement were due to accept guidance from the Comintern (39).
The Salvadoran Farabundo Marti (1893-1932), founder of the Central American Communist Party and collaborator of Augusto Cesar Sandino who he tried to introduce to socialism, was one of the best exponents of the incorporation of Marxist ideas in revolutionary processes in the region of the time (40). Together with Mella who heads the list of the first martyr of those ideas and Marxist practice in Latin America (41).
Another representative of this move was the Brazilian Luis Carlos Prestes (1898) important revolutionary officer, referred to as “the Gentleman of hope” who headed an anti-oligarchic movement and later became the leader of the communist party in his country. The history of Marxism in the Brazil of the sixties was linked to the political work Prestes carried out. However, he wasn’t so well known for his intellectual work as for his organizational work. His position was identified with the Soviet Union and after the war he was recognized as the principal representative of the concepts that came from this country on socialism and Marxism.
The Brazilian historian Caio Prado Junior (1907) achieved higher recognition in the intellectual sphere. Although he was a militant of the communist party, he did not identify with the so-called orthodox line of Marxism, especially due to his disagreement of copying the European scheme on means of production to Brazilian history. He opposed the idea of feudalism in Latin America because the economy in that region was always oriented towards the capitalist market.
His book, La revolución brasileña (The Brazilian Revolution)(1966) was an attempt to formulate revolutionary strategy in correspondence with the historical features of his country, a task he recommended all Latin American Marxists. A recommendation that wasn’t always considered.
Another Brazilian Marxist intellectual, Nelson Werneck Sodré (1911) who concentrated his studies on the historical development of his country from a Marxist perspective. His book, Evolución política de Brasil: ensayo de interpretación materialista de la historia brasileña (Brazilian political evolution: study of a materialist interpretation of Brazilian history) (1933) and later, his Historical formation of Brazil (1962) are examples of his work. He also delved in philosophical subjects of esthetic, ethical and ideological character such as racism, modernization, forms of colonialism and other political subjects reflected in his books Oficio de escritor: dialéctica de la literatura (A writer’s trade: dialectics of literature)(1965) and in Historia de la burguesía brasileña (History of the Brazilian bourgeoisie (1967).
This task of historical interpretation of socioeconomic movement in Latin America became a common denominator in many Latin American Marxists. This is observed in Economía de la sociedad colonial (Economy of colonial society) (1949) by the Argentine Sergio Bagú who also confronts the consideration of feudalism in Latin America. The sociological, economic and historical work by Bagú achieves a philosophical dimension in his book Tiempo, realidad, social y conocimiento (Time, reality, social and knowledge)(1970). Also, the Cuban Carlos Rafael Rodríguez in El marxismo y la historia de Cuba (Marxism and the history of Cuba)(1944) differentiated Marxism, during the forties, with its economic distortions (42).
Similar work is observed in Colombia in the extensive work of professor Antonio García (1912) on economy and history of his country (43) also in Colombia: país formal y país real (Colombia, formal and real country) (1963) by the revolutionary Diego Montaña Cuellar Tantouno, also, in the same direction the book by Luis Eduardo Nieto Arteta, Economía y cultura en la historia de Colombia (Economy and culture in Colombian history) (1942). These chose Marxism as a necessary instrument to study that country (44). They received academic prestige for their investigations and for their political adversaries.
Added to these is Gerardo Molina, who was one of the founders of the Marxist Group of Bogota in 1933 (45) and directed his attention to the study of socialist and liberal ideas in his country. A wing of the Liberal Party had, since the beginning, a socialist proposal. However, this does not mean that Molina was, in fact, a Marxist.
An important place for Marxist ideas in Colombia is for the popular leader, Jorge Eliezer Gaytán, an admirer of the Russian Revolution and who, in 1924, graduated with a thesis on Socialist Ideas in Colombia. His political and academic work was cut off in 1948 when he was assassinated. This act caused an important popular insurrection in the life of the country known as El Bogotazo.
Although Gaytán “was not a scientific socialist, he accepted the cardinal theses of Marxism, of the materialistic interpretation of history, the class struggle, the contradiction between social production and private ownership and the role of the state as representative of the favored groups”. (46)
In Bolivia Marxism began to spread during the twenties and the intellectual and political work of Jose Antonio Arze y Arze (1904‑1955), was instrumental in this task. His work on Marxist philosophy and sociology, is noted for an encyclopedic intention that is his contribution to the dialectic classification in science (47). These appear in his Problemática general de las ciencias, de la sociología y del marxismo (General problematic in sciences, sociology and Marxism (1949) as well as the numerous conferences he offered in several Latin American universities and the United Status.
Perhaps one of the main contributions have been an attempt to systematize the state of sociological investigations in Marxist perspective in his extensive work, Sociología marxista (Marxist sociology) (1963) about Bolivian and Latin American reality (48)
Ricardo Anaya was another personality who gained renown in an academic life as professor of law as well as in his political life as founder, in 1940, of the Partido de Izquierda Revolucionario (Left Revolutionary Party). He is the author of Derecho penal y marxismo (Penal law and Marxism) (1943) and Nacionalización de las minas en Bolivia (Nationalization of mines in Bolivia) (1952) that is his most important work.
Continuator of the work linking the study of Marxism with the demands of a socioeconomic reality and especially ethnicity in Bolivia has been Arturo Urdiqui, author of La comunidad indígena (The indigenous community) (1951). It is important to note the attention Bolivian Marxists gave the indigenous question in works such as La cuestión del indio (The Indian question) by Abelardo Villapando and Derecho agrario indígena en Bolivia (Indigenous agrarian law in Bolivia) by Miguel Bonifaz
Gustavo Adolfo Navarro (1898) also gave attention to this situation. He is better known by his pseudonym, Tristán Marof, who reached great prestige as a revolutionary leader in that country. His intellectual activity is observed in works such as La justicia del inca (Justice of the Inca) (1926), La tragedia del altiplano (The tragedy of the altiplano) (1934) and La verdad socialista en Bolivia (Socialist truth in Bolivia) (1938). These works are proof of his concern over specific problems of national reality such as the case of the Trotskyist, Guillermo Lora. It was logical that the Indian problem should receive special treatment by the Bolivian Marxists who admired the ideas of Mariátegui on this issue and because it was one of the main problems of that country.
An important event in the history of Marxism in Bolivia, that is also present in other Latin American countries, is the fact that it was used by many intellectuals and politicians not bound to communist parties; and the Trotskyist movement that has been so important in the Bolivian worker’s movement. Many who took part in what was known as the April Revolution of 1952 and linked to the National Revolutionary Movement have relied on Marxism as a valuable epistemic instrument to understand Bolivian reality.
In the case of Chile, the early work of Recabarren was continued by Luis Vitale, Volodia Teitelboim, Luis Corvalán and Clodomiro Almeida, among others.
The Argentine Luis Vitale (1927) has dedicated his studies to the history of Chile, as well as the problems of industrial and agrarian development under imperialist pressure. He maintains the thesis that the need of international characteristic for a socialist revolution is in correspondence with Marxist classics for it to be successful.
Vitale carefully analyzed the experiences of the popular front in Chile in 1932 for the preparation of a new victory of the left forces as occurred with the attainment of power by the Popular Unity between the years of 1970 to 1973.
For his part, Volodia Teitelboim (1916) achieved prestige as a writer with his well-known work, El amanecer del capitalismo y la conquista de América (The dawn of capitalism and the conquest of America (1943) that has received widespread acclaim.
His literary activity has been very significant insisting in the humanist characteristic of Marxism and socialism.
The leader of the communist party, Luis Corvalán (1916) systematically dealt with the possibility of a peaceful taking of political power in his analysis Nuestra vía revolucionaria (Our revolutionary route)(1964) where he insisted on not copying the formula of the Cuban Revolution.
The professor of social sciences Clodomira Almeida (1923) revealed his potentiality as an analyst in Hacia una teoría marxista del Estado (Towards a Marxist theory of State) (1948), identifying Leninist criteria of the issue and his opinion of the particularities of Chilean political life. His analysis of Latin American revolutionary processes and, in general, about the formation of vanguards (49) is proof of his contributions to the development of Marxism in this region.
The analysis of taking political power peacefully or by force has been very present in Latin American Marxist thought, in general, but very specially in Chile as can be observed in his book, Los problemas del socialismo contemporáneo (The problems of contemporary socialism) (1961) by Oscar Waiss. Another subject of great interest for this author has been freedom of intellectual creation in socialism.
The work of Salvador Allende (1908-1973) and his struggles to achieve socialism by peaceful means in Chile, crowned by the triumph of Popular Unity in 1970, is inscribed as one of the most relevant pages of the left battles and Marxist ideas in the current century. Allende used Marxism as a means of historical interpretation of his reality, (50 but opposed using the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin as a catechism and not as a weapon for social transformation.
The experience of the defeat of the Popular Unity government in Chile and instauration of a fascist dictatorship in that country was a serious blow for the Latin American left that has garnered important experiences. The Marxists ratified their convictions that a revolutionary process that does not prepare to defend its conquests by all means possible, including armed struggle, cannot survive.
In Uruguay Marxist ideas began to spread in 1904 through the Centro de Estudios Carlos Marx (Center of Kart Marx Studies) created by Emilio Frugoni(1880‑1969). His socialist ideas, also inspired of the ideas of Marti radicalized with the Russian Revolution.
In his books La revolución del machete: panorama político del Uruguay (The machete revolution, political scenario of Uruguay) (1935) and Ensayos sobre marxismo (Appraisal of Marxism) (1936) reveals both his use of historical materialism to understand the socioeconomic and political evolution in his country, as his interest for issues related to the ideological aspects of class struggle and the role of spiritual factors that should be thought of through a materialistic concept of history.
Although considered a disciple of Marx he insisted that socialism is not an exclusive product of Marx (51) and that the struggle for socialism should not be understood as a war of classes since it does not battle individuals, but against institutions and the classes that represent them. Due to this position he is considered a moderate Marxist.
In his later work, Génesis, esencia y fundamentos del socialismo (Genesis, essence and basis of socialism) (1947) he made an analysis of this ideology and its link with the Latin American context, considering the intents of considering socialism with the projects of the Mexican revolution, Aprism, that was spreading at the time in other Latin American countries.
Another example that Uruguayan Marxist place greater emphasis in investigating history and present of their country to transform it was the work of Francisco Pintos (1880‑1968), author of Historia de Uruguay 1851‑1938: Ensayo de interpretación materialista (History of Uruguay 1851-1938: Appraisal of materialist interpretation) (1946), Batlle y el proceso histórico (Batlle and the historical process) (1960), Historia del movimiento obrero del Uruguay (History of the workers movement in Uruguay)(1960) and Ubicación de Artigas (Position of Artigas) (1965).
But undoubtedly, the most relevant Marxist of that country was Rodney Arismendy (1913) because of this long work in his country’s communist party and the intellectual work he maintained in defense of Marxism. His work La filosofía del marxismo y el Señor Haya de la Torre (The philosophy of Marxism and Mr. Haya de la Torre) (1946) where he maintained that “Marxism does not appear, and consequently, “never as a ‘universal and closed system’. It cannot be” (52)
In his most well known book, Problemas de una revolución continental (Problems for a continental revolution) (1963), as well as in other writings he battled against dogmatic interpretations that were common. He expressed that: “Aware of anti-dogmatic and creative content of Marxism and Leninism, we indiscriminately refer to the thoughts of Marx, Engels and Lenin, or the term Marxism-Leninism. The term Marxism-Leninism was coined after the death of Lenin. The fact that it was used certain times in our history with dogmatic inferences, is not sufficient reason to deny its essence, Marxist and Leninist, specifically anti-dogmatic”(53).
This corresponds to his concept of the stimulation the Marxist party should exert on free intellectual and artistic creation (54) both with its militants and intellectuals, in general, because of the significant role in the promotion of a revolutionary ideology. In this sense, the influence of Gramsci was also very marked in Arismendi.
The communist parties always tried to develop a policy of rapprochement towards the most noted intellectuals in their country. In many cases they achieved it and often they joined the party ranks. But, also, many Latin American Marxists expressed their differences with the communist parties on tactical characters in political battles of the left as well as deeper issues on what socialism should be.
Generally the communist parties in Latin America were formed with militants of proletariat background hating class oriented capitalist exploitation and, at times, with a scarce knowledge of the ideas of the classic Marxists. There ideas were also permeated with anarchic-union elements and by new modalities of social-democratic though and by some philosophical positions that were not precisely Marxist, although ideologically they shared revolutionary and socialist ideas.
Cuba was no exception. However, some intellectuals were more linked than others to the Communist Party. Rubén Martínez Villena, Juan Marinello, Alejo Carpentier, Carlos Rafael Rodríguez, José Antonio Portuondo, Sergio Aguirre, Julio Le Riverend, Raúl Roa occupy their rightful place in the history of Marxist ideas in the Island.
When the cultural level of many party cadres of worker extraction, also noteworthy for their theoretic preparation such as the cases of Blas Roca, Gaspar Jorge García Galló, and Salvador García Agüero. This cultural advancement made for the communists to be more renowned as political leaders and personalities in the intellectual life of the country.
This became a regular cultural and political environment in Latin America.
IV. The Cuban Revolution and Marxism in Latin America.
The triumph of the Cuban Revolution represented not only a new stage in the development of social struggles of the Latin American peoples but also a new stage in the development of Marxism in the region. The proclamation of the socialist character of the revolution was extraordinarily significant for this process in correspondence with new international situations that gave socialism and Marxism a different aspect for the contemporary world since the convulsive sixties.
The socialist orientation of the Cuban Revolution was not due to the fact that communists had taken power as Victor Alba and others claim (55) or that, due to United States hostility, it was forced into the arms of the Soviet Union (56) completely ignoring the internal factors that definitely influenced the route of the Revolution.
One of the main battles against Marxism developed, precisely, in relation to the question of why the socialist character of this Revolution and its acceptance or not of the fundamental theories in vogue at the time, of the so-called, Marxism-Leninism about socialist revolutions.
There has been considerable emphasis to consider the Cuban Revolution as a phenomenon absolutely exceptional, an exclusive product of mysticism and will of a charismatic leader. Many other distortions tend to deny the objective regularities that make the Cuban revolutionary process a phenomenon that confirms the materialist concept of history put forward by Marxism and, at the same time, are enriched.
Fidel Castro (1926) is considered not only the principal leader of a socialist revolution ideologically proclaimed as Marxist-Leninist, but the promoter of many theories supporting the development of Marxist theories under the new circumstances, to such an extent that, even the scholars of Marxism, admit the existence of a current they call Castroism as also Guevaraism referring to the ideas of Fidel Castro and Ernesto Guevara, respectively, as well as those leaders and intellectuals who have taken up the orientation of this perspective (57).
The ideas of Fidel that refer to the manner of class struggle, social revolution, national independence, strategy to assume political power, democracy of socialism, the relationship between party, government and institutions of civil society, internationalism (58), new international economic order (59), challenges of scientific and technological development for the Third World (60), the role of ethical factors in the construction of a new society (61), human rights (62), union between Marxism and religion (63) and multiple problems about the theory of ideology and Marxism (64), etc. are some examples of the subject that have been object of his theoretical reflections.
The Cuban leader, as well as the founders of Marxism, has not stopped to write a text where his dialectical-materialist concept of the world is set down. They have been said in each situation and defined in the different ideological struggles he has waged during the four decades in his battle for socialism.
In his defense of the universal validity of Marxist principles he has known how harmoniously link the tradition of struggle in the history of the Cuban revolution and especially the work of Marti (65) not forcing what could be considered adulterations of the thoughts and actions of the Cuban national hero. Quite the contrary, taking him as a paradigm of practical-revolutionary humanism and Latin American anti-imperialism.
The intellectual and revolutionary work of Ernesto Guevara (1927-1967) although not only referring to the time he spent in Cuba, is undoubtedly organically joined to the Cuban Revolution and his internationalist beliefs and of which he was a paradigm.
Che observed and criticized “scholasticism that has halted development of Marxist theory”(66) and the insufficiencies in the construction of socialism by those who underestimate ethical-ideological formation and the men who call for that society and today, after the fall of the so-called “real socialism” find out perhaps too late, about those insufficiencies. That is why Armando Hart considers that “Che must be considered as one of the main precursors of the need for revolutionary changes in socialism. Since the early sixties he observed the problems of socialism as no one else” (67).
When Che arrived at the excesses of material stimuli in the construction of a socialist society he was also with the backpack in defense of Marxism because he was convinced of the terrible consequences if these were not used adequately (68).
The intellectual work of Che was unfurled in many spheres, from questions related to ethics, culture, formation of a new man (69), the problems of building socialism and consumerism (70) and many issues of a philosophical nature (73) such as alienation, materialistic concept of history, etc.
His live, thoughts and action are one of the most exemplary expressions of a dialectic organic unity and adequate Marxist analysis in the use of weapons of criticism and criticism of weapons.
The Cuban Revolution has had other officials, such as Carlos Rafael Rodríguez and Armando Hart, in the significant theoretic task in the history of Marxist thought. The intellectual Marxist development in Cuba since the triumph of the Revolution has risen considerable in spite of relative stagnation in some spheres of social sciences, whose causes and consequences now are being researched.
V. Marxism in the last decades of the 20th century in Latin America
The development of Marxism in Latin America would be marked since the sixties because of the revolutionary example of the Cuban process to date and very especially after the crisis of “real socialism”.
At the same time political movements, the rise of guerrilla battles, workers struggles, social movements, students, indigenous struggles, etc. as well as the cultural movement of confrontation with the ideological manipulation of the developed capitalist countries, in particular with the United States, were related to the first country in the western hemisphere to undertake and continue to have as an objective the construction of socialism in such difficult situations.
Added to this are world events that, in the contradictory sixties, marked the civil rights struggle in the United States, the youth movements in Western Europe, the increased de-colonization in Africa, Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia, the strengthening of the war in Southeast Asia, the Cultural Revolution in China and the incidence of Maoism in Latin America. All these factors had their effect on the polarization of conflicts in the political world of Latin America.
On the other hand, the course of philosophical critiques arising to several degrees, at times trying to link Marxism to Sartrian existentialism and other times attempting to substitute it with a neo-positivist, neo-thomism philosophy, etc. placed Marxism at the center of the intellectual debate.
This period coincided with the rise of academic prestige of Marxism in Latin American universities and its predominance even in many areas of social sciences. However, this acknowledgement not always corresponded to an increase in theoretic analytical depth because an extraordinary simplicity occurred in an attempt to spread the economic and political philosophical theory of Marxism and of its teaching and the proliferation of mostly Soviet prepared teaching texts.
The move in Latin American intellectual spheres of some of the controversies of the forties and fifties began to appear at the core of what was called “western Marxism” (74) as opposed to Marxism-Leninism that came from Soviet-bloc positions of philosophical, ethical and esthetic themes that increased in the environment of Marxist development in Latin America.
Prior to this, there were some attempts to find a link between existentialism and Marxism such as with Carlos Astrada (1894-1975) in Argentina with his books El marxismo y las escatologías (Marxism and eschatology (1957) where he stresses the humanist character of Marxism (75) as well as in Humanismo y dialéctica de la libertad (Humanism and dialectics in freedom (1960).
Also during that period the works of the important Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci (76) first appearing in that country, spread to all the Latin American countries thanks to the work of divulgation of Héctor Agosti and José Aricó. The latter published Marx y América Latina (Marx and Latin America) (1980) and La cola del diablo. Itineriario de Gramsci en América Latina (The devil’s tail. Itinerary of Gramsci in Latin America (1988) in which he analyzes the vicissitudes of Gramsci thought in this region (77).
It was in Argentina where the process of recognition of the intellectual value of Gramscian thought began and its enriching significance on Marxism (78). This task was further aided by Carlos Portantiero (79) and Oscar Teran. The latter analyzed in depth the work of Mariátegui (80) and the general development of Marxism in Latin America.
Portantiero came to some conclusions after the fall of “real Socialism” some of which refer to the task of socialism is to oppose ethically and politically both State tyranny and marketing, proposing a view of society and policy where the dimension of the population can be recovered (81).
The revolutionary sectors of Peronism sought, in Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky and Gramsci a Marxist support in its origin and future. The reception of the philosophy of Gramsci with his concern over the role of the intellectuals, the importance of culture, art, religion, the State, civil society, the different ideological forms in the development of a socialist society as well as the need for an articulation of new forms of class struggle and the role of a Marxist party in its relationship with the working class have brought forth valuable and productive controversies in Latin American intellectuality for the past three decades (82).
The ideas of the French philosopher, Louis Althusser, confronting the ruling Marxist dogmatism, tried, from a structural perspective, to vindicate the scientific character of the mature Works of Marx and occupied a greater attention in Marxist thought in Latin America during the latter part of the sixties. Althausser, relying on the French epistemology of his time thought to underestimate the Marxist concepts of alienation, fetishism, among others of his works as an ideology and, consequently, anti-scientific. His interpretation of the materialist concept of history contributed strongly in the work of the Chilean Marxist Marta Harnecker in her book, Los conceptos elementales del materialismo histórico (The basic concepts of historical materialism) (1969) whose multiple editions influenced many left wing militants who began their development in Marxism during the past three decades.
In her later work, Marta has dealt on the political theory of Marxism as evidenced in her books La revolution social. Lenin y América Latina (The social revolution. Lenin and Latin America) (1985) and in Estrategia y táctica (Strategy and tactics) (1985), as well as in Enemigos, aliados y frente político (Enemies, allies and political front) (1986). She has gone deeply into the experience of the Cuban Revolution and the political and revolutionary movements in Latin America. Her most recent research has dealt with the forms of local governments of popular participation. From this work she has made conclusions over democracy in the region.
Althusserianism as an attempt to re-vindicate the scientific character of “mature Marxism” during this first stage (1963-1966) – in contrast to the marked humanism of his earlier works – has been interpreted and criticized as theorist or scientism. Later, in his self-critical stage during the seventies he fell to practicist positions (83), causing broad debates in Latin American Marxism until recently.
Regarding the reception of Althusserism in Mexico, there was participation of Raúl Olmedo, Cesáreo Morales, Alberto Híjar, Carlos Pereyra Bodrini and José P. Miranda among others for whom Marxist science was waiting to be made and that the true philosophy of Marx was in The Capital (84). As well as Enrique González Rojo who published Para leer a Althusser y La concepción científica de la historia. Among the strongest critics of Althusser in Mexico was the Spaniard Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez (1915) who settled in that country with a prestigious group of intellectuals who emigrated when the Spanish Republic fell and has played an important role in Latin American culture, primarily, in philosophy.
In his criticism of Althusserism he maintained: “Certainly, it is in relation to practice, to revolutionary movements where Marxism is tested: as a science that serves the revolution and a science that feeds on it. Whether it is reduced to an ‘academic’ Marxism or to a simple practicism or tacticism, it does not serve the revolution nor does the revolution use it (85).
Sánchez Vázquez who was originally formed in traditional Marxism-Leninism did important work, together with Wenceslao Roces, an important task of translation to Spanish of some of the classic Marxist classics. Gradually he moved towards a position criticizing the predominant interpretation of dialectic materialism as a philosophy of Marxism.
He moved towards an understanding of Marxism as a philosophy of praxis complementing the positions of the Italian Marxist of the 19th century, Antonio Labriola, of Gramsci as well as other critics of what was called orthodox Marxism. This movement included the Czech philosopher, Karel Kosik, author of Dialectic of the concrete, banned by Stalinism and the Yugoslav group, Praxis where Gajo Petrovic stood out.
The most important work of Sánchez Vázquez, Philosophy of praxis (1967) that was his doctoral thesis in the Autonomous University of Mexico he proposes a new determination of Marxism (86) that presupposes an anti-dogmatic position of this philosophy. He develops the idea of Marxism as a philosophy of praxis, not only independent of Gramsci but as a greater foundation from a materialist point of view. In this manner he develops an original interpretation of Marx from a new reading of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and the theses of Feuerbach.
Sánchez Vázquez has dealt, with well deserved prestige, in the field of Marxist Esthetics (1965) in Esthetics and Marxism (1970) as well as on critiques of structuralism and the reconstruction of the paradigm of socialism, mostly in such difficult moments as after the fall of the Soviet Union, maintaining a conscious defense of Marxism and socialism.
Gabriel Vargas Lozano maintains a similar position on the concept of Marxism as a philosophy of praxis. From the journal Dialéctica founded in 1976, for two decades he maintained a revitalization of Marxist thought through a permanent critical dialogue with western philosophy. The journal also includes the outstanding work of Roberto Hernández Oramas who paid homage to Marx on the centenary of his death. He also held theoretic seminars on Marxism and the philosophy of the 21st century and other debates with European, North American and Latin American Marxists on the work of Gramsci, Marxism in Latin America, etc.
The theoretic contributions of Gabriel Vargas Lozano are observed in Marx and his critique of philosophy (1984) and in Latin America as can be seen in ¿Qué hacer con la filosofía en América Latina? (What to do about philosophy in Latin America?) (1990). In recent years his attention was centered on the effects of the crisis of socialism and Marxism and the recovery of its validity in Más allá del derrumbre (After the fall) (1994) where he maintains that “Marxism, specifically the thoughts of Marx and the immense research made from the starting point of its revolutionary project, maintains its validity in a series of factors and has lost in others (87). Therefore the task of Marxists today consists in determining some and others. In his last years Vargas Lozano places his interest on political philosophy as well as the subjects of State, democracy, power, political ideology and development of philosophy in Mexico.
In Mexico, Marxism has also found recent intellectual representatives whose work goes beyond this country. This is the case of the sociologist and historian Pablo González Casanova(1922), considered a Marxist heterodox for opposing, also, the predominant interpretations of Marxism in the communist parties of the region.
However, today, when many Marxist deny their position and others indiscriminately attack Marxism-Leninism, González Casanova recognizes the value of much of the research done from this perspective that should not be ignored and maintains that: “Today we also make a mistake that, unfortunately, are made by those who converted Marxism more into a dogma than an instrument for reflection. We would be in error if we think that what they study is useless, a phenomenon that is occurring in Russia where they went from a deification of Lenin to destroying his statues” (88).
In his work on Democracy in Mexico (1965) he deals with this debated question that will currently be present in their concerns, as well as the subject of culture and intellectual creation, the relation of dependency of our countries regarding imperialism, the class structure of Latin American societies and the theory of exploitation.
Other Marxists who have been highly considered in that country for their intellectual work have been Eli de Gortari and Alonso Aguilar. The philosophical work of Eli de Gortari in his books, The dialectic method. Seven philosophical essays on modern science (1973), Logical dialectics (1980) and The method of sciences (1985) transcend the continent as seen in the frequent references by other researchers of his work. The most important theoretical contributions by the Mexican philosopher to Marxism has been in relation to the possibilities of the dialectical materialist method that, in his opinion, “is the synthesis, historical and systematical of the of the deductive method – the thesis – of the inductive method – the antithesis – and the contradiction between both” (89) and represents the process of scientific knowledge in its integrity and concretion. Eli de Gortari contributes important ideas on the relationship between science and historical conscience, where he recovers the role of development of sciences in Mexican historical conscience.
The work done by Alonso Aguilar in the field of economy and political theory is found in his books: Theory and politics of Latin American development (1967) as well as The Bourgeoisie, oligarchy and the state (1973) written with Jorge Carrión carefully analyzes the particularities of Latin American socio-economic formation, emphasizing the weak and dependent character of the national bourgeoisie. On economy the contributions of Héctor Guillén, Juan Castaings and Enrique de la Garza. The latter developed research on the Abstract method of The Capital.
There is no sphere in social sciences and philosophy in Mexico where researchers of Marxist formation have not dealt with. In this list we would have to include Carlos Pereyra Bodrinipor for his analyses on the individual in history; Arnaldo Córdoba and Francisco Piñón for their analyses of Gramsci; in Gramsci, at least, on philosophy and politics (1987) and other studies on presidentialism, structure of power in crisis (1965); Juan Mora Rubio on Hegel and Luis Salazar on Marxism and philosophy: a controversial horizon (1983).
Jaime Labastida with Production, science and society: From Descartes to Marx (1969); from the materialist theory of reflex (90) tried to explain the relationship between Cartesian philosophy and the means of capitalist production that boosted it. In later works he abandoned orthodox positions and in Marx today (1983) as well as in more recent works, after the debacle of real socialism, he questions what is valid and what is obsolete in Marxist theory (91).
Alberto Saladino has covered the analysis on Marxism and indianism, in which he reaches the conclusion that “progressive Latin American thought has to take advantage of the experiences of the early Marxists in general and confront the problem of the indigenous people as a particular question of circumstances of our countries; the fundamental task consists in recreating Marxism (92). He gives greater attention, later, to the subject of history in science in Latin America.
The subject of the national, agrarian question and campesino struggles attracted the attention of Armando Bartra in The heirs of Zapata; Post revolutionary campesino movements in Mexico (1920-1980); Luisa Parré in the Farming proletariat in Mexico (1977); Ana María Rivadeo with a doctoral thesis on Marxism and the nation and José Valenzuela in Mexican capitalism during the eighties (1986).
The criticism to the Soviet interpretation of Marxism appeared in several Mexican publications since the latter part of the sixties to the early seventies. In addition to Dialécticas were Cuadernos Politiocos and other publications of the ERA publishing house that promoted ideas of some Trotskyists, as well as journals of History and Society and Strategy that analyzes the development of monopolistic State capitalism from the perspective of theory of Mexican dependence. The works of Alonso Aguilar were outstanding.
Most Mexican Marxists have dedicated themselves to studying the specificity of economic, political and social relations of their country. Included among them is the sociologist Roger Bartraquien who studied the Agriarian structure and social classes in Mexico (1974) to demonstrate that there is no policy in that country to decide economic relations, but, quite the contrary (93) and particularly the power of the ruling classes. In the meantime, in his Marxism and ancient societies (1075) he reveals the first forms of class struggle and the particularities of what Marx considered “Asian means of production”. Useful to understand the original American societies (94). Later he covered the subject of the Campesinado and political power in Mexico (1982) where he analyzes the framework in which the class struggle is carried out in the fields of that country. However, in his later studies Bartras takes his distance from the Marxist perspective.
For his part, David Alvarez Saldaña demonstrates in Critique of economic and political theory in Mexico (1993) the particularities of incomplete Mexican capitalist formation and the origin of the productive process of the so-called Liberal State (95). Adrián Sotelo Valencia, for his part, poses for Mexico, dependence and modernization; that Mexican industrial re-conversion and technological modernization have led to a new dependent capitalist pattern, highly deficient, specialized in production for export. Under such adverse circumstances for socialism, these authors re-vindicate the need to continue searching for superior alternatives of capitalism (96).
Also outstanding in these tasks are the politologists Victor Rico Galán, Pablo Gómez and Arnoldo Martínez Verdugo, the latter in the direction of the communist party and, at the same time, developing a broad theoretic activity, specially in the journal, Memorias.
Lucio Oliver maintains a critical attitude towards capitalism and has delved in Marxist theory of State in his doctoral thesis, Critical study of concepts on capitalist State in Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx (1982). After considering that “real socialism” was nothing other than State socialism, he considers that “neither socialism nor revolution have disappeared from the horizon of the revolutionary struggles of humanity. But the new project would have to arise from the criticism of the state socialist experience of the 20th century and from the political life of the masses, linked to the development of an open and critical Marxism. There is no authorization, nos, to speak of delaying the socialist revolution “ (97). These are not very common theses, in most Latin American Marxist intellectual spheres during these nineties.
The subject of the crisis of capitalism, first, and socialism today, has sparked the interest of Enrique Semo author of The current crisis of capitalism (1977) and Chronicle of a fall (1991). Also, he has worked arduously on a significant preparation of a history of Mexico from a Marxist perspective. Sergio de la Peña has dealt with similar problems in The anti-development of Latin America, The formation of capitalism in Mexico and the Capitalist means of production, Theory and method of investigation (1978).
Although not all have assumed Marxist positions, there are those today who support it and who have been linked to revolutionary struggles and even been imprisoned. Among these is the Argentine Adolfo Gilly (1928) who, because of his revolutionary positions as militant of the Trotskyist IV International, has been expelled from many countries. He finally settled in Mexico where he carried out a significant intellectual and political task.
His main work, The interrupted revolution, Mexico 1910-1920 (1970) characterizes this process as a bourgeois revolution that, according to the theory of permanent revolution of Trotsky, did not continue towards a proletariat revolution.
His critique from a Marxist position to “real socialism” is expressed in his book Priests and burocrats (1980) considering a logical rejection, as also Sánchez Vázquez and other Latin American Marxists by the Soviets. In his book, Gilly considers that the controversy of the thirties on the impossibility of a socialist triumph in only one country was set aside, but not solved and, consequently it has to be dealt with today and return to the original thesis of Marx over the transition to socialism as a world process (98). A new revolutionary policy becomes necessary in the countries of “real socialism” to begin again a true march towards socialism.
Gilly later focuses his attention of the Latin American revolutionary movements in his books, The new Nicaragua (1980), War and politics in El Salvador (1981) and The path of the guerrilla (1986), among others.
In Mexico, other exiles contributed notable to the intellectual Marxist production such as the Ecuadorian, Agustín Cueva (1937‑1992), author of The process of political domination in Ecuador and The development of capitalism in Latin America (1977) where he studies the particularities of Latin American insertion in world capitalism from the original accumulation that has produced to strong relations of dependence of this region. From his opinion that “the masses make history, but they don’t write it (99) he regrets that researchers limit themselves to be “better prophets of the past than architects of the future (100), a function that would be more appropriate for the Marxists.
Eduardo Montes is noteworthy in his work of analysis and orientation of the class struggle in How to combat charrismo (1976). Meantime, in his later work, The left at the crossroads (1994) searches and proposes alternatives to overcome the crisis.
Bolívar Echeverría also an Ecuadorian makes an análisis in the field of economy. In his book, A critical discourse of Marx written in 1984, he explains that “it is possible to classify Marxists in to great groups: on the one part, those who – like dominating Marxism – are the result of an election-imposition that freezes or is petrified in one of the many forms and results of this substance that is, at the same time, multiform, the unequal and unfinished project of action and discourse that was Marx; it is a Marxism that adopts certain texts or actions by Marx as foundation, identical to themselves, with no conflict, on which they raise the theoretical-practical construction. On the other hand, there are Marxisms that are the result of a lesson that respects the unfinished search for unification connecting the several spontaneous outlines of identity found in Marx; the adoption of the main guides of his revolutionary project, since, because of its concrete universality and originality, it can be improved critically to link harmoniously the discourse of that multiple rebelliousness confronting capitalist history that, contrarily would be a babbling and contradictory form (…) of Marxism that seems able to be reborn from its present crisis that is its unorthodox tradition” (101). Stimulated by the perspective of a critical theory by the school of Frankfurt, he has given special interest on the question of modernism.
Thus, many Latin American Marxists moved forward their forecast of later consequences of the perestroika for “official” Marxism in an attempt to contain all the truths.
One of the Salvadorians who has left his mark in this Aztec country is Mario Salazar Valiente who analyzed socialism in his book, Jump to the kingdom of freedom? And other works.
In the same manner, the Peruvian Camilo Valqui Cacheen in his book, Marx lives. End of capitalism and real socialism (1991) with a permanent optimism who, in spite of the recent debacle of socialism, maintains “Marxism lives, a radical and revolutionary disourse that constitutes the greatest humanistic-scientific revolution today” (102).
The Argentine theologian and philosopher, Enrique Dussel, from a philosophy of liberation, has worked arduously, also in Mexico, in the study of Marxism in his books The theoretical production of Marx. Commentary of the Grundisse (1985) and Towards and unknown Marx. A comment of the manuscripts of 61-63 (1988). In this latte work he states that “continuing the theoretic discourse of Marx from Latin America, is not only applying it (that is a mistake because it was ‘open’ and ‘unfinished’ and discovering new possibilities from the praxis of national liberation of the people, from a logical position of the majority as subject of the history of liberation) is the task of a Philosophy of liberation”. (103)
The confluence of this current of Latin American philosophical thought with Marxist humanism are understandable (104 although the means to achieve them may be very different.
Today there are symptoms of recovery of the Marxist theoretical production under very adverse conditions when predominant ideological manipulation propagandizes fruitlessly that Marxism and socialism are obsolete issues. This task of re-vindication of the theory appeared early in 1998 in the journal, Democracy and Socialism edited by Eduardo Montessi with articles by a group of important Mexican Marxist intellectuals.
In the past few years, Marxist thought in Mexico is a hard task (105) due to its repercussion of the Mexican publication diffusion for the rest of the countries of the area and the historical prestige of intellectual production in that country, specially regarding philosophical ideas in the context of Latin American culture.
During the last decades of the century, Central America has had persons who have stood out in political life and through their intellectual work.
The Nicaraguan Revolution lead by the Sandinist National Liberation Front had, among its leaders, Marxists such as Carlos Fonseca Amador (1936-1976), Ricardo Morales Avilés (1939‑1973) and Tomás Borge.
Fonseca took a critical position against the traditional communist movement (106) from a Marxist point of view. It should be recalled that, in the case of Nicaragua, the communist party, instead of supporting the process of national liberation against the Somoza dictatorship thwarted it even after the Sandinist triumph.
Morales declared himself a Marxist and fighter for liberty that meant socialism. Although he did not consider himself an atheist (107) for embracing Marxism did not necessarily imply this condition, although he did confront religion as an ideological form of class struggle.
Borge, in spite of the defeat of Sandinism and “real socialism” maintained the validity of his trust in renovation of the socialist ideal and Marxism. In his words: “Socialism, in the end, is the creation of the new man, the citizen of the 21st century: a man horrified by commonplaces and arrogance, who understands freedom as something inherent in revolution, an enemy of the scheme and lover of heresy, critical and dreamer” (108).
Marxism in Nicaragua has been a permanent instrument of analysis by many prestigious Nicaraguan intellectuals such as Alejandro Serrano Caldera, Orlando Nuñez, Sergio Ramírez and others linked to Sandinism such as the former president, Daniel Ortega.
Alejandro Serrano has a broad theoretic production in the fields of philosophy and law where Marxism is revealed in specific works such as The permanence of Karl Marx (1983) in which he maintains that Marx opened up a new horizon not only in revolutionary action but also in the theory and human thought (109) although not willing to base it in materialism considering that idealism is an act of faith (110).
He expresses his admiration for dialectics both in Hegel as in Marx in his introductory books on dialectic thought (1976), Dialectics and alienation (1976).
In his most recent writings, End of history: reappearance of the myth (1991) and Double face of post-modernism (1994) he confronts the ideological pretensions of post modernism and retains the humanism of the ideas of Marx.
For his part, the sociologist Orlando Núñez has also dealt on the mechanism of alienation and in his book, The insurrection of conscience (1988) he calls for the reanimation of Marxism and appropriation of new bases of the revolutionary and socialist process (111). In his opinion, the crisis of socialism must not hide the deep crisis of capitalism. In his book, In search for the lost revolution (1992) he offers a suggestive reflection on what he considers the vicissitudes of revolutionary development in the context of the crisis of the system, but also the crisis of alternatives” (112) and particularly the crumbling of western democracy.
After the Sandinista victory, Marxism in Nicaragua was widely spread in universities and other institutions. However, it was often taught like a manual and simplified that wore down its scientific and philosophical prestige.
Regarding Honduras, Marxism has had in Longino Becerra one of its most significant representatives. Author of Latin America: problems of a continental revolution (1965); Honduras, foundation and superstructure (1966); and Marxism and national reality (1991) among other books. The latter makes a critical balance of deformations Marxism has suffered through dogmatic interpretations maintaining that “such a rich and agile philosophy like Marxism became, through constructivist manipulations, a stereotyped and rigid doctrine, applicable only in terms used by its main creators. Names of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao, among others, should only be quoted with authority because doubting any of the answers to concrete problems, regardless of the time in history dealt with, was to fall under the wrath of the custodians of that science (113)
The theoretical work of Becerra has been involved in studying the historical particularities of socio-economic and cultural development of his country and region in a task where Marxism has been his indisputable tool. In El Salvador, Schafik Handal, as secretary of the Communist Party of his country, appears not only as a leader of a revolutionary movement but, also, because of his intellectual activity in defense of Marxism. For the past few years his thoughts about the validity of Marxism and socialism have been threatened rather than weakened, as has happened often in some renegades of Marxism.
For Shafik “real socialism” was diseased but could be cured not killed as it happened. In his opinion as an experience where “ revolutionary power should speed up the development of productive forces and should not dictate changes in the relations of property that are not based on an appropriate level of development. He explains these thoughts in Marx maintains its scientific value” (114). His political and intellectual work in the past years has dealt with the basis for the theoretic and practical value of Marxism.
In Costa Rica Marxist ideas have found a home in a group of intellectuals identified with the theology of liberation and Christian revolutionary positions that are also seen in Nicaragua, Brazil, Colombia and other countries of the area.
Noteworthy are the German Frank Hinkelammerty and Helio Gallardo. The first in his book “Ideological weapons of death (1978) as well as other works that analyze the alienating relationships of capitalism reproducing its exploitation systems in underdeveloped nations. In his opinion “theoretical thoughts should not be only guided by praxis but towards a victory through praxis” (115).
Gallardo as other Costa Rican intellectuals (116) has given much attention to the validity of Marxism and socialism in his works Crisis of historical Socialism (1991) and other writings where he emphasizes that “Marxism is a revolutionary discourser or it is not Marxism” (117).
One of the most relevant Panamanian intellectuals in the past few years was Ricaurte Soler (1932-1994) who, initially, studied philosophy in his Philosophical Studies. On dialectics (1973) and Materialism and idealism: an alternative (1985). But his most important work was in Latin American historical studies, primarily on the history of ideas as well as on the Panamanian reality. This work can be found in his books Studies on the history of ideas in America (1979) and Latin American Idea and national questions (1980).
In his philosophical essays he called out for Marxism to overcome the shameful mechanisms seen in some texts on dialectic materialism. And re-vindicating Marxism as an anthropological philosophy.
The critical estrangement of Marxism as against a dogmatic interpretation of dialectic materialism and against the practice of socialism in the style of the Soviet Union found many representatives in Latin American thought as can be seen in the important philosophical and literary works of the Venezuelan, Ludovico Silva (1937) among others.
This position is specially expressed in his book, Anti-manual for use by Marxists, Marxologists and Marxians (1976) but can also be observed in more important works such as On socialism and intellectuals (1979); Theory and practice of ideology (1971); Marx and alienation (1970), and Ideological profit mechanisms (1971); the latter considered the most original for his intent to enrich Marxism.
In this work he considers that there is no free time in capitalist society that is not the production of ideological profit mechanisms and considers that “One of the features we have found as characteristics of ideological profit mechanisms: that is ultimate ends, regarding production of ideological capital is nothing but the preservation of material capital; exploitation of conscience is aimed at preserving material exploitation: (119)
Among Venezuelan Marxists who have dedicated their work to political action is Teodoro Petkoff (1931). He has known how to combine it theoretical activity as can be observed in his books, Socialism for Venezuelans? (1970) And Reason and passion of socialism (1973).
In these fields of political and academia activity, noteworthy is Jose Rafael Núñez Tenorio whose most significant works, Theory and method of political economy (1976) where he poses a necessary distinction between philosophical method of materialism-dialectics in relation to scientific methods (120) and stresses the role of Marxism is the total revolution of culture.
Núñez Tenorio given special attention to the subject of Methodology of social sciences (1989) as well as on political philosophy and its relationship to history and the reality of his country in his books, Bolivar and the Revolutionary War (1977) and The Left and the struggle for power in Venezuela, Venezuelan democracy, Big Business. (1933)
Early on Marxism in Venezuela had found exponents such as the economist Domingo Alberto Rangely and the historian Germán Carrera Damas. The former, author of Revolution of fantasy (1958); Andeans in power (1964) and Capital and development (1971). The latter is the author of Preliminary Studies. Materials for studying realistic ideology of independence (1971) and The historical dimension of today in Latin America where he studies relations of power in Venezuela and the historical interpretation of the region.
Marxist thought in Venezuela has been enriched in recent years by a new intellectual generation that tend to consider Marxism a philosophy of praxis as appears in Profiles of Marxism. Philosophy of praxis: from Labriola to Gramsci considering that in Venezuela and Latin America readership of Gramsci has had a direct link to political analysis, in recent years, that has not had other representatives of Marxism (121).
Among those who follow this perspective are Kohn, Omar Astorga, Orieta Caponi, Ruperto Arrocha, and the Argentine, Hugo Calello who is also the author of Los verdugos de la democracia (The executioners of democracy) (1989) and works on multiple philosophical problems. These include the sources and evolution of Marxism, alienation, humanism, power, violence, democracy, etc and demonstrate a current concern to analyze “one of the most relevant and controversial theories of all times: historical materialism” (122). In the theoretical production of these authors there are several collective books such as Terrorism of State and psychic-violence (Terrorismo de estado y violencia psíquica) (1987), Democracy and political violence: essays on the exercise of power in Latin America (Democracia y violencia política: ensayos sobre el ejercicio del poder en América Latina) (1990), and Gramsci: Memory and actuality of political passion (memoria y vigencia de un pasión política) (1992), among others.
In other spheres of social sciences Marxism has found space in the economist, Héctor Malavé Mata (1930) author of Structure, superstructure, system (Estructura,superestructura, sistema) (1969), Dialectics of inflation (Dialéctica de la inflación) (1972) and Historical formation of anti-development in Venezuela (Formación histórica del antidesarrollo en Venezuela) (1974), who use Marxism to understand the Venezuelan and Latin American situation. This is also the case of Silva Michelena among others.
Colombia is a country where Marxism has been found in the university lecture halls directing social sciences but also fomenting the struggles of communists and revolutionary organizations for several decades.
The historical research done sin the seventies has been significant in the work of Mario Arrubla with his Problems of Colombian underdevelopment (Problemas sobre el subdesarrollo colombiano) (1962), Alvaro Tirado Mejías with Introduction to the economic history of Colombia (Introducción a la historia económica de Colombia), Francisco Posada with Colombia: violence and underdevelopment (Colombia: violencia y subdesarrollo) (1969) and Darío Mesa with Thirty years of Colombian history (Treinta años de historia colombiana) and The Agrarian problem in Colombia (El problema agrario en Colombia).
One part of Marxist intellectuality has been linked to the communist party while another has maintained political independence although there are many convergences in theory. Among the most notable of the communist party is Gilberto Vieira, who was its secretary General for several years and who has worked seriously in his political task through a noteworthy intellectual activity.
Others who have militants and occupy a place in Marxist ideas in Colombia for the past few years is Nicolás Buenaventura, author of books in spreading on Historical Materialism (1983) and works on historical problems. After the fall of socialism in the USSR. As well as other previous Marxists, has abandoned intellectual production in favor of socialist ideas.
Among the historians are Alvaro Delgado, author of The colony (La colonia) (1974) and Politics and workers movement (Política y movimiento obrero) (1973) and Medófilo Medina with his History of the Communist Party of Colombia (Historia del partido comunista de Colombia) who have dedicated themselves to studying the worker’s and communist movement in this country.
Among the economists Julio Silva Colmenares has published The true owners of the country (Los verdaderos dueños del país) (1981) and Behind the masks of underdevelopment: dependence and monopolies (Tras las máscaras del subdesarrollo: dependencia y monopolios) (1983) where he has studied the specific factors of development of Colombian and Latin American dependent capitalism, particularly in relation to the foreign debt (123).
Also among economic researchers and political scientists, Marxist analysis is revealed in Salomón Kalmanovitz, and Jorge Child, author of Value and money (Valor y dinero) (1982) and End of the State (Fin del estado) (1994), Nelson Fajardo, author of History and logics of the Colombian economy (Historia y lógica de la economía colombiana) (1989) Jaime Caycedo, Jairo Estrada and others who have dedicated their careful attention to the confrontation of neoliberalism demonstrating its hostile nature for democracy (124) and to the subject of the crisis of socialism and Marxism to demonstrate their validity (125).
Original also is the contribution of revolutionaries of Trotskyist origin such as Fermín González and Juan Houghton with their work on reconstruction of direct political expression of the working class and the new social movement in the book, Popular Cause, revolutionary cause (Causa popular, causa revolucionaria) (1991).
In the area of literary and artistic critique the works of Jaime Mejía Duque, author of Literature and reality (Literatura y realidad) (1978) and Gonzalo Arcila of Creative work and humanism (Trabajo creador y humanismo) (1987), among others.
In the sphere of philosophy and sociology, Colombian intellectual production linked to different forms of Marxist perspective, is significant
The sociologist Orlando Fals Borda has reached international prestige for his works both on social reality and Colombian politics, especially on agrarian relations as well as broader studies such as inside reformism in Latin America (El reformismo por dentro en América Latina) (1971). His analysis starts with the assumption that “Marxism is a correctible and expandable science, as all useful sciences” (126) and it is not petrified.
As in other countries of the region, Marxism in Colombia had, during the sixties, accepted the ideas of Althusser whose confrontation that affected some (127) with a decrease in the concerns of the theoretical problem, especially in historians.
Later, the stamp of the school of Frankfurt became stronger as can be seen in the philosophical ideas of Rubén Jaramillo Vélez who, in addition to publishing his own translations of the work of Marx and his interpreters in this school, reflects, in his analyses over the philosophy of culture and modernity with strong roots in Marxism.
The history of the philosophical ideas in Colombia and, specially, Marxism has been present in his studies stating that “assimilation of materialism in our society is by no means casual. Much slower than in other American societies, ours unfortunately jumped towards the stage of modernism. Society of the masses has a wide spectrum of problems that cannot be avoided and that cannot be recognized without the use of historical materialism. But in an open materialism, critical, that in no way has staid stagnant, to become, as Adorno says in a “secular religion” of the State” (128). Thus, it is authentically founded on the Marxist heterodoxy of Rubén Jaramillo that is revealed in his book Colombia: delayed modernism) Colombia: la modernidad postergada) (1994).
Marxist philosophy had, in Colombia, a significant exponent in Estanislao Zuleta who left several books. Logic and critique on the idealization of personal and collective life (Lógica y Crítica, Sobre la idealización en la vida personal y colectiva)(1985), Art and philosohy (Arte y filosofía) (1986), among them. His high opinion of Marxist theory and the acknowledgement of his work in the criticism of capitalism did not prevent him from the idea that it was necessary to build an anthropological Marxist (129).
Materialist dialectics of Marxism has been cultivated by Jaime Quijano Caballero (1917‑ 1991) in his doctoral thesis on the subject of “Science, political orthonomy and ideology in the practice of liberation anti-imperialist battles” (1981) and other works that stress attention on Marxist thought in Latin America that should be given to the development of science and technology.
In his opinion, orthomany reveals “the adequate conformity made in the dialiectic process of knowledge between development, subjected to objective laws of nature and society and the knowledge and consequent action motivated by the individuals who are part of the historical process” (130). An analysis that can only be made from a perspective of philosophical materialism and its scientific expression in Marxism.
In latter years the thoughts of Gramsci have reached a significant reception in Colombian Marxist thought as can be observed in the new generation of intellectuals with Jorge Gantiva, Ivan Cepeda, Fabián Acosta,‑ author of Universe of politics (Universo de la política) (1995) and Sergio de Zubiría among others who affirm that “the philosophical critique and politics Gramsci recognizes are the intellectual and moral renovation of democratic projects and contemporary socialists” (131), especially after the collapse of the Euro-Soviet model of society.
The subject about the need to build theoretical bases in Marxism after its crisis and anti-capitalist alternatives in Latin American societies has been very present in Colombia, Ecuador and other countries of the region.
Many analyses made by Ecuadorian Marxists of different political militancy coincide in what was proposed by the leader of the Ecuadorian Socialist Party, Victor Grandaen, when he stated that “socialism as a doctrine is not in crisis but the Stalinist model of State socialism applied across the board by European communist parties” (132).
Also there is consensus over the statements of the former Secretary General of the Ecuadorian Communist Party, Rene Mauge, “that from this crisis socialism can overcome its own crisis” (133) since there is optimism on the lessons extracted from the experience of this failure.
A similar attitude of self-criticism analysis regarding the errors committed in the reconstruction of socialist paradigms and in defense of the theoretic solidity of Marxism can be found among many Peruvian and Brazilian Marxists.
In Peru, Marxist tradition flourished and was manifest in different perspectives that assumed the thought of Mariátegui who has been acclaimed by the most different factions of the left of that country.
Marxism in its orthodox form and close to Stalinist concepts was followed by Cesar Guardia Mayorga (1906‑1983) who used second hand versions (134) and not original sources of unpublished Marxism fell to a vulgarization and scienticism of Marxism in his defense of dialectic materialism and simplified interpretation of the history of philosophy as can be seen in his books, Philosophy and Science (Filosofía y ciencia) (1948), Concept of philosophy (Concepto de filosofía0 (1966) and Problems of cognizance (Problemas del conocimiento) (1971).
Another variable is found in Trotskyism that has had as one of its representatives in Hugo Blanco (1933) leader of the farmer’s movement in Peru and whose intention has been to consider the potentiality of that class in the country and form a workers party (135) distant from what he considered reformism both in the Aprista and Communist parties.
Maoism also found fertile soil in this country as can be seen in the books by José F. W. Lora Cam, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (1975), The dialectic method (El método dialéctico) (1983), Aportes a la filosofía (1984), Filosofía (1987), Contribution to philosophy (Aportes a la filosofía) (1984), Philosophy (Filosofía) (1987) in which he opposes both soviet interpretations of Marxism as those that proliferate in the West (136) considering the idealistic and metaphysical.
Different positions within contemporary Marxist thought in Peru are held by Luis Silva Santisteban (1941), who dealt with epistemological questions in which Marxism does not always appear explicitly. He is the author of Epistemological framework of social sciences (Marco epistemológico de las ciencias sociales) (1980), Karl Marxi: fundamental ideas (Karl Marx: ideas fundamentales) (1981), The structure of human experience (La estructura de la experiencia humana) (1981) and Essay on methodology of social sciences (Ensayo sobre metodología de las ciencias sociales) (1984).
One of the most renown Peruvian Marxist intellectuals in the rest of the countries of the area in the past years is the sociologist, Anibal Quijano who initially occupied himself in the study of campesino and indigenous movements. In his book Crisis of imperialism and the working class in Latin America (Crisis imperialista y clase obrera en América Latina) (1974) he analyzes the causes of why socialism hasn’t taken root in Latin America as a result of not producing its own models instead of copying the Soviet, Chinese or Cuban models.
The subject of class structure in Peruvian society as well as the effects of capitalism in the deformation of the economy in this country is dealt with in Nationalism and capitalism in Peru: a study of neoimperialism (Nacionalismo y capitalismo en Perú: un estudio delneoimperialismo) (1971).
During the past years he has covered the effects of the crisis of socialism and Marxism to demonstrate the importance of continuing the battle for that society while current conditions continue to exist. In his opinion, “socialism is a means of socializing power...why? Because there is in play very important issues, exploitation and domination. Everything, regardless of its discourse or aspect that does not serve to reduce exploitation and exploitation cannot merely be called socialism, whatever its discourse. The collapse of the existing so-called socialists and the triumphal fantasy of capitalism not only diminishes this problem of exploitation and domination in the world. Quite the contrary; it magnifies it since it justifies a continuance of fighting for socialism
At the end of the sixties in Brazil, Chile and Mexico a group of researches was set up to study the situation of Latin American countries regarding the developed capitalist countries, from economy, sociology and politology, a prepared the so-called theory of dependence in which the essence was to demonstrate that the underdevelopment of Latin American countries was indispensable to the development of capitalism worldwide.
Ruy Mauro Marini was one who most “insisted on the need of a Marxist theory of dependence and successfully developed (138) in his work, Dialectics of dependence and underdevelopment and revolution in Latin America (Dialéctica de la dependencia y Subdesarrollo y revolución en América Latina).
Other authors who dealt with this problem in a Marxist perspective were Theotonio dos Santos author of The Brazilian road for socialism, (El camino brasileño para el socialismo), The concept of social classes (El concepto de clases sociales), Productive Forces and relations of production (Fuerzas productivas y relaciones de producción), Technicl scientific revolution and contemporary capitalism (Revolución científico técnica y capitalismo contemporáneo) and Democracy and socialim in dependent capitalism (Democracia y socialismo en el capitalismo dependiente).
Regarding this subject, different theoretical perspectives can be observed such as Fernando Henríquez Cardoso author of Ideologies of industrial bourgeoisie in dependent societies (Ideologías de la burguesía industrial en sociedades dependientes) and Dependence and development in Latin America (Dependencia y desarrollo en América Latina) with Enzo Faleto. Despite the positions taken later by some of these authors, this theory unquestionably contributes to the study of Latin American socio-economic situation that used Marxism as an adequate tool for studying this reality as it continues to do so with the sociologist Emir Sadir, the historian Jacobo Gorender and politologist J. Luiz Marques and Leandro Konder, among others.
The subject of actuality of socialism and Marxism is today the constant factor of Brazilian Marxist thought. According to the opinion of J. Luiz Marques, author of Eulogy of Utopia (Elogio de la utopía (1989) and Critique of the forms of modernism (Crítica de las formas de la modernidad0 (1991). In Socialism (El socialismo) (1991), he calls for a revival of the role of left wing intellectuals in the ideological battle against the new emerging totalitarianism and controllers of the collective imagery (140) and in Marxism, Past and present (El marxismo. Pasado y presente) (1992) he claims that what is dead in Marxism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the simplification of class struggle and the instrumental view of State while what is still alive is his criticism of alienation, capitalist exploitation and dialectic method (139).
There are many analysis made by Latin American Marxist intellectuals of renown such as the Uruguayans Mario Benedetti and Eduardo Galeano who consider, and against those who believe in the definitive death of socialism, that “these funerals have mistaken the corpse” (140) and maintain the desires that consider that, together with the end of the history proclaimed by Fukuyama, we will attend, at last, those of the left who “perhaps are partially right. We will attend the end of certain left-wingers: the frightened, the fainthearted, that had their principles basted on, those changes towards postmodernism. There is, however, another left wing of more solidarity, less individualistic, deeper and aware, less venal and less frivolous that, although today they are living in a painful stage of reflection, are not willing to change ideologies as they would change a shirt”. (141)
Marxism and the search for socialist option to the inhuman conditions of existence that capitalism promotes, rise up alive at the end of this century as the bourgeois society itself.
No wonder that reasons seem to exist that motivates current concerns in the enemies of socialism and Marxism. Quite the contrary, what reasons moves those who tend to characterize as idiots all those who insist on changing the social order that justifies, as natural law, that there will always be super rich and super poor and that these have to be content with the crumbs of “enrichment” that, in the end, is what capitalism has to offer, as proclaimed by the ideologues of neoliberalism. Sooner or later capitalism crowds together the object that, at first, the rich have. That is no consolation to alleviate the terrible effects of poverty: it is simply a demonstration that capitalism tightens by enriching the few, also enriching, although slightly the more” (142) On what side must we look for the real idiots?
Lastly, a more concise view is necessary, as has been done in the rest of the countries of the area on some who have cultivated current theoretical problems, from a Marxist perspective, that have concerned Cuban intellectuality for the past few years.
Special attention given to the development of Cuban and Latin American philosophical thought began to appear during the sixties in the work by Isabel Monal who has studies the ideas of the illustrated Cubans and revolutionary democracy of José Martí as well their actuality in Latin American philosophy in Ideas in Latin America (Las ideas en América Latina) (1985). Later she researched the particularities of Marxism in Cuba and the importance and current power of the philosophies of Marx, Engels and Lenin, specially during these years of the crisis of socialism.
Thalía Fung has investigated, through political philosophy, on the period of transition of the Cuban Revolution, with special emphasis on class struggle in socialism, the nature of democracy and its diverse forms, the role of State in capitalism and socialism, the importance of ideology in philosophy as well as the combination of these and political thought expressed in her book About the regularities and particularities of the socialist revolution in Cuba ( En torno a las regularidades y particularidades de la revolución socialista en Cuba).(1982) and other works. She has played an important role in stimulating philosophical activity in the country through her presidency of the Cuban Society of Philosophical Research.
Research on German classical philosophy and, specially, on the Logic of dialectics (Lógica dialéctica) (1982) and the nature of philosophical knowledge has had an exponent in Zayra Rodríguez Ugidos giving it a significant boost. The subject of axiology led to her main work, Philosophy, science and value (Filosofía, ciencia y valor) (1985). In this work she critically judges Althusserianism in Mexico. During the latter part of her life she was interested in the illustrious thoughts of the Cuban José de la Luz y Caballero, other subjects of the history of philosophical ideas in Cuban and Latin America.
Daysy Rivero and Ileana Rojas Requena also dealt with this subject in Justo Sierra and positivism in Mexico (Justo Sierra y el positivismo en México) (1987 as well as Lourdez Rensoli Laliga in Positivism in Argentina (El positivimo en Argentina) (1988). This latter also researched the specifics of development of rationalism in modern philosophy and the link between the history of sciences and history of philosophy.
The main question of category of practice in Marxist philosophy (1986) as well as the category of activity in Marxist philosophy (1986) have been the focus of analysis by Rigoberto Pupo who also researched theoretic contribution to the Marxism of Eli de Gortari and Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez. In the past few years Cubans such as Juan Marinello and other thinkers analyzed the philosophical ideas of José Martí.
Olivia Miranda, in her Felix Varela. His political thought and his epoch (Félix Varela. Su pensamiento político y su época) (1984). In the evolution of Marxist and Leninist ideas in Carlos Rafael Rodríguez. Tradition and universality (Carlos Rafael Rodríguez Tradición y universalidad)(1997) and other works.
Pablo Guadarrama González studied philosophical ideas in Cuba and Latin America, particularly regarding positivism and Marxism, in his Evaluation of Cuban and Latin American philosophical thought (Valoraciones sobre el pensamiento filosofico cubano y latino americano) (1984), Marxism and anti-Marxism in Latin America (Marxismo y antimarxismo en América Latina) (1990) Latin America, Marxism and postmodernism (América Latina: marxismo y posmodernidad) (1994) and Humanism and authenticity in Latin American thought (Humanismo y autenticidad en el pensamiento Latinoamericano) (1997). He also dedicated attention to philosophical subjects of culture in The universal and specific in culture ( Lo universal y lo específico en la cultura) (1987), as well as alienation and the crisis of Marxism.
Also participating in these studies is Miguel Rojas of the Central University of Las Villas on the subject of Cuban philosophy during the first half of the 20th century as well as in Mariátegui the contemporaneous and Latin America (Mariátegui, la contemporaneidad y América Latina). (1994) and on the subject of cultural identity, Paul Ravelocon The debate of modernism-postmodernism (El debate de lo moderno-posmoderno)(1996) , Xiomara García Machado and Lidia Cano with Postmodernism that glass roof (El posmodernismo esa fachada de vidrio0.(1994), among others who have dealt with the theme of postmodernismo; Rafael Plá León in One logic to think about liberation (Una lógica para pensar la liberación)(1994), as well as Marìa Teresa Vila, Leonardo Pérez, Vilma Figueroa, Irsa Teresa García, Israel Lòpez, Mirta Casaña and other collaborators of Latin American thought in the Central University of Las Villas in Santa Clara who have devoted their studies of Latin American philosophy of liberation.
The subject of Cuban and Latin American cultural identity has been the study topic of Enrique Ubieta in Essays of identity (Ensayos de Identidad) (1993) who has also done research on the evolution of Cuban philosophy, specially related to José Martí. Several researchers have dealt from Marxist perspective to the philosophical ideas of the national Cuban hero. These include RobertoFernández Retamar, Pedro Pablo Rodríguez, Adalberto Ronda, José Antonio Escalona, Ordenel Heredia and others.
Studies on Latin American philosophy also have representatives in Jorge Luis Acanda in his doctoral thesis on Adolfo Sánchez Vazquez. He also has dealt with the theme of crisis of Marxism and the thoughts of Gramsci in several works that include Philosophizing with the hammer (Filosofar con el martillo0 (1997) together with Fernando Martínez. This latter scholar has worked, since the sixties, as director of the journal, Pensamiento Crítico, that played a significant role in Cuban and Latin American intellectual life of the time. Martínez Heredia has been noteworthy in work on the thoughts of Che, on the crisis of socialism and Marxism in Challenges of Cuban socialism (Desafíos del socialismo cubano) ( 1988) and above all on its evolution in Cuban and Latin American spheres.
Philosophical, economic and political thought of Ernesto Guevara have been subject of studies by Carlos Tablada, Maria del Carmen Ariete, Carlos Delgado, Luis Suarez and others. The thoughts of Mariátegui and other problems about the development of Marxism in Cuba and Latin America have been the subject of analysis of Joaquín Santana. Also studies on the development of philosophy in Cuba and other Latin American countries have been dealt with by Alisa Delgado, Carmen Barandela, Jorge González, Hector Pupo, Francisco Cano, Antonio de Armas, etc.
Economic, sociological and politological in Cuba have been developed by numerous researches that include Hugo Ascuy, Rafale Hernandez, Juan Valdéz Paz, Enrique Molina, Victor Figueroa, Ramón Sánchez Noda, Juan Triana, Haroldo Dilla, Gilberto Valdés, Hernán Yanez,etc.
Some problems related to themes of the specificity of philosophy and its ties with ideology have been adequately covered, also by Rubén Zardoya, Miguel Limia David who have given special attention to the question of human rights, socio-political structure and Cuban civil society among other subjects.
Methodological problems on the study of philosphy have been developed by Marta Martínez Llantada and other professors. The axiological subject has found researchers in José Ramón Fabelo with his Practice, knowledge and evaluation (Práctica, conocimiento y valoración)(1989) as well as with América Pèrez and Georgina Alfonso who have also worked on Latin American axiological thought.
Philosophical problems of science and technology have been developed by Jorge Nuñez Jover in his Theoretical interpretation of scienc (Interpretación teórica de la ciencia) (1987) and other books on technological development in Latin America. Epistemologic issues have been done by Pedro Luis Sotolongo, Edel Tussel Oropoesa, etc,
In the subject of Marxist ethics is work by José López Bombino,Armando Chávez, Mercedes Dumpierre, Juan Mari Lois, Juan Antonio Blanco and professors of Havana Universty and the Instituto Pedagógico Enrique Jose Varona.
On the subject of religion in Marxist perspective has been covered by Jorge Ramírez Calzadilla, Aurelio Alonso, Manuel Martínez , Enrique López Oliva, and others.
There is work in the sphere of aesthetics by José Antonio Portuondo, Desiderio Navarro,Jorge de la Fuente, Pablo René Estevez and other professors of the Higher Institute of Art.
Regarding the subject of Marxist theory and the issue of democracy as well as its correlation with different forms of class struggle has been the object of study of Olga Fernández Ríos, Arnaldo Silva, Eddy Trimiño,among others.
It would be difficult to list each and every discipline of social and natural sciences in which Cuban scientists have contributed valuable interpretations from a Marxist perspective as is the work by Julio Le Riverend, Sergio Aguirre, Eduardo Torres-Cuevas, Jorge Ibarra, Alberto Prieto, Olga Portuondo, Sergio Guerra, Oscar Loyola, Salvador Morales, Hernán Venegas, Carmen Guerra, etc. But the purpose of this paper is to fundamentally aim to offer a very broad view of Marxist theoreticl production in Latin America. We are absolutely sure that there are many names and important works left out. To carry out a deeper and important investigation on the subject has been the intention of this sucvcint analysis to demonstrate that in Latin American intellectuality one can be in favor or against what important Marxists have considered but an issue that cannot be ignored.
VI. Final Considerations
Marxism in contrast to most other philosophies had not been characterized by a more effective ccordination with political, economic, social and scientific practice in the country or region where it develops. Latin America is no exception to this rule.
Although creativity or supportive elements that enrich this theory are not always prevalent because simplified and dogmatic interpretations can have an undetermined weight at some time. However, when reflection has been genuingly critical by authentic Marsixts, there has been enrichment of theory. In this sphere, Latin America is not also an exception.
In spite of the phase lag the reception of Marxist ideas in this reagion in relation to Europe, due to numerous vactors between a weakness of the workers movement and a logical expression of the socio-economic consequences that lead to unequal development of capitalism as Marxism played a decisive role in Latin American intellectuality.
Latin American history of the 20th century can be written from any ideological perspective , either attacking Marxism or identifying with it, but never ignoring its intellectual significance for the region and much less for the political effect of the activities of those who have been militants or, who independently, have done their political and cultural work inspired by its suppositions.
There have been many interpretations of Marxism in Latin America that do not differe substantially from those that have existed elsewhere: socialdemocratis, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Gramscians, Althusserians, etc, but also some that have a special seal of a personality of Marxist thought in this region and have been known as Mariateguists, Guevaraists, etc.
Both at the heart of orthodox as in heterodox positions within Marxism there have been contributions to the development of this theory and Latin American reality (143). To ignore them would be a new form of dogmatism as some postmodernists do.
Latin America has generated both politically as intellectually creative personalities of Marxism whose international renown considers them to a higher degree in studies of universal development of Marxism. Among these are: José Carlos Mariátegui, Ernesto Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Rodney Arismendy, Eli de Gortari, Adolfo Sánchez Vásquez, etc.
A more detailed study of Marxist thought in Latin America, a task that is still pending in spite of notable efforts that already exist, must demonstrate for each country, the many intellectual contributions and of other Marxists such as José Revueltas, Antonio García, Carlos Rafael Rodríguez,Ludovico Silva, Tomás Vasconi, Volodia Teitelboim, Agustín Cueva, etc.
Latin American Marxist thought has dealt with all spheres and theoretical problems Marxist attention in other parts of the globe. They have supplied analyses of the most essential philosophical problems of dialiectics, of the theory of cognition, of materialist concept of history, ethics, aesthetics, etc., as well as in the spheres of economics and politics as in subjects of underdeveloped dependence, theory of imperialism, socio-class structure, power, democracy, the theory of revolution, etc. At the same time, in each of these spheres of social sciences such as history, anthropology, psychology, etc., Marxism has been present and continues to be an indispensable scientific instrument of analysis, in spite a current attempts to disqualify it and its evident achievements.
As Hector Agosti said “it’s not enough to use Marxist methodology to be a Marxist. To really be one investigative method must by joined to practice; the explanations of the world must be linked to its transformation”. (144) That has been the intention of most Latin American Marxists although they have not always been successful.
Marxism in Latin America during the current century has been moved, logically, through many vicissitudes and impulses that it has had worldwide in correspondence with notable historical events. The struggles between socialdemocrats and communists, the Russian Revolution of 1917, Stalinism and Trotskyism, the policy of the Kommintern, the rise of world socialist camp, the China-Soviet clashes, the Cold War, the Perestroika, the fall of “real socialism”, the repercussion of some intellectual currents and scholars such as Gramsci, Althusser, the Frankfort School, specially, Adorno, Marcuse and Habermas and Sartre existentialism, etc.; all have had their effect on Latin American Marxism.
It would be a mistake to ignore the effect of significant events in Latin American history during this period for the development of Marxism in this region, such as the Mexican Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, the triumph of Unidad Popular in Chile, the fascist dictatorships, the Sandinist Revolution, the revolutionary movement in El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru, Mexico, etc., as well as the current process of democratization with its achievements and limitations imposed by world neoliberalism.
Marxism in Latin America has not been a simple echo or copy of foreign ideas and attitudes. There have been moments of dogmatisms, simplifications, copy of schemes, etc. but reducing the history of Marxism in this region to insufficiencies would be an error.
In this case, triumphalism that used to cover pages in Soviet literature would be incorrect regarding the evolution socialism of Marxist theory for many years, nor also postmodern nihilism that now pack the stamp of signification of this theory in contemporary history.
On the other hand, it is untenable to admit the existence of a kind of “native Marxism” in Latin America that does not assume the interweaving of the ideas of its main promoters: Marx, Engels and Lenin as its most relevant continuators in other parts of the world.
Independently of unquestionable creativity and contributions of Latin American Marxists, none have claimed exclusivity nor the scholars of these ideas have tried it.
Marxism in Latin America must be seen with its own personality developed in the cultural and political life of this continent. They must earn their real merits, its degree of authenticity regarding Latin American circumstances, with their insufficiencies and mistakes.
Instead of considering another simple current of philosophical thought, economic or political, that occupies space in a university faculty or in academic life, Marxism should be considered an instrument that has used a scientific interpretation of Latin American reality to take on the necessary transformation in favor of overcoming the alienations of capitalist society. Many Marxists not only have dedicated their intellectual activity but have given their lives to this mission. Towards these ends they have subordinated all their objectives.
This fact does not exclude, however quite the opposite, presupposes a well-earned academic recognition in the Latin American intellectual sphere. If it had not achieved this prestige in both planes, in theoretical reflection and political and social practice, it would not have become such an obsessive concern of governments, parties and intellectuals of the traditional right, as has occurred.
Marxism in Latin America has developed a permanent critical confrontation of other philosophical, economic, sociological contemporary schools of thought but has revealed soft spots. Consequently, its supporters have had to enrich theory and boost their arguments in correspondence with changes in the world and scientific achievements.
When they have limited themselves to finding well-rounded answers to all new contemporary problems and specific ones in an infinite theoretic arsenal of the founding classics, considering that it is only necessary to refer to them to find all solutions, Marxist intellectual production has become insignificant.
But when, on the other hand, its current interpreters assume Marxist theory through the validity of its methodological, dialect and materialist concept of the world, because of its highly humanistic content and revolutionary practice to tackle concrete problems of the new times and regarding specific circumstances, the Marxism becomes a giant and flourishes without caring much if the new conclusions had been of the total liking of the classics.
When Marxists – or at least those who think they are – have mistakenly assumed that all approaches or arguments of the other philosophical, economic, sociological, etc. currents are wrong and lack their corresponding rationales, as Lenin stressed, the product of his critical reflection has been sterilized and far from contributing to the enrichment of the analysis of the issue, have hindered it.
It is unquestionable that in the history of Marxism in Latin America there are moments of stagnation and dogmatism, but have only been momentary stops in its rising and creative current that today is found in its greater challenge to demonstrate its vitality and validity.
When historians of Marxism in Latin America of the 21st century can process in their super computers the innumerable bases of interconnected data of all the studies on the matter, the adequate critical balance and not simply a historical brush stroke of the present, it will indicate the predominance of what has been put forward against stagnation and justify the struggle of Marxists to conquer a more human society. Only then can it demonstrate what seems a simple expression of good wishes.
Julius Verne was also a great dreamer. Even today some look back at the submarines and astronaughts he dreamed of and maintain, with skepticism – who are not totally wrong – that, definitely, the trip to the center of the Earth has not been completed yet.
Referencias bibliográficas:
1. Véase: González Casanova, Pablo. Imperialismo y liberación. Editorial Siglo XXI. México. 1982.
2. In Bogota, since 1849Joaquín Posada and Fermín Piñeros promoted what they called the “principal elements of communism” Vargas, Gustavo. "Pensamiento socialista en Nueva Granada (1850‑ 1860). En Dialéctica, no. 18. año XI. Septiembre de 1986. Puebla. México. p. 80.
3. See: Ingenieros, José: "Los saintimonianos argentinos". En Evolución de las ideas en Argentina. Obras Completas.Vol. 16, libro IV, Ediciones L‑J.‑ Rosso. Buenos Aires, 1937, p. 237‑399.
4. See: Guadarrama, Pablo. Marxismo y antimarxismo en América Latina". Universidad INCCA de Colombia. Bogotá. 1990. p. 71‑80; Editora Política. La Habana‑ Ediciones El Caballito. México. 1994. p. 85‑96.
5. Tejera, Diego Vicente. Textos escogidos. Prólogo y selección de Carlos del Toro.Editorial Ciencias Sociales. La Habana.o7 31981. p. 161.
6. See: Gómez García, Carmen. Carlos Baliño , primer pensador marxista cubano. Editorial Ciencias Sociales. La Habana. 1985.
7. Biagini, Hugo. Filosofía americana e identidad. Eudeba. Buenos Aires. 1988. p.l 170.
8. Recabarren, Luis Emilio. Obras. Prólogo y selección de Digna Castañeda. Casa de las Américas. La Habana. 1976. p. 53.
9. Lowy Michael. El marxismo en América Latina. Ediciones Era: Mexico. 1980. p. 73.
10. Mella, Julio Antonio. Documentos y artículos. Ediciones DOR. La Habana. 1975.p. 230.
11. García Salvatecci,H. Haya de la Torre o el marxismo indoamericano. María Ramírez Editora. Lima. 1980. p.105.
12. Mella, J.A. obra citada. p. 203.
13. Idem. p. 266.
14. Ibidem.
15. "In universal history, a philosophy is original and authentic when it has not simply promoted new ideas but when these have corresponded to historic exigencies of the moment in different spheres, socio-political, economic, ideological, scientific” Guadarrama, Pablo .Valoraciones sobre el pensamiento filosófico cubano y latinoamericano. Editora política. La Habana. 1985. p. 118‑119.
16. Liss, Scheldon B. Marxist Thought in Latin America". University of California Press. 1984. p. 129.
17. Mariátegui, José Carlos. Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana. Casa de Las Américas. La Habana. 1968. p. 23‑24.
18. Posada, Francisco. Los orígenes del pensamiento marxista en América Latina. Cuadernos Ciencia Nueva. Madrid. 1968. p. 23‑24.
19. Guadarrama, Pablo. "Mariátegui y la actual crisis del marxismo". La Gaceta de Cuba. n. 4. . 1994. p. 34‑38.
20. Mariátegui, José Carlos. En defensa del marxismo. Amauta. Lima. 1985. p. 65.
21.Idem. p.126.
22. See: Guadarrama, Pablo. "Martí dentro del concepto latinoamericano de humanismo". Revolución y cultura. no. 3. mayo‑junio. 1995. Epoca. IV. Año 34. La Habana. p. 10‑17.
23. Véase: Ponce, Aníbal. Obras de Aníbal Ponce. Casa de Las Américas. La Habana. 1975.
24. Ponce, Aníbal. "Manuel Prenant o el marxismo en La Sorbona" en Marxistas de América. Editorial Arte y Literatura. La Habana. 1985.p. 198.
25. Cole, G.D. H. Historia del pensamiento socialista T. VI. Fondo de Cultura Económica. México. 1962. p. 269
26. Véase: Viatkin. A. Movimiento obrero y comunista de liberación nacional. Editorial Pueblo y Educación. La Habana. 1985. p. 337‑345.
27. "Porque soy socialista me siento profundamente individualista. El socialismo es la doctrina que permite el desenvolvimiento de todas las facultades del espíritu, es decir, lucha por la libertad porque el fin del hombre es la libertad". Palacios, Alfredo. Una revolución auténtica. Ediciones Teoría y práctica. Buenos Aires. 1985.
28. Dessau, Adalbert y colectivo de autores. Politische‑ o7 3ideologische Strömungen in Lateinamerika. Akademie‑Verlag.Berlin. 1987.p. 275.
29. Mondolfo, Rodolfo. El humanismo de Marx. Fondo de Cultura económica. México. 1960. p.11.
30. Mondofo. Rodolfo. Marx y marxismo. Fondo de Cultura Económica. México. 1960. p. 13.
31. Frondizi, Silvio. "Tesis de la izquierda revolucionaria en Argentina" en Lowy, Michael. El marxismo en América latina. Ediciones Era. México. 1980. p. 221.
32. Idem. p.223.
33. Aguilar Mora. Manuel. La crisis de la izquierda en México. Juan Pablos Editor. México. 1978. p. 60‑61.
34. Quintanilla Obregón, Lourdes. Lombardismo y sindicatos en América Latina, Edición Nueva Sociología. México. 1982. p. 159.
35. Toledano, Lombardo. Selección de obras. Editorial El Combatiente. México. 1955. p. 28.
36. Trostsky, León. Por los Estados Unidos Socialistas de América Latina. Ediciones Coyoacan. Buenos Aires. 1961. p. 30.
37.Monteón, Humberto. El gran octubre y los mexicanos. s.e. México. 1987. p. 63.
38. Revueltas, José Ensayo sobre un proletariado sin cabeza Obras Completas. T. XVII. Ediciones ERA. México. 1962. p. 46.
39. Cueva, Agustín. "El marxismo latinoamericano. Historia y problemas actuales". En Tareas. Panamá. 1987, enero‑mayo. no. 65. p. 58.
40. Prieto Rozos, Alberto. El movimiento de liberación contemporáneo en América Latina. Editorial Ciencias. La Habana. 1985. p. 176.
41. Véase: Petrujin A. y Churilov. E. Farabundo Martí. Editorial Progreso. Moscú. 1985.
42. Rodríguez, Carlos Rafael. Letra con filo.Ediciones UNION. La Habana. 1987. p. 31.
43. Vease: Caicedo Borrero, Hugo. "Antonio García: un cainante y un camino", en García, Antonio. Dialéctica de la democracia. Editorial Plaza y Janes. Bogotá. 1987.p. 319‑326.
44.Aun cuando Nieto Arteta propugnó la "constitución de una sociología y de una economía esencialmente americana" la teoría marxista constituía el instrumento básico desus análisis sobre la realidad colombiana. Nieto Arteta, Luis Eduardo. Economía y cultura en la historia de Colombia. El Ancora. Editores. Bogotá. 1983. p. 174‑175.
45. "A mas de los debates, que fueron un suceso en el Bogotá de entonces, el Grupo elaboró monografías sobre temas de actualidad internacional y colombiana, como la dedicada a analizar el Nacionalsocialismo, a la sazón tan en boga." Molina, Gerardo. Las ideas socialistas en Colombia. Tercer Mundo Editores. Bogotá 1988. p. 275.
46. Molina, Gerardo. Las ideas liberales en Colombia. T. II. Ediciones Tercer Mundo. Bogotá. 1990. p. 145.
47. Arze, José Roberto. Prólogo a Arze José Antonio. Polémica sobre marxismo y otros ensayos afines .Ediciones Roalva. La Paz . 1980. p. 19‑20
48.Bonifaz, Miguel. "Estudio preliminar " Arze y Arze, José Antonio Sociologia marxista. Universidad Técnica de Oruro. Bolivia. p. XII.
49. Almeyda, Clodomiro. "Reflexiones sobre el proceso de constitución de las vanguardias en la revolución latinoamericana". En Memorias de la Conferencia Teórica Internacional. Características generales y particulares de los procesos revolucionarios en América Latina y el Caribe. La Habana. 26‑28 de abril de 1982. p. 64.
50. Allende, Salvador. El pensamiento de Salvador Allende. Edición Hugo Latorre. Fondo de Cultura Económica. México. 1974.p.272.
51. Frugoni, Emilio. "Socialism is more than marxism". en Marxism in Latin America. Editado por Luis E. Aguilar. Temple University Press. Philadelphia. 1978. p. 117‑118.
52. Arismendy, Rodney.Problemas de una revolución continental. Ediciones Pueblos Unidos. Montevideo. 1962.p. 533.
53. ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Lenin y nuestro tiempo. Editorial progreso. Moscu. 1983.p. 31.
54. ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Sobre la enseñanza la literatura y el arte Editorial Pueblos Unidos. Montevideo. 1989. p. 106.
55. Alba, Víctor. Historia del movimiento obrero en América Latina. Libreros Mexicanos Unidos. México. 1964.p. 423.
56. Villegas, Abelardo. "América Latina Revolución y lucha de clases . Un ensayo categorial." en Nuestra América. N. 11. UNAM. Mayo‑agosto de 1984. México. p. 127‑128.
57. Lowy, Michael. Obra citada. pag. 262‑384.
58. Véase: Castro, Fidel. El pensamiento de Fidel Castro. Selección temática.. Editora Política. La Habana. 1983.(dos vólumenes)
59. ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑. La crisis económica y social del mundo. Oficina de Publicaciones del Consejo de Estado. La Habana. 1983.
60.Véase: D' Stefano Pisani, Miguel y otros. Fidel y el Tercer Mundo. Editorial Chinh Tri Quoc Gia. Hanoi. 1994.
61. Véase : Castro, Fidel . En la trinchera de la revolución. Editora Política. La Habana. 1990.
62. ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑. Fidel Castro. Los derechos humanos . 1959‑1988. Editora política. La Habana. 1989.
63. ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑. Fidel y la religión. Conversaciones con Frei Betto. Oficina de Publicaciones del Consejo de Estado. La Habana. 1985.
64.‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑. Ideología, conciencia y trabajo político. Editora Política. La Habana. 1986.
65. ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑. José Martí. El autor intelectual. Editora Política. La Habana 1983.
66. Guevara, Ernesto. "El socialismo y el hombre en Cuba". Obras.. Casa de Las Américas. La Habana. 1970. p. 377.
67. Hart, Armando. "Sobre el Che Guevara". En Casa de Las Américas. No. 165. La Habana. marzo‑abril de 1988. p.98.
68. Tablada, Carlos. El pensamiento económico de Ernesto Che Guevara. Casa de Las Américas. La Habana. 1987.p. 86.
69. Véase: Centro de Estudios Sobre América. Pensar al Che. Editorial José Martí. La Habana., 1989. (dos tomos).
70. Véase: Martínez Heredia, Fernando. Che, el socialismo y el comunismo. Casa de Las Américas. La Habana. 1989.
71.Véase: Ariet, María del Carmen. Editora política. La Habana. 1988.
72. Véase: Vuskovic, Pedro y Elgueta, Berlamino. Che Guevara en el presente de América Latina. Casa de las Américas. La Habana.1987.
73. Véase: Guevara, Ernesto. Ideario político y filosófico del Che. Editora Política. La Habana. 1991.
74. (...)"es característica del marxismo occidental que nunca haya elaborado una cartografía exactao adecuada de su propio paisaje intelectual". Anderson, Perry. Consideraciones sobre el marxismo occidental. Siglo XXI. México. 1985. p.86.
75. "El comunismo no es una forma definitiva de la sociedad, un estado final en el que el proceso de la historia habría llegado al tope, y en el cual el desarrollo del hombrey de la sociedad cesaría. Contrariamente a esto, la abolición de la propiedad privada es ‑de acuerdo a los principios del humanismo marxista‑ la posibilidad de que la historia ofrece a la libertad del hombre, rescatado en su identidad consigo mismo, para el desenvolvimiento universal de su ser, para el despliegue integral de sus aptitudes, en una palabra, para devenir un hombre total". Astrada, Carlos. El marxismo y las escatologías. Ediciones Procyón. Buenos Aires. 1957. p. 234‑235.
76. "Probablemente Gramsci es el escritor político más original de la generación de comunistas posterior a Lenin".Kolakowsky, Leszek. Las principales corrientes del marxismo. III La crisis. Alianza Universidad. Madrid. 1978. p. 218.
77. "la labor inicial de hacer conocer a Gramsci fue, en realidad, una actividad ajena a la tradición y a la cultura de los comunistas argentinos y comprometió únicamente a un sector muy limitado de sus intelectuales." Aricó, José. La cola del diablo. Itinerario de Gramsci en América Latina. Editorial Nueva Sociedad. Caracas. 1988.p.32.
78. "durante los últimos ocho años (desde el XVI Congreso de 1986), el debate por la filosofía del marxismo y dentro de él por Gramsci se dio en un marco de apertura intelectual y política que en los años del predominio directamente stalinista hubiese sido absolutamente impensable" . Kohan, Nestor. "El debate por Gramsci en el comunismo argentino" en Dialektica. Revista de Filosofía y teoría social. Año III. N. 5‑6. Buenos Aires septiembre de 1994. p. 199.
79. Véase: Portantiero, Juan Carlos. Los usos de Gramsci: Escritos políticos (1917‑1933). México. Siglo XXI. 1977.
80. "la figura de Mariátegui sigue constituyendo una especie de "hecho maldito" del marxismo latinoamericano". Terán, Oscar.Discutir Mariategui.Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. 1985. p. 115.
81. Portantiero, Juan Carlos. "Los socialismos ante el siglo XXI"en Tareas. Panamá. Mayo agosto. 1995. p. 137.
82.Los eventos científicos celebrados en distintos países latinoamericanos en ocasión del centenario de su nacimiento así lo revelan. Véase: Ediciones Foro Nacional por Colombia. Antonio Gramsci y la realidad colombiana. Bogotá. 1991; Kohn, Carlos, Calello, Hugo y otros. Gramsci, memoria y vigencia de una pasión política. Universidad de Los Andes‑ Universidad Central de Venezuela. Caracas. 1992.
83. Rodríguez Ugidos, Zayra. Filosofía, ciencia y valor. Editorial Ciencias Sociales. La Habana. 1985 p. 90.
84. Miranda, P. José. Marx en México, Plusvalía y política. Editorial Siglo XXI. México. 1972. p. 3. o7 3
85. Sánchez Vázquez, Adolfo. Ciencia y revolución. El marxismo de Althusser. Grijalbo. México. 1982.p. 216.
86. Fornet‑Betancourt, Raúl. Ein anderer Marxismus? . Die philosophische Rezeption des Marxismus in Lateinamerika. Mathias Grünewald Verlag. Mainz. 1994. p. 265.
87. Vargas Lozano, Gabriel. Más allá del derrumbe. Siglo XXI. Editores. México. 1994. p. 141.
88. González Casanova, Pablo. "Relectura de un clásico". Cuadernos Americanos. Nueva Epoca. no. 48. Nov‑Dic. año VIII. Vol. Vi. 1994. p. 13.
89. Gortari, Eli de. El método dialéctico. Grijalbo. México. 1970. p. 57.
90. Labastida, Jaime. Producción, ciencia y sociedad, de Descartes a Marx". Siglo XXI. 1969. p. 225.
91. "Hay en la teoría de Marx dos tendencias , no necesariamente opuestas ni excluyentes, de la ciencia. Una es abierta, plural, rica en matices, llena de sugerencias , en extremo cautelosa. Otra en cambio hereda todo el peso de la teoría de la cienciaque predominaba en el siglo XIX y ello hace que se convierta en una teoríadogmática y cerrada, con todos los rasgos de una ciencia positiva (de la naturaleza y la sociedad)". Labastida, Jaime. "Lo que queda de Marx". Plural. México. septiembre de 1991. p. 49.
92. Saladino, Alberto. Indigenismo y marxismo en America Latina Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. 1994. p. 265.
93. Bartra, Roger. Estructura agraria y clases sociales en México. Era. México. 1974..p.11.
94. Bartra, Roger. Marxismo y sociedades antiguas. Grijalbo. México. 1975. p. 34.
95. "por capitalismo íntegro entendemos las partes de la sociolización del trabajo privatizado compuestas por la producción, circulación e inversión del capital. en cambio por capitalismo no íntegro entendemos la ausencia de la primera y la tercera parte, aunque la segunda estéaparentemente presente. Aquí se encuentra el meollo de nuestro escrito, pues consiste en refutar la tesisde la corriente del subdesarrollo‑dependencia, que supone la integridad de estas partes aunque deformadas". Alvarez Saldaña, David.Crítica de la teoría económica y política de México. Ediciones El Caballito. 1993. p. 31.
96. Sotelo Valencia, Adrian. México, dependencia y modernización. El Caballito. Mexico. 1993. p. 141.
97. Oliver Costilla, Lucio. "Tendencias políticas en América Latina y análisis sociológico". en El pensamiento de Marx en los umbrales del siglo XXI.Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Guerrero.1995. p. 62.
98.Gilly, Adolfo. Sacerdotes y burócratas. Ediciones Era. México. 1980.p. 19.
98. Cueva, Agustín. El desarrollo del capitalismo en América Latina. Siglo XXI. México. 1977. p. 48.
100. Idem. p. 238.
101. Echeverría, Bolívar. El discurso crítico de Marx. Ediciones Era. México. 1986.p. 14‑15.
102.Valqui Cachi, Camilo. Marx vive. Fin del capitalismo y del socialismo real. Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo. México. 1991. T. I. p.6. o7 3
103. Dussel, E.Hacia un Marx desconocido. Un comentario de los manuscritos del 61‑63. Siglo XXI. México. 1988. p. 361.
104. Véase: Guadarrama, Pablo y colectivo de autores. "El humanismo en la filosofía latinoamericana de la liberación".Islas. n. 99. mayo‑agosto. 1991; Humanismo y filosofía de la liberación latinoamericana. Editorial El Búho. Bogotá. 1994.
105. Jaime Correa, José Luis. "Tres décadas de filosofía marxista en México: los desafíos actuales". en Coatepec. Revista de la Facultad de Humanidades de la UAEM. Toluca. Año 4 n. 2. 1995. p. 18‑25.
106. Lowy, Michael. Obra citada. p. 332.
107. Morales Avilés, Ricardo. Obras. No pararemos de andar jamás. Editorial Nueva Nicaragua. Managua. 1981. p. 78.
108. Castro, Fidel. Un grano de maíz. Conversación con Tomás Borge. Oficina de Publicaciones del Consejo de Estado. La Habana. 1992. p.11.
109. Serrano Caldera, Alejandro. La permanencia de Carlos Marx. Ministerio de Educación. Managua. 1983.p. 17.
110.‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Fin de la historia : reaparición del mito. Universidad de la Habana. 1991.
111. Nuñez Soto, Orlando. La insurrección de la conciencia. ESUCA. Managua. 1988. p. 60.
112. ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑. En busca de la revolución perdida. EditorialTercer Milenio. Bogotá. 1993. p. 46‑47.
113. Becerra, Logino.Marxismo y realidad nacional hoy. Editorial Batkun. Tegucigalpa. 1991. .p.14.
114. Handal, Schafik. El socialismo. una alternativa para América Latina. Entrevista de Marta Harnecker. Biblioteca Popular. El Salvador. 1991. p.7.
115.Hinkelammert, Franz. Las armas ideológicas de la muerte. Agora Ediciones Sígueme. Salamanca. 1978.p. 11..
116.Véase: Herra, Rafael Angel.(Compilador). Sobrevivirá el marxismo. Universidad de San José de Costa Rica. 1991.
117.Gallardo, Helio. "La crisis del socialismo histórico y América Latina" en Pasos. San José. Costa Rica.n. 39. enero‑febreo. 1992. .10.
118. Soler, Ricaurte. Estudios filosóficos sobre la dialéctica. Ediciones Librería Cultural Panameña. Panamá.1973.p. 54.
119. Ludovico. La plusvalía ideológica. Universidad Central de Venezuela.Caracas. 1979. p. 253
120. "El método de la dialéctica materialista es un método filosófico con pretensión de validez total, universal; en tanto que el método dialéctico histórico es un método científico que agota su eficacia en las ciencias históricas". Nuñez Tenorio, José Rafael. Universidad Central de Venezuela. Caracas. 1976. p. 153.
121.O. Astorga, H. Calello , C. Kohn y otros. Perfiles del Marxismo I: La filosofía de la praxis de Labriola a Gramsci. Trópicos. Caracas. 1986.p. 10.
122. Arrocha, Ruperto. "Las raíces del marxismo en la Kritik. Del idealismo hegeliano a la concepción materialista de la historia. Apuntes filosóficos. Universidad Central de Venezuela. n.5. 1994. p.133.
123. Veáse: Silva Colmenares, Julio. La crisis de la deuda externa y el capitalismo dependiente: contradicciones y soluciones. Universidad INCCA de Colombia. Bogotá. 1988.
124. Caycedo, Jaime."Neoliberalismo y política" en Estrada Jairo y Jesus Gualdrión (compiladores). Rompiendo la corriente.Un debate al neoliberalismo. CEIS. Bogotá. 1992.p 123.
125. "Las no resueltas y profundas contradicciones económicas, políticas y socialesque afectan a los países del "tercer mundo" y de América latina en particular son demostración de la vigencia del socialismo.", Estrada, Jairo. "Crisis del socialismo en Europa oriental y recomposición del orden mundial". en Socialismo, realidad, vigencia y utopía. Selección de Ponencias. Seminario Internacional. Bogotá 10 1l 13 de mayo de 1991. p. 17.
126. Fals Borda, Orlando. "Marx y el tercer mundo" en El marxismo en Colombia. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá. 1983. p. 23,
127. Melo, Jorge Orlando. "La historia: las perplejidades de una disciplina consolidada". en Carlos B. Gutierrez. Editor. La investigación en Colombia, en las artes, las humanidades y y las ciencias sociales". Ediciones Uniandes. 1991. p. 47.
128. Jaramillo, Rubén. "Recepción e incidencias del marxismo". Tendencias actuales de la Filosofía en Colombia. Universidad de Santo Tomás de Aquino. Bogotá. 1988. p. 247 reproducido en Jaramillo, R. Colombia: la modernidad postergada. Argumentos. temis. Bogotá. 1994.p. 154.
129. "Yo creo que podría hacerlo, liquidando su ilusión de que vamos encaminados por no se que mecanismo histórico hacia una fiesta final. Liquidar también la idea de que la sociedad pueda ser armónica, no conflictiva, sin leyes, sin gobierno, sin nada, porque ya no habrá propiedad privada". Zuleta, Estanislao.Ensayos sobre Marx. Editorial Percepción. Medellín. 1987. p. 31.
130. Quijano Caballero, Jaime. Ciencia, ortonomía , ideología política en la práctica de la lucha antimperialista de liberación". Universidad INCCA de Colombia. Bogotá. 1981. p.3.
131. Gantiva, Jorge. "Gramsci : un horizonte de pensamiento" en Antonio Gramsci y la realidad colombiana. Ediciones Foro Nacional por Colombia. 1991. p.42.
132. Granda, Víctor. "Fracasa el stalinismo mas no el socialismo".en Ayala Mora, Enrique. La crisis del socialismo. desafíos y perspectivas en Ecuador y América Latina. Ediciones La tierra. Quito. 1990.p. 69.
133. Mauge, René y otros. Despúes de la caída. El significado de la crisis del socialismo para América Latina y Europa del Este. FLACSO. Ecuador. 1992. p. 33.
134. Sobrevilla, David. Repensando la tradición nacional. Editorial Hipatía. Lima. 1988. p. 184.
135. Blanco, Hugo. Tierra o muerte. Las luchas campesinas en Perú. Siglo XXI. México. 1972. p. 5.
136. Lora Cam, José. Filosofía. Editorial Tercer Mundo. Arequipa. 1987. p. 158.
137. Quijano, Aníbal y otros. Después de la caída. El significado de la crisis del socialismo para América Latina y Europa del Este. FLACSO. Ecuador. 1992. p. 47.
138. Domingos Ouriques, Nildo. "Hacia una teoría marxista de la dependencia". en La teoría social latinoamericana. Subdesarrollo y dependencia. Coordinadores Ruy Mauro Marini y Margarita Millán. Ediciones el Caballito. México. 1994. T. II.p.190.
139. Marquez, J.Luiz. O Socialismo. Editora da Universidade.o7 3Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre. 1991. p.73‑74.
140. Marquez, J.Luiz. O marxismo. Passado e presente. Universidade Federal do Rio Grade do Sul. Porto Alregre. 1992. p. 58.
141. Galeano, Eduardo. "Un niño perdido en la intemperie". en La izquierda latinoamericana : abandono de referentes, ruptura con los modelos y búsqueda de nuevos proyectos políticos, económicos y sociales". CC del PCC. La Habana. 1991. p. 140.
142. Apuleyo Mendoza, Plinio, Crlos Alberto Montaner y Alvaro Vargas Llosa. Manual del perfecto idiota latinoamericano. Plaza y Lanes. Bogotá. 1996. p.89.
Bendetti, Mario. "El maldito enemigo" . Taller. Revista teórica de convergencia. Bogotá. 1990. n. 4. p. 62.
143." hasta en la periferia del "marxismo ortodoxo" hubo numerosos intentos de aplicar sus tesis de una forma creativa y novedosa." Sonntag, H.Duda, certeza y crisis. La evolución de las ciencias sociales en América latina. UNESCO. Editorial Nueva Sociedad. Caracas. 1988. p. 153.
144. Agosti, Héctor. "La 'crisis' del marxismo" en E. Giudici, Agosti, H. y otros. ¿Qué es la izquierda. Editorial Documentos. Buenos Aires. 1961. p. 65.