This Peruvian Marxist didn't see faith as inherently opposed to social progress

By Harsh Thakor* 

Peruvian intellectual José Carlos Mariátegui made a distinctive contribution to Latin American political and social thought. His writings demonstrated that Marxism could not be treated as a mechanical formula but had to be examined in relation to local realities. He emphasized that the peasantry, particularly Indigenous communities, would play a central role in social transformation in Latin America, and that the question of national development was of critical importance. 

Despite his lasting influence in the region, his work has remained relatively little known in the United States. When he died in 1930, his funeral in Lima drew one of the largest worker processions in the city’s history, while abroad his passing received little notice.

Born on June 14, 1894, in Moquegua, Mariátegui grew up in modest circumstances. Raised by his mother after his parents separated, he endured poor health throughout his life. An accident at the age of eight left him with a permanently disabled leg, and he later lost his right leg entirely, spending his last years in a wheelchair. His formal education ended early, and he was largely self-taught. 

At fifteen he began working as a copyboy for the newspaper La Prensa, quickly rising to more responsible roles in journalism. Through this work he developed his voice as a writer and launched short-lived newspapers that advocated for workers, leading to conflict with the regime of Augusto B. Leguía. In 1919 he was exiled to Europe, where he spent three years in France and Italy, experiences that shaped his understanding of Marxism.

Returning to Peru in 1923, he began lecturing and writing extensively. He founded the journal Amauta in 1926, which became an influential platform not only for political debate but also for philosophy, literature, and the arts. Two years later, he published his most important work, Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality. This book analyzed the economy, land tenure, Indigenous issues, education, regionalism, religion, and literature, offering a framework for understanding Peruvian and Latin American society from a Marxist perspective.

In political practice, Mariátegui founded the Peruvian Socialist Party in 1928, which aligned with the Communist International, and helped establish the General Confederation of Peruvian Workers in 1929. He was repeatedly targeted by authorities, with his publications closed and his activities restricted. Despite failing health, he remained active until his death in 1930.

Mariátegui’s thought combined several themes: the importance of adapting Marxism to national conditions, opposition to imperialism, the centrality of agrarian reform, attention to racial and Indigenous issues, and a recognition of the social role of religion. He argued that Latin America’s predominantly rural and Indigenous population could not be understood using European models of Marxism, which were rooted in advanced capitalist societies. Instead, he believed that Latin America’s unique historical conditions allowed for a different path toward social change. He valued Indigenous traditions of collective landholding and argued that meaningful reform required transformation of the land tenure system, not piecemeal or liberal solutions.

On religion, Mariátegui did not see faith as inherently opposed to social progress. He criticized both clerical oppression and superficial liberal anti-clericalism, suggesting instead that a new kind of unifying vision or “revolutionary myth” could play a positive role in mobilizing people.

Although his ideas sometimes conflicted with both nationalist reformers such as Víctor Haya de la Torre and officials of the Communist International, Mariátegui continued to defend his positions, stressing the need for strategies grounded in Latin America’s own history and conditions. His recognition of the Indigenous role in social movements was particularly innovative for his time.

Mariátegui’s writings remain influential for their originality, breadth, and insistence that theories must be adapted to local realities. While Latin America has since undergone major transformations, his legacy continues to shape discussions on land, race, culture, and the relationship between socialism and national identity.

---

*Freelance journalist