Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 17:57:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: M-G: Klaus Sender's answer  to  Sabina  Astete


What a bunch of worthless crap. Taking cheap shots at Mariategui who had
the courage to think for himself, and made a mistake here and there in the
process. Should we join a fucking Mao-Stalin cult like his critics and
walk around like a bunch of fucking Jehovah's Witnesses with Red Books
instead of bibles? What killed the radical movement in the 1960s was not
thinkers like Mariategui--who like Gramsci and CLR James--tried to develop
a Marxism based on his national experience, but Trotskyite and Mao-Stalin
cults that competed with each other who on the basis of who could most
slavishly ape Stalin, Mao, Hoxha or Trotsky. You are a disgrace, Klasber.
Mariategui helped to build communism in Peru. You and other ultraleft
sectarians did nothing but destroy it in Germany, the USA and everywhere
else you show up.

Mariategui was not an anthropologist. His understanding of the Incas was
based on the cultural and historical evidence of the 1920s. What impressed
him most was the idea of a communist indigenous society that could bypass
capitalist development. Marx entertained exactly the same ideas in his
ethnological workbooks that are about to be published. Whether or not Marx
had the most accurate information about the Sioux or the Yorubas, etc., is
not the most important thing. What Marx and Mariategui were grappling with
was the possibility of bypassing "stages". Why put society through the
misery of capitalist development when proletarian revolution could set
down the framework for socialism out of village, agrarian relations.

My suspicion is that you could care less about these matters, but are just
involved in a factional dispute in the Maoist subculture and are looking
to score points--a struggle between midgets. This is not serious Marxist
scholarship. 

Louis Proyect



On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 Klasber-AT-aol.com wrote:

> 
> Klaus Sender's answer  to  Sabina  Astete
>      
> 
> The picture of the "harmonious" Inca society is only my 
> interpretation?
> 
> "Never did Mariategui see the Incas as a classless society" ??
> 
> The Paragraph, which was quoted by me, is very expressive and 
> supports my comment. But perhaps, if you like, you need even more 
> direct quotations, it is no problem! With regard to the Incan 
> society he wrote  in a very important annotation (NR. 15, El 
> problema de la terra):
> 
>   "In our times autocracy and communism are incompatible, but this 
>   is not valid for primitive societies." (like the Incan one.!!)
>   See "Siete ensayos", German  edition, p.73 , OC, BD 2, p.68 
>   Ediciones populares).
> 
> The whole annotation is very interesting. Here Mariategui 
> defended his opinion, that the Incan society, in spite of its 
> despotic character, is a communist one. For instance here we find 
> the remark:
> 
>   "The 'Ayllu', the 'Communidad' was the cell of the empire. The 
>   Incas created a unity, built an empire, but they didn't create 
>   the cell. The state of law organized by them certainly reproduced 
>   the state of nature that had been existing before. The Incas 
>   didn't use violence here. It is important to pay tribute to their 
>   work but upon this one may not forget the collective effort for 
>   thousands of years, of which this work is only the expression and 
>   last result. One may not regard carelessly or just deny what has 
>   been achieved to this work by the masses." (p.73 Germ. Edition or 
>   OC, p.68/69) Translation.)
> 
> The last sentence is well said. It stressed the role of masses. 
> But the crucial point is: "The state of  law organized by them 
> certainly reproduced the state of nature that had been existing 
> before." That means, the society which existed before was 
> perpetuated in the new Empire. In the opinion of Mariategui the 
> Inca autocratic regime only organized the system of early 
> communism on a higher level, which already existed on the level 
> of village community. 
> 
> 
> The following is another very unequivocal opinion :
> 
>   "And finally, socialism is founded in the American tradition. The 
>   most advanced ancient communist organization ever known in 
>   history  was the Incan one." 
>   ("Obreras Completas", Bd. 13, p. 249, compare the preface of 
>   Eleonore von Oertzen, "Revolution und Peruanische Wirklichkeit", 
>   p.38)
> 
> And finally, in his article "Problems of Race in Latin America" 
> we found:
> 
>   "It was only by political and administrative necessities in order 
>   to strengthen central control in the vast empire, the Inca 
>   government was caused to organize  this communist order, spread  
>   in their whole territory since a long time, in a certain form." 
>   (p.132 "Revolution und peruanische Wirklichkeit", published by 
>   Eleonore von Oertzen.)
> 
> It is very clear,  Mariategui called the Incan state an early 
> communist order on a higher level, an autocratic reign and 
> communism at the same time. And all I read was a very positive 
> description of this early society.
> You said, that there are many articles, even describing  the 
> exploiting character of this early society. Give us some examples 
> with quotes like "Weklu" already asked about.
> These quotations above disprove also your second posting from 
> july 5 1997, which answered to "Weklu".
> 
>      Greetings
> 
>      Klaus Sender
> 
> 
> 07/04/97  /  07/09/97
> 
> (Translation)                Posted on behalf of the author
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> 
> 




     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---