The Open Marxism of José Carlos Mariátegui

• Author: Curtis Kline
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X221095080
• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Date: 01 July 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles: Maríategui

https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X221095080

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 245, Vol. 49 No. 4, July 2022, 94–109

DOI: 10.1177/0094582X221095080

© 2022 Latin American Perspectives

94

The Open Marxism of José Carlos Mariátegui

by

Curtis Kline

The contextual and challenging Marxism of José Carlos Mariátegui allowed for the open-

ing of a theory often considered rigid and closed. Likewise, the current project of open Marxism

resists a theory that accepts the limits found in a given world as its own theoretical limits.

Engagement with some of the ideas of Mariátegui might help elucidate the openness of his

Marxism and offer different perspectives and theoretical directions to that project.

El marxismo contextual y desafiante de José Carlos Mariátegui permitió la apertura de

una teoría a menudo vista como rígida y cerrada. Del mismo modo, el actual proyecto del

marxismo abierto se resiste a una teoría que acepte los límites de un mundo dado como sus

propios límites teóricos. La interacción con algunas de las ideas de Mariátegui podría

ayudar a dilucidar la apertura de su marxismo y ofrecer diferentes perspectivas y direc-

ciones teóricas a dicho proyecto.

Keywords: Open Marxism, Mariátegui, Indigenous peoples, Self-valorization, Hope

The open orientation to Marxism that José Carlos Mariátegui employed to

understand the Peruvian context has been receiving more attention in recent

decades, but his ideas have not been engaged with by the open Marxism project.

After describing the goals of the project and discussing some of Mariátegui’s

ideas and impacts, this paper will delve into a dialogue between Mariátegui and

a few important ideas put forth by that project. The array of possibilities for ini-

tiating such a dialogue is broad, and therefore a few chapters from the open

Marxism volumes have been chosen to engage with the ideas of Mariátegui more

directly. The focus will be on notions of the inversion of a class perspective, self-

valorization, and the critical theory of hope. Ultimately, an engagement with

Mariátegui should enrich the project, offering insight from outside of the largely

European canon and considerations of how other worlds have been envisioned.

Moreover, engaging with the Marxism of Mariátegui in this way will help to

elucidate the Latin American’s thinking and the unique contributions he made

to understanding emancipatory practices from the global periphery.

The Open MarxisM prOjecT

Responding to the dangers of scientism, positivism, structuralist Marxism,

rational-choice Marxism, and other reference points found in the “crisis of

Curtis Kline is a Ph.D. student in political science at Colorado State University. His research deals

with territorial politics in Latin America, concentrating on socio-environmental conflicts, food

politics, and agrarian questions.

1095080LAPXXX10.1177/0094582X221095080Kline/MARIÁTEGUI’S OPEN MARXISM

research-article2022

Kline/MARIÁTEGUI’S OPEN MARXISM 95

Marxism” (Althusser, 1978) of the 1970s and 1980s, a number of scholars

embarked on a project that would come to be called “open Marxism” (Bonefeld,

Gunn, and Psychopedis, 1992a; 1992b; Bonefeld etal., 1995). The openness of

this project was that of the Marxist categories themselves, with the central cat-

egory being critique. The closed Marxism that it resisted was one that accepted

the limits found in a given world as its own theoretical limits and/or adopted

a teleological determinism. This project was recently revived in a fourth vol-

ume by a second generation of open Marxists, including a high proportion of

women and Latin Americans although the reference lists remain dominated by

European men (Dinerstein etal., 2020). Since its inception, the project has urged

both the opening of concepts onto practice and the mediating of that practice

through categories of a critical and self-critical kind (Bonefeld, Gunn, and

Psychopedis, 1992a). In this a high priority is given to the unity of theory and

practice—a notion considered “as old as Marxism itself” (Bonefeld, Gunn, and

Psychopedis, 1992a: xiii)—with theory interrogating practice and practice con-

stituting the framework for critiquing theory.

The open Marxism project insists on the contradictory nature of social

existence and especially on class struggle as the movement of contradiction.

This goes against the quantitative understanding of class in favor of a quali-

tative understanding that addresses class not as a grouping but as contradic-

tory and antagonistic social relations. Our world, which is full of

contradictions, calls for critical self-understanding that opens spaces for

theoretical and practical analysis. The aim of the project, therefore, is to be

open to the movement of struggle. Marxism is regarded not as the “objective

analysis of capitalist domination” but as an emancipatory theory, a theory of

struggle (Dinerstein etal., 2020: 3). The incorporation of scientism and the

heavy focus on historical periodization forces a dependency on Weberian

ideal-type discourse and, therefore, the teleological legitimation of analysis.

Open Marxism argues that a Marxism that confines itself to the possibilities

found within the crisis of existing structures becomes narrow-minded in that

that crisis becomes its own. Accepting reality uncritically reinforces the lim-

itation of possibilities. Therefore, the task that the project has set for itself is

“to open a theoretical tradition which has tended to become closed and dog-

matic” (Bonefeld etal., 1995: 6).

The first volume of the open Marxism project identifies several historical

figures as a part of this tradition, including Luxemburg, Korsch, Bloch, Adorno,

Rosdolski, and the early Lukács (Bonefeld, Gunn, and Psychopedis, 1992a). The

ideas of these heterodox, untraditional, challenging, and creative thinkers,

which go against an enclosing into predetermined laws and economic dogmas,

open up an understanding of categories (the state, capital, money, etc.) as forms

of struggle. This approach highlights the resistance and rebellion from below

that is involved in these forms of struggle. Mariátegui approached Marxism

from a heterodox, warm, contextual, open understanding. It is unfortunate,

therefore, that the open Marxism project has not identified his insights and

contributions. Engagement with his ideas could prove fruitful for the open

Marxism project and potentially open new or strengthen existing directions in

the exploration of struggle and resistance.