Describing
contemporary Peruvian society, Chairman Gonzalo says: "... contemporary
Peru is a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society in which bureaucratic
capitalism develops." Although Mariátegui defined this character in point
3 of the Program of the Party Constitution, it is in the light of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism, that Chairman Gonzalo has demonstrated
how the semi-feudal and semi-colonial character is maintained and new forms are
developed, and particularly how bureaucratic capitalism has developed on this
basis throughout the process of contemporary society, a problem of
transcendence to understand the character of society and the Peruvian
revolution.
Bureaucratic
capitalism is a fundamental thesis of Chairman Mao that is not yet understood
or accepted by all Marxists in the world and that obviously for historical
reasons was not known by Mariátegui and that Chairman Gonzalo applies to the
concrete conditions of our country. He argues that in order to analyze the
contemporary social process, we must start from three closely related
questions: the moments that bureaucratic capitalism is going through; the
process of the proletariat expressed in its highest expression: the Communist
Party; and the path that the revolution must follow. Thus, he teaches us that
in contemporary Peruvian society, three moments can be distinguished from 1895
onwards: First moment. Development of bureaucratic capitalism. Constitution of
the PCP. Indication and outline of the path to surround the cities from the
countryside; Second moment. Deepening of bureaucratic capitalism.
Reconstitution of the PCP. Establishment of the path to surround the cities
from the countryside; and Third moment. General crisis of bureaucratic
capitalism. Direction of the PCP of the people's war. Application and
development of the path to surround the cities from the countryside.
At the same
time, it states that contemporary Peruvian society is in a general crisis,
sick, serious, incurable and that it can only be transformed through armed
struggle as the Communist Party of Peru has been doing leading the people, and
that there is no other solution.
After the
above and to continue with our task started with NOTES AND MATERIALS ON
CONTEMPORARY PERU (I), today we present a speech by Chairman Gonzalo at the
University of Huamanga (Ayacucho, 1974) on the National Problem, we do so to
understand some fundamental issues that have to do with the character of our
society and the character of the revolution. A topic that is presented in a
masterful, clear and simple way by Chairman Gonzalo in the document that we
deliver to you today.
The
document is below:
THE NATIONAL PROBLEM
Every debate is open to those who have an
opinion,
not to those who remain silent.
J.C. Mariátegui
Controversy is useful when it is intended
to truly clarify theories
and facts, and when it brings to it only clear
ideas and motives.
J.C. Mariátegui.
NATIONAL PROBLEMS
Speech given by Dr.
Abimael Guzmán in 1974 at the Teachers Union
of Huamanga
Today's Peruvian Society
• Character
of our society.
• Character
of the revolutionary process of Peruvian society.
Bureaucratic Capitalism
• What do
we understand by bureaucratic capitalism?
• Three
lines of bureaucratic capitalism
The Current Situation of the Country
•
Conditions in which the current regime arises
• The plans
and character of the regime.
Obviously
it is very important to analyze the problems of Peruvian society.
We believe
that it is necessary to know it, because without knowing it it is not possible to
understand the processes that occur; if we are not clear about the character of
Peruvian society, about the process that is being experienced today, we can
hardly understand what the education law or the mining law represents. That is,
it is not possible to understand the specific problem in the country, such as
that of education, without understanding what the character of Peruvian society
is today and what the political situation is. Unfortunately, very little is
known about the national problem; and more so in recent times, the State has
mounted a whole campaign to distort these issues; therefore, the need to
analyze these problems is more urgent.
Peruvian Society Today
Character of our
society
We pose:
Peru is a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society. What do we mean by semi-feudal
and semi-colonial? Let's look at these questions.
Our country
emancipated itself in the last century. 150 years ago, we were a colony; we
lived subject to a metropolis (Spain), we had no political independence. On the
other hand, at the beginning of the last century it was a feudal country,
meaning that our society was based fundamentally on the work of the land, which
was the support of the economy.
Naturally
there was trade and incipient industrial modalities; but the economic
foundation was feudalism. Based on the existence of large estates that belonged
to a few people, and on this latifundist property there was serfdom, the
exploitation of peasants, who for a piece of land had toprovide personal
services, working the land of the lord or other services, even domestic.
Our country
was backward, where the fundamentals were the old forms of production and
totally outdated forms of government. Our country at the beginning of the 19th
century had two problems, which with variations still persist: One, the problem
of land, the problem of feudalism, that of the peasantry's servitude based on
latifundist property; Two, the problem of national sovereignty, that ofour
nation being a colony of Spain.
Emancipation
faced both problems, as proven by the struggles for independence regarding
sovereignty; and, Bolívar's decrees on territorial property and, the
parliamentary debates in which it was stated that emancipation could only be secured
by giving the land to the peasants, regarding the land problem. But
emancipation only implied breaking ties with Spain. However, the country was
soon controlled and then dominated by England. This great capitalist power
dominated all of Latin America and, therefore, our country. What importance
does English domination have in our country? Before emancipation, we were a
feudal and colonial country. When we emancipated ourselves, we continued to
have a feudal base but with a certain political independence; we formed a Republic
despite the vicissitudes of emancipation and republican beginnings. But England
introduced higher development modalities to the country, capitalist modalities,
fundamentally through its trade and tied it to the world trade of guano. This
implies that the destruction of feudalism began to accelerate; the fact that
England brought goods and introduced capitalist methods accelerated and spurred
the destruction of feudalism. On the other hand, England began to control and
introduce a process of colonization in the country. Thus, English domination
implied the beginning of a change, the passage towards the formation of a
semi-feudal and semi-colonial society in the country.
In this
century, the United States managed to displace English domination and become
the master, back in the 1920s. Thus, our country was dominated by another world
power, but an imperialist one; when the United States dominated us, it was an
imperialist country, it had developed a monopolistic system, large companies
that concentrated the country's economy; on the other hand, it was a power in
colonialist expansion in Latin America and even in part of Asia.
Under these
conditions of Yankee imperialist domination, our society evolves its
semi-feudal character, but it is not totally destroyed, it continues to
survive. As under English domination (especially after the war with Chile),
there is a greater impetus to the destruction of feudalism under the
development of a form of capitalism linked to the large monopolies and
dependent on imperialism. In addition to maintaining its semi-feudal character,
our country continues to be semi-colonial; that is, a dominated country that,
although it has declared political independence, lives under the domination of
an imperialist power in economic, diplomatic, cultural and military terms that
make political independence a formal matter.
Thus,
Peruvian society, since the 19th century, has evolved from a feudal society to
a semi-feudal one and from a colonial society to a semi-colonial one. In this
long process, three powers have dominated and exploited it: First Spain until
1824, however, the Spanish continued to dominate for many more decades. Later,
England, which dominated us more subtly; it even created bourgeois political
parties and a better state apparatus for us, to better control us with a
hidden, more concealed, but no less exploitative domination. Finally, the
United States, which still oppresses and exploits us; imperialism, which,
despite everything that is said, dominates us on all levels.
When we were
a colonial country, we had two problems: the land problem and the national
problem. Under English rule, we were a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society,
much more basic than the current one, obviously, and we had two problems: the
land problem and the national problem; because the land remained in few hands
and serfdom continued to prevail in the country and because England dominated
us. In this century we are dominated by the USA, we are still a semi-feudal and
semi-colonial society, much more evolved than the previous one, undoubtedly,
but the basic problems of the country remain two: the land problem and the
national problem. The land problem, because even the feudal modes of
exploitation survive and our entire society: our unscientific and superstitious
mentality, our ideology in general as well as our social and political
relations have a lot of feudalism. The national problem because we are an
oppressed nation; apparently free, but deep down subject to a thousand forms.
In short,
the history of the country from the last century until today is that of the
feudal and colonial class struggle that, under the English capitalist
domination and Yankee imperialism successively, has evolved to become and is
currently a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society with two basic problems not
resolved until today: the land problem and the national problem.
Character of
the Revolutionary Process of Peruvian Society
Having established
the character of Peruvian society, a question arises: what is the path to revolutionary
transformation? Specifically, what is the character of the Peruvian revolution?
We have established that there are two problems: the land problem and the national
problem, from which the solution to the rest of the country's problems derives;
because all national problems depend on the semi-feudal and semi-colonial
character of Peruvian society. This means that, for Peruvian society to change,
to truly revolutionize, these two questions must be resolved: 1) the land
problem, the solution to which requires sweeping away semi-feudalism, because
until it is swept away, the land problem is not resolved; 2) the national
problem, the solution to which requires sweeping away Yankee imperialist oppression,
because until this semi-colonial domination is swept away, the national problem
is not resolved. Thus, as long as we do not sweep away semi-feudalism and
semi-colonialism, it is not possible to truly and truly transform Peruvian
society, despite all that they tell us; besides, what they preach today is not
new, for example, in the year 19 of this century, we already heard similar
siren songs. Consequently, the process of transformation of Peruvian society,
what is scientifically called the Peruvian revolution, has two tasks to
accomplish: 1) destroy semi-feudalism and 2) destroy semi-colonialism. These
are the tasks of the Peruvian revolution in its first stage. The above means
that the Peruvian revolution is anti-feudal and anti-imperialist; that is, that
feudal survival and the dominance of imperialism must necessarily be destroyed.
Therefore, the Peruvian revolution is necessarily democratic and national. Scientifically
speaking, the character of the Peruvian revolution is to be a democratic-national
revolution; democratic in that it goes against feudalism, to destroy the feudal
relations of the country; and national in that it is anti-imperialist, aimed at
crushing Yankee imperialist oppression. Thus, in the current semi-feudal and
semi-colonial Peruvian society, only a democratic-national, anti-feudal and
anti-imperialist revolution is possible.
Let us
analyze the character of the Peruvian revolution in relation to the concrete
historical conditions. We had two problems since the last century: that of the
land and the national problem; but the last century and the current one have
great differences: in the last century there was no imperialism; in this
century there was; in the last century there was no internationally converted
working class as the leader of the revolution, nor was there a developed
working class in the country, in the current one we have a triumphant working
class and in the country a working class with a long history of struggle. These
are very important differences in the revolutionary process of our country.
In the last
century and until the 1920s, the bourgeoisie in the country was able to lead
the process of transformation by solving these two problems. But in our
country, even before the year 20, there were great struggles; heroic struggles
and successive peasant uprisings, student mobilizations and struggles and
powerful great battles of the working class; generating a great process of political
struggle in the midst of which the ideology of the proletariat began to spread
and apply to our reality, through an extraordinary figure: José Carlos
Mariátegui, whose combative work as a thinking and active man marked a
milestone in history by founding, in 1928 the party of the working class of
Peru, the Communist Party. Thus, this period determines a fundamental change in
our revolution by which the bourgeoisie, in the conditions of imperialist
domination and the existence of a working class forged in a struggle, can no
longer lead the revolutionary process in our country; because, the working
class has already emerged and developed, which, in addition to disputing the
leadership of the bourgeoisie, is the only consistent class capable of leading
the Peruvian revolution to ist triumph. In this way, the bourgeois revolution
in the country has two periods: 1) the old bourgeois revolution that was able
to be fulfilled until the beginning of the century, under bourgeois leadership;
and 2) the new bourgeois revolution or democratic-national revolution, or a new
type of bourgeois revolution, under the leadership of the proletariat, which is
the only historical perspective of the country. The bourgeoisie, for historical
reasons, have not been able to fulfill their role in the country; But after
1928 the politically organized proletariat rose up and took from the
bourgeoisie the historical leadership of the revolutionary process, as the only
class that can accomplish it. Therefore, the revolution in the country, the destruction
of feudalism and imperialist domination, can only be accomplished and from 1928
onwards through a national democratic revolution and under the leadership of
the proletariat, a class that in order to fulfill its historical role has to unite
with the peasantry in a solid worker-peasant alliance, since the peasantry, as
the majority, is the main force, although not the leader of the process.
These
problems of the character of society and of the revolution are of vital
importance, because we firmly adhere to the position that in the country either
the proletariat with ist party leads the movement or there is no
national-democratic revolution, we will not be deceived, directly or indirectly
we will serve the enemies of the class.
To conclude
this topic we point out that there are other theses contrary to those
presented, emphasizing that the thesis that Peruvian society is capitalist is
today the most dangerous. If the country is capitalist; and if the revolution
is socialist; the proletariat and not the peasantry would be the main force.
This thesis fundamentally changes the very important problem of the path of the
revolution; as we saw there are two paths: 1) that of the October revolution,
which is from the city to the countryside and is followed by the capitalist
countries through a socialist revolution; a path that old Russia followed or
that France should follow today, for example; and 2) the path of the Chinese
revolution, which is from the countryside to the city and is followed by the
semi-feudal and semi-colonial or colonial countries through a
democratic-national revolution, a path that Vietnam is following today, among
others. Therefore, whether the country is semi-feudal or capitalist is not a
simple Byzantine discussion, because if one errs in the character of society,
one errs in the path of the revolution and, consequently, this will not
succeed.
The thesis
of the capitalist character of Peruvian society has been and is supported by Trotskyism
and positions close to it, however such a typification begins to be supported
by revisionism to further deepen its surrender to the regime.
Bureaucratic Capitalism
This
problem is important for understanding Peruvian society, and its ignorance is
the root of serious political errors; we find the thesis of bureaucratic
capitalism in the classics and in Mariátegui, although in this case with
another name.
What do we
understand by Bureaucratic Capitalism?
It is the
capitalism that promotes imperialism in a backward country; the type of
capitalism, the special form of capitalism, that an imperialist country imposes
on a backward country, whether semi-feudal or semi-colonial. Let us analyze
this historical process.
How did capitalism develop in the old European
nations? Let us
suppose France; at the end of the 18th century it was a feudal country, it had
20 to 22 million peasants, the workers and laborers did not add up to but 600
thousand, (there you can see the feudal step that it had); It was based on
serfdom in its different forms. However, in the feudal core of France new
productive, manufacturing, and capitalist forms were generated; and a class,
the bourgeoisie, was gaining more and more strength, more economic power, even
political influence. Let us ask ourselves: Was France a country subject to
another? Was it an oppressed country? No. France was an absolute monarchy that
disputed with England the hegemony of the world; it was not oppressed by
anyone. Its socioeconomic and historical conditions had made it develop like
this. At that time, was there imperialism? No. Imperialism is from this
century. What there were are countries in capitalist development like England,
for example; and France was independently developing a capitalist society.
Other countries followed the same path, and when the 19th century came, France,
England, Belgium, Holland, etc. and they are developed independent capitalist
countries.
What was the situation of the Latin American
nations in the 19th century? When the emancipation of America began (1810), the nations of Europe
were already powerful, in contrast, the Latin American nations were just
beginning to structure their nationality, a problem that has not yet been
resolved. Furthermore, these nations, shortly after emancipation, fell under
the domination of a power, England; thus their capitalism will develop under
English domination, as a dependent capitalism. There is, therefore, a notable
historical, economic and political difference compared to the European process.
On the
other hand, the bourgeoisies in Latin America are developing and becoming more
and more linked to the dominant country, in such a way that these weak
bourgeoisies, instead of developing independently, as the European ones did,
and serving national interests, will develop with the subjugated, dependent
bourgeoisies, given over body and soul to the imperialist powers (England or
the USA) to the extent that they believe, until they become wealthy and
developed intermediary bourgeoisies, as the history of this century shows.
This last
path was the one that occurred in Peru. As we have seen, in the second decade
of this century, Yankee imperialism replaced English domination. To do this,
the United States used its intermediaries and seized state power; this is the
meaning and function of the 1919 coup d'état by Leguía and his eleven. This
period is key in the national process. In 1919, Leguía raised some issues: the
vindication of natural resources, the granting of land to those who work it,
the vindication of natural resources, the participation of the people through a
plebiscite and the renovation of the state apparatus. Leguía was the direct
political instrument of the United States to promote its dependent bureaucratic
capitalism in the country, to which end he promoted his own intermediary
bourgeoisie, displacing from the state apparatus that which was linked to
England through a renewal of the intermediary bourgeoisie that fought sharply
against the so-called oligarchy. From this process we must draw one lesson,
among others: it is not enough for a regime to attack the oligarchy or to claim
natural resources or to talk about giving the land to those who work it in order
to be considered revolutionary; it may be a matter, as with Leguía today, of a
renewal of the intermediate bourgeoisie and the development of bureaucratic
capitalism.
Thus, the
United States began its domination in the country and gradually introduced itself
into our economy, changing its forms according to international fluctuations
and the correlation of classes within the country. In one period, American
imperialism uses state capitalist modalities, in another, free enterprise as
the fundamental; according to which the State intervenes directly in a broader
way in the economic process, promoting it or putting in the foreground its role
as guardian of the free relations of private enterprise.
Three Lines of Bureaucratic Capitalism
Bureaucratic
capitalism develops three lines in its process: a landowning line in the
countryside, a bureaucratic one in industry and a third, also bureaucratic, in
the ideological field. Without pretending that these are the only ones.
It
introduces the landowning line in the countryside through expropriatory
agrarian laws that do not aim at destroying the feudal landowning class and its
property but at progressively evolving them through the purchase and payment of
the land by the peasants. The bureaucratic line in industry aims at controlling
and centralizing industrial production, in commerce, etc., placing them more
and more in the hands of monopolists in order to promote a faster and more
systematic accumulation of capital, to the detriment of the working class and
other workers, naturally, and to the benefit of the largest monopolies and of
imperialism as a result; In this process, the forced savings to which workers
are subjected, as seen in the industrial law, are of great importance. The
bureaucratic line in the ideological field consists of the process to mold the
entire people, through mass media, especially in the political conception and
ideas, particularly, that serve bureaucratic capitalism; the general law of
education is the concentrated expression of this line, and one of the constants
of this line is ist anti-communism, its anti-Marxism, open or hidden.
These three
lines are part of the bureaucratic path
that is opposed by the DEMOCRATIC WAY,
the revolutionary path of the people; if the former defends feudal property, the
latter proposes its destruction and opposes confiscation in the face of payment
for land; if the former recognizes and strengthens imperialist industrial
property, the latter denies it and fights for its confiscation; if the former
strives to ideologically subjugate the people, the latter strives to
ideologically arm them; and if the former persecutes Marxism, the latter
maintains that one must be guided by Marxism as the only scientific instrument
to understand reality. They are, therefore, two absolutely contrary paths. The
history of the country in this century is the history of the struggle of these
two paths: the bureaucratic path, that is, of capitalism subjected to
imperialism, and the democratic path, the path of the working class, of the
peasantry, of the petite bourgeoisie and, in certain circumstances, the
national bourgeoisie.
In order to
understand bureaucratic capitalism, it is very useful to study and analyze the
60s, in which the process of the destruction of feudalism advanced more; in this
period industry and capitalist relations in agriculture were promoted. On the
other hand, the class struggle developed greatly; the union, peasant and
student movements reached high levels. Thus a strong union movement developed
that at a certain moment took locals and leaders as hostages; the peasant
movement also had a great boom, in the second half of 63 like wildfire it ran
from the center of the country to the south; and the student movement had a
considerable rise. In summary, the struggle of the masses has lived great
experiences in that period, political struggle.
Likewise,
party politics had a great boom; On the one hand, the political parties of the
reaction ran into serious difficulties and struggles, leading to the crisis of
the so-called representative democracy in the years 67 and 68; on the other
hand, the left developed a vigorous political life, within which the struggle
between Marxism and revisionism was waged, later to return to the path of
Mariátegui as a condition for developing the revolution.
Another
rather important fact, and not sufficiently studied, is the problem of the guerrillas:
in the year 65, even in this area there was a guerrilla outbreak. The guerrilla
movement in the country is part of the national process. This is a first issue
that must be highlighted because sectarians sometimes try to consider it the
simple experience of an organization and do not see it as the experience of the
Peruvian people. It is a movement intimately linked to the political process of
the country, developed according to petty bourgeois conceptions; It is a great
experience that needs to be analyzed from the position of the proletariat in
order to draw fruitful lessons.
It is
impossible to understand our situation in the 1970s and its perspective without
understanding the concrete conditions of the 1960s. There is one good thing: in
recent years, the Peruvian intellectual community has begun to understand the
need to study the 1960s. Only by understanding this period will we be better
armed ideologically to understand the current situation.
The problem
of bureaucratic capitalism is important because it allows us to understand the
dominant path that imperialism is taking in a backward country, in a
semi-feudal and semi-colonial country; by understanding this problem we will be
equipped to combat the thesis of the capitalist character of the country and
its political derivations.
To conclude this topic, let us deal with the
following: some maintain that to propose bureaucratic capitalism in the country
is to ignore its semi-feudal and semi-colonial character; they say that it is
covertly proposed that the country is capitalist. This is an error that ignores
the laws of social development of our country and of the backward countries; because,
precisely, bureaucratic capitalism is nothing but the path of imperialism in a
semi-feudal and semi-colonial country, without semi-feudal and semi-colonial
conditions there would be no bureaucratic capitalism, thus, to propose the
existence of bureaucratic capitalism is to propose as a premise that the
country is semi-feudal and semi-colonial.
The
Current Situation of the Country
Conditions in
which the current regime arises
Under what conditions does the current regime
arise? Let us look
at the end of the 60s. What was happening? Economic problem: 67 currency
devaluation, freezing of wages, etc. Economic crisis. On the other hand, the
rising mass struggles, strong worker and peasant struggles, were clearly seen
to begin to appear similar to those given in the initial years of the decade; a
future rise of the mass movement was in sight. Politically, there were clashes
and divisions between and in the political organizations of the dominant
classes; the famous disputes between parliament and executive. In addition, the
elections were approaching, giving an opportunity to clarify many of the
country's problems and even for the parties in dispute, in their eagerness to
monopolize votes, to air dirty laundry. Ideologically, our country had gone
through a profound debate of ideas and it had become quite clear what Marxism
and what revisionism are; moreover, the path of Mariátegui was beginning to be
taken up again, to apply Marxism to the specific conditions of the country.
In addition
to what has been said, two situations must be highlighted:
1) The
economic situation of the country, that is, the development of bureaucratic
capitalism,
could no
longer continue to develop in the previous form, and it was urgent to deepen
it. We needed to open a wider path for this process to advance in the form of
imperialism; with the previous forms it could not advance. Let us not forget
that the agrarian problem had been discussed for many years, there were even
agrarian laws: the Beltrán project,
the Pérez
Godoy and Belaúnde laws. Another issue: in the industrial problem, the law of
the
second
Prado government was already insufficient and the need to create
industrial
parks, give priority to the state role, plan, etc. was reconsidered; there is
the Belaúnde plan from 1967 to 1970 that even more raised the need to change
the social condition of the country to build a new society, national,
democratic, Christian. In
conclusion,
the process of bureaucratic capitalism needed to be deepened.
2) In the
country there was the so-called representative democracy, but parliamentarism
did not
satisfy the needs of the exploiters; the popular masses advanced with
relative
ease, causing difficulties, although temporary, for the exploiting classes.
They then
needed to replace the representative modality, parliamentarism. Was
this a
typical case that occurred only in the country? No. The 1960s, in Latin
America, implied the fragility of the so-called representative democracy
regime, the crisis of
parliamentarism
and therefore the need to replace it with state modalities more
effective
for the reaction.
In short,
the economic need to deepen bureaucratic capitalism and the
fragility
of parliamentarism, in the conditions indicated, posed to the exploited classes
and imperialism the need for a new political approach for the country.
Thus, the
current regime arises from economic, social and political needs to deepen
bureaucratic capitalism.
There is
currently an economic-social plan that is rarely discussed. In summary, it
establishes: the need to promote bureaucratic capitalism, through the efforts
of workers and peasants, the former contributing through the industrial law and
the latter through the agrarian law. In turn, it proposes the direct and
primary action of the State to open conditions for investment of private capital;
that financing necessarily has to come from imperialism and since this
financing is insufficient, the fundamental thing lies in the country's own
resources. This plan clearly shows its connection with the process of
bureaucratic capitalism in the country; this plan is clearly linked to that of
Belaúnde and this one with the entire system of bureaucratic capitalism in the
country.
The
economic plan is very closely linked to social mobilization, but this is
another thing that is not very clear. The regime, having approved its fundamental
measures (agrarian, industrial and educational) has moved on to an
organizational stage. Today and in the immediate future, we are developing
within the organization, mobilization and participation that the regime is
promoting. Social mobilization must be understood as being linked to the
economic process. The government itself says that without social mobilization
it will not be able to fulfill its economic-social plan; and it states that
social mobilization has a basis, participation in property. Lately, the
representatives of the regime have been talking about social property. What is
this for? Property serves, behind the lure of participating in property, to
mobilize the masses for the benefit of bureaucratic capitalism. For this
reason, the basis of social mobilization is social participation.
What is the
purpose of social mobilization? Social mobilization is a political instrument
in the hands of the regime to promote its concepts and open a path that is
neither capitalist nor communist, that is, to spread its ideas. And by
spreading its ideas it seeks to prevent the masses from being imprinted with
strange, exotic, foreign ideas. What ideas are you referring to? Marxism. This
ideological process is to prevent the masses from learning Marxism and thus tie
them to the bureaucratic path. Likewise, mobilization is a means to organize,
based on the modalities of ownership, the masses and channel them under a
vertical command. This is what they understand by social mobilization; it is a
master piece of the system at the service of their economic and political plan.
One of the reasons why the economic plan is not advancing, as they expected it
to, is the lack of their so-called social mobilization.
From what
has been said, we can conclude: the current political situation in the country
is centered on the problem of mobilizing the masses. Now and in the immediate
future, we are moving in this situation: who and how to mobilize the masses.
The government intends to move them according to its conception; the facts
demonstrate this. The regime aims to organize the peasant masses, this is what
Law 19400 serves, they aim to organize the workers through the so-called CTRP.
Nationalist, revolutionary, participatory; among the student body it creates
organizations that are born one day and disappear the next. All this means the
attempt to organize the working, peasant and student masses, which reveals that
the struggle is taking place on the organizational level.
However,
despite the propaganda and efforts of the regime and its followers, the mass
struggle is intensified and developed. Why? Because the living conditions of
the masses are worsening as a consequence of the system itself; Therefore, no
matter how much they shout that it is the ultra-left that moves the masses and
agitates them, the truth is that the masses are moved by their interests, and
the more conscious they are, the more they defend it.
In summary,
the social, economic and political conditions lead to an intensification of the
struggle of the masses; and the organizational question faces serious
difficulties in the face of the organizational offensive of the regime, which,
incapable of imposing its total control, will have to resort more to systematic
repression (of which there are several and very instructive examples).
In
conclusion: the ideology and the
politics of the regime, including the organizational one, express a fascist
character. The measures of the regime, what its leaders express, its way of
organizing, the expressions it has in relation to the representative regime,
the way of treating civil liberties, only demonstrate one thing: the
abandonment of the demo-liberal and representative system and the adhesion to
fascism. The head of Sinamos himself says that there is a pre-revolutionary
period, and that all political regimes and organizations have become obsolete
under the new social conditions.
On the
other hand, the measures applied in the
political, economic and organizational fields prove conclusively that they are
laying the foundations for a CORPORATISTIC system. The essence of this
issue is the organizations at the different levels, in which the bosses, the
workers and the State must participate.Three parts in the organizations, this
is what has been defined as a corporation since the last century. This is how
those who supported corporatism have put it in the 20s and how they support it
today in Spain and Portugal.
Thus, the
current regime is a system that has a fascist ideological orientation and is
laying the foundations for a CORPORATISTIC system. It will be said that there
are other theses. Of course. There are theses that maintain that this is not
true, some maintain that it is a bourgeois revolutionary regime that is
completing a stage of the revolution; if we remember what we have seen, this is
an assertion without political, ideological or economic foundation. Another
thesis maintains that the regime is bourgeois reformist, that it is
implementing reforms. What is reform? Reform is the concession that the people
extract with their struggles, or is it the by-product of the revolution, said
Lenin. Are the agrarian, industrial or educational laws concessions to the
people? This was enough to see the inconsistency of this thesis.
Finally,
when we emancipated ourselves we had two problems, the land problem and the
national problem, the problem of feudalism and the problem of the domination of
a foreign power. Many years have passed, our society has advanced. The people
of today are not the people of yesterday. We believe that today, after so many
years, we still have two problems: the land problem and the national problem.
Hence, the process of transformation in our country, scientifically called, is still a NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION
and this can only be led by the proletariat.