ANNEX II
4. In VOZ POPULAR, which we have previously cited in these notes,
from February-March 1972, regarding the concurrence of foreign investment from
the superpowers, at that time the US and the revisionist Soviet Union and other
powers, it says:
Analysis of the National Development Plan
1971-1975.- from
the article:
Four years
ago, in issue 3 of VOZ POPULAR, we published an "Analysis of the National
Development Plan 71-75" whose last paragraph (the central thesis of the
Report) said:
“From what
has been stated, it cannot be concluded other than that the National
Development Plan for 1971-1975 serves and is within the plans of North American
imperialism for Latin America and serves the native exploiting classes,
especially the great capitalists of the intermediary bourgeoisie. Thus, this
new social economic plan is nothing but, as we said, the deepening of the
bureaucratic capitalist path that imperialism imposes on the country; with the
particularity that today it is carried out under the dynamic impulse and direct
participation of the State in the economy and the participation of the armed
forces as the central column and foundation of the Peruvian State. A plan that
has been conceived and is being executed within the specific international
conditions of our time and, very especially, in function of the social forces
and the development of the class struggle in the country.”
Today, when
reproducing this document, an introduction is required on some results of the
economic plans of the regime, the current economic situation and the path that
is really being followed in the country. This article serves this purpose.
I. THE GOVERNMENT'S ECONOMIC PLANS AND THEIR
RESULTS
(…)
The
question arises: WHAT ARE THE RESULTS UP TO NOW? This is the first thing we
want to analyze
(…)
Thus, in
conclusion, the much-touted: “profound revolutionary structural reforms are not
such but measures for the deepening of bureaucratic capitalism that,
consequently, intensify the accumulation of capital at the cost of the
exploitation and hunger of the popular masses, while being "redistribution
of income", are nothing but part of the same process that also serves to
broaden its support base, generating a form of "labor aristocracy"
that is a breeding ground for "union bureaucracies" in favor of the
corporate remodeling of Peruvian society for which the regime strives after its
publicized "social democracy of full participation." And,
furthermore, in summary, where do all these "deep revolutionary structural
reforms" lead? To becoming trapped because they cannot destroy either
imperialist oppression or feudal exploitation, and to generating crises because
capitalism always generates them, even more so a bureaucratic capitalism like
the one that is being promoted. And the masses? To fight harder for the obstacles
that are raised in their path to defend their conquests that the crisis wants
to rob them of. To defend their own physical and moral integrity and their
development and for the need to change society to free itself from
exploitation, hunger, misery, ignorance, and the reinforced political
oppression that preys on its own children, taking their lives and shedding
their blood.
(…)
What is the
situation of the country's industry in the face of imperialist capital?
It is good to raise this point, because here too there has been much demagogic
talk. Let us turn once again to authors who are not blameless in
"ultra-leftists." E. Anaya Franco in his work “Imperialism,
Industrialization and Technology Transfer in Peru”, drawing conclusions from 20
years of industrialization, writes:
“The
dynamics of industrial growth in Peru has been driven in recent decades by
large multinational companies and conglomerates of North American, European and
Japanese origin, the same ones that, upon penetrating our economy, have
tended to establish either monopolistic or oligopolistic forms both
in terms of production and distribution of the product they produce (p. 76,
emphasis is VP's)
And
analyzing the relations between imperialist penetration and the purchasing
bourgeoisie, on page 78 of the same work, it is said:
“The
penetration of large companies and multinational conglomerates in the
`Peruvian' manufacturing industry has contributed to directly generating a
slow, though sure, marginalization of the new and old sectors of the national
bourgeoisie...Thus, in the last two decades The role that the `national
bourgeoisie` has been assuming has been to develop new industrial groups that
over time have been controlled by foreign capital. Therefore, what is
currently developing is an intermediary bourgeoisie that has emerged from
certain groups, which based on their prestige, experience and social and
economic connections have been integrated into large multinational companies
and conglomerates, becoming part of the ever-growing intermediary sector"
(emphasis added).
Apart from
the fact that when the author refers to the "national bourgeoisie" he
is referring to the native bourgeoisie; the transcribed paragraphs show the
process of imperialist control over our "industrialization" and, in
addition, what must always be kept in mind, the development of the comprador
bourgeoisie in the shadow of imperialism. Studying the industry J. A. Torres Z,
in his work "Economic structure of the 'Peruvian industry", specifies
imperialist control:
"Perhaps
the most significant conclusion of the structural analysis is the high degree
of control that foreign companies still have in the sectors and industry of
Peru, moreover, a direct quantification of the level of foreign investment in
the country "would not give an accurate picture of the degree of control
of foreign capital in the economy. This control is substantially amplified by
the strategic nature of the investment, by the fact that the most important
companies in each industry are foreign, and because most of these companies are
subsidiaries of large multinational corporations" (p. 67, emphasis added).
(...)
The problem
is simple! Imperialist capital has increased its control over the
industrialization of the country. To not go into too much detail, it is enough
to mention the case of the automobile industry: under the protection of the
measures of this Government, a greater monopolistic concentration has occurred;
from 13 companies that previously controlled this industry, today there are 5
left, all of them powerful world monopolies, Chrysler (Yankee), Volkswagen
(German), Nizan and Toyota (Japanese) and Volvo (Swedish), whose production has
increased and from our country they target the Andean market (…)
This is
concretely the results of the so-called “national industrialization”, the
imperialist companies are expanding their domain. Some examples are the
aforementioned Chrysler… the Bayer, this powerful German consortium in
partnership with the State (which holds 30% of the shares) is expanding its
production of acrylic fiber to cover the needs of the Andean Market; and the
metal-mechanical complex of Trujillo in which A.B. Volvo (Swedish), Perkins
Ingenio Ltd (English) and Masey Ferguson Ltd (American) in partnership with the
State invest in diesel engines and agricultural machinery, also targeting,
obviously, the Andean Market.
In conclusion, the general law of industries and other
related measures are leading, as it should be, to greater imperialist
control of the industrial process and its growing submission to the interests
of the great powers of the world economy and, especially, the superpowers.
What is happening in the fishing sector is very expressive, as they have long
publicly shown off, invoking that it was "a sign of confidence in the
solidity and future of the Peruvian process," the imperialist interests
are notorious: Russians in Paita, Germans in Samanco, Dutch in Pisco, Poles in
Tacna and Danes in the fishing infrastructure in the mountains. Another example
is the financing of Cuajone, also invoked as an example of confidence, the 390
million dollars The contributions made in 1973 were made by the Chase Manhattan
Bank, which headed the banks of the United States, Japan and Canada,
contributing 175 million dollars, and also by the consumers or guarantors of
the International Finance Co. and others for 215 million.
What does
this show? Simply, the game of the great imperialist powers and the superpowers
directly or indirectly, the latter especially in the case of the Soviet Union,
which not only acts openly in our country but through countries subject to it.
Regarding Soviet economic penetration, suffice it to say that trade with it and
its subordinates has been growing since 1969 until it occupied the first place
as a buyer, as the Minister of Commerce himself said (…) Thus, let us
emphasize it because it is overlooked, the economic penetration of Soviet
social-imperialism has begun in Peru and will necessarily develop, following
the laws and paths of imperialism to oppress us as it already does in other
places. On the other hand, we know what the revisionist opportunism of
“Unidad” and its followers defends, among other things, and why the problem
for them is trade and loans with the USSR.
Thus, the situation of the industry is essentially what Mariátegui had already pointed out in June 1929, when he wrote in “Capitalism and Socialism”:
"Industry is still very small in Peru, its possibilities for development are limited by the situation, structure and character of the national economy, but it is further limited by the dependence of economic life on the interests of foreign capitalism. The importing firms are, in many cases, the owners or shareholders of national firms. Logically, they are only interested in the existence of that industry that, for reasons of tariffs, raw materials or labor, they recommend; they tend, in general, to maintain Peru as a consumer market for foreign manufactures and producer of raw materials."
And, to
conclude this transcription of extracts from the article in the VP reproduction
No. 3 on “CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION AND
GENERAL CORPORATE ADJUSTMENT”, to deal a devastating blow to what the LOD
maintains, we quote the following from the same article.
Such is our
situation and it is already clear that the cause of the crisis is the very process
of deepening bureaucratic capitalism and that the world crisis only
aggravates our critical economic situation, at the root of which is, no one
doubts, our condition of a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country, characteristics
that precisely the deepening of bureaucratic capitalism and the
corporatization in progress evolve and preserve, despite everything that
is said to the contrary.”
Finally, we
will say: “Once again the revisionists of “Unity” are painted in full body” the
so-called revisionists, in this case, the rats of the revisionist and
capitulationist ROL, were written in the article
ANNEX III
Introduction . In the report on the SMEs, although it only
deals with formal companies, we have seen an interesting comparison, which
allows us to differentiate the productive structure of our countries with that
of the developed or imperialist capitalist countries, starting, on our part,
from the fact that we cannot erase the differences between the large company of
imperialism and the large company of the countries of bureaucratic capitalism.
We cannot say that “everything is monopoly”, although both have this character,
the large monopoly imperialist companies play the dominant role, while the
large monopoly company of bureaucratic capitalism (native) are intermediaries
of the former, that is, economic agents of imperialism.
Likewise,
the aforementioned Report allows us to document that we cannot see imperialism
as a whole, as Lenin warned in his polemic against Bukharin (see this
appendix), because there is no such thing as everything, but rather the
conjunction of the two contradictory “principles” of competition and monopoly;
this is all the more true for his sick child, bureaucratic capitalism, that is,
the dominant path that imperialism imposes in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial
country. There is not only large enterprise, but also medium-sized or national,
small and even so-called micro-enterprise.
Chairman
Mao specified:
“A handful
of monopolistic capitalists occupy the dominant position in these (imperialist)
countries. Together there is a large number of medium and small capitalists. It
is said that American capital is both centralized and decentralized” (Notes on
the Manual of Political Economy of the USSR).
“China
already has a modern industry that constitutes approximately 10 percent of its
economy; This is a factor of progress, this is different from ancient times (…)
China still
has scattered and individual agriculture and handicrafts, which make up about
90 percent of its entire economy; this is a factor of backwardness, this is not
very different from ancient times; about 90 percent of our economic life is
still at the level of ancient times (…)
China's
modern industry is highly concentrated, although the value of its output
amounts to only about 10 percent of the total value of the national economy's
output; the largest and most important part of capital is concentrated in the
hands of the imperialists and their lackeys, the Chinese bureaucratic
capitalists (…)
China's
private capitalist industry, which ranks second in modern industry in the
country, represents a force that should not be overlooked. The national bourgeoisie
of China and its representatives, oppressed or restricted by imperialism,
feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism, have often taken part or maintained a
neutral position in the struggles of the popular democratic revolution.”
(Chairman Mao, Report to the Second Plenary Session of the CC, March 5, 1949).
The CEPAL
report on SMEs, as will be seen, refers to our countries as having “a
heterogeneous productive structure”, trying to conceal the true character
of the same!
Now let us
look at the annex:
III. VIII CONGRESS OF THE CRP(b}R, REPORT ON THE PARTY PROGRAM, ...
……………