The Diffusion and Circulation of Marxism in the Periphery: Mariátegui and Dependency Theory

• DOI: 10.1177/0094582X211037328
• Author: Deni Alfaro Rubbo
• Date: 01 January 2022
• Published date: 01 January 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles: Contemporary Theoretical Debates

https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X211037328

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 242, Vol. 49 No. 1, January 2022, 182–198

DOI: 10.1177/0094582X211037328

© 2021 Latin American Perspectives

182

The Diffusion and Circulation of Marxism

in the Periphery

Mariátegui and Dependency Theory

by

Deni Alfaro Rubbo

Translated by

Patricia Fierro

Examination of the diffusion of the work of José Carlos Mariátegui (1894–1930) among

Brazilian social scientists exiled to Chile during the 1960s and 1970s shows that, despite

their significant contact with it, there was no discussion of it in the main works of the

dependency theorists, and therefore there is insufficient evidence to declare it a precursor

of that theory.

O exame da difusão da obra de José Carlos Mariátegui (1894–1930) entre os cientistas

sociais brasileiros exilados no Chile durante as décadas de 1960 e 1970 mostra que, apesar

de seu contato significativo com o país, não foi discutido nas principais obras da teóricos

da dependência e, portanto, não há evidências suficientes para declará-lo um precursor

dessa teoria.

Keywords: Mariátegui, Marxism, Latin America, Dependency theory, Intellectuals

The ideas of José Carlos Mariátegui (1894–1930) had significant, although

uneven and mixed, repercussions on political and scientific thought in Latin

America (see Rubbo, 2021). The aim of this article is to discuss their diffusion

among the Brazilian social scientists exiled to Chile during the 1960s and 1970s.

In different ways, the Latin American proponents of dependency theory had

contact with Mariátegui’s work during and after their exile experiences. I shall

examine not only what they assimilated of his work but also what they did not.

Under various circumstances and with various intentions, Florestan Fernandes,

Michael Löwy, José Aricó, Oscar Terán, Aníbal Quijano, and Agustín Cueva,

among others, were regular readers of Mariátegui and gave his texts meanings

that were not necessarily foreseen. This complex process was called “recep-

tion” by the Argentine historian Horacio Tarcus (2013: 31) and described as “an

active process in which a group is challenged by a theory produced in another

field and is attempting to adapt it to (receive it into) its own.” In contrast,

Deni Alfaro Rubbo holds a Ph.D. in sociology from the Universidade de São Paulo and is associate

professor of social sciences at the Universidade Estadual do Mato Grosso do Sul and professional

master in history teaching. He is the author of Párias da terra: O MST e a mundialização da luta cam-

ponesa (2016) and O labirinto periférico: aventuras de Mariátegui na América Latina (2021). Patricia

Fierro is a translator living in Quito, Ecuador.

1037328LAPXXX10.1177/0094582X211037328Latin American PerspectivesRubbo / MARIÁTEGUI AND DEPENDENCY THEORY

research-article2021

Rubbo / MARIÁTEGUI AND DEPENDENCY THEORY 183

Theotônio dos Santos, Vânia Bambirra, and Ruy Mauro Marini, known for their

contributions to the Marxist theory of dependency, incorporated aspects of

Mariátegui’s work without making it a key component of their respective theo-

retical, political, and scientific concerns. With them there was no “reception,”

although they embraced his work and read, discussed, and took positions on

it. The history of the diffusion of Mariátegui’s ideas in Latin America is charac-

terized by the overwhelming predominance of male writers. One of the few

exceptions to this was the dependency theorist Vânia Bambirra, a member of

the Eduardo Hamy Opinion Research Institute and a professor and researcher

at the Centro de Estudios Socio-Económicos (Center of Socioeconomic Studies—

CESO) (see Ribeiro, 2019), but I have found no traces of Mariátegui’s work in

her writings.1

In what follows I first introduce a selection of writers that suggests a certain

convergence (or elective affinity) between the research themes in Marxist

dependentista circles and Mariátegui’s ideas with regard to the categories “revo-

lution,” “Marxism,” “Latin America,” “local bourgeoisie,” “imperialism,” and

“dependency.” I go on to present data on the publications and the artists, jour-

nalists, and intellectuals involved in the diffusion of Mariátegui’s ideas before

and during the period when Brazilian social scientists were living in Chile,

pointing out that its slow pace there was associated with the early official pub-

lication of his work in the 20-volume Ediciones Populares de las Obras

Completas in Peru between 1959 and 1970. Next I highlight two Andean soci-

ologists who were important agents of the dissemination of Mariátegui’s work,

the Ecuadorian Agustín Cueva (1932–1992) and the Peruvian Aníbal Quijano

(1930–2018), and then analyze the contact of Brazilian intellectual dependentis-

tas with Mariátegui’s work during their exile experiences and thereafter.

Finally, I defend the hypothesis that the contact of the dependentistas with

Mariátegui’s work was characterized by an effective appropriation of his ideas.

Mariátegui and dependency theory: affinities

After World War II, the problem of development covered various debates

posed by the social sciences, among them those related to the communist par-

ties’ resistance to change with regard to the possible presence of feudal rem-

nants in capitalism and the “democratic-bourgeois” revolution and that of the

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) with

regard to the structural-functional theory of “modernization,” conceived as a

possibility of overcoming underdevelopment through industrial growth. The

radical theoretical reviews under way were of course marked by the political

and social crisis of Latin American societies. According to the Brazilian sociolo-

gist Florestan Fernandes (1994: 10), “although the concerns [about develop-

ment] became evident in the 1950s, it was in the 1960s and 1970s that they

reached their scientific and political climax. The unmasking of mystifications

created a favorable climate for a thorough review of the real (not the official)

history of the countries of Latin America.”

This was mainly due to the advent in academic circles between 1964 and

1973 of the dependentista approach. At that time, Chile housed a significant