
Nuevo Perú: NOTES AND MATERIALS ON CONTEMPORARY PERU (III, continuation d. Annexes)
We hereby share an article published by the Association of Nuevo Peru:
Continuing with our NOTES AND MATERIALS ON CONTEMPORARY PERU (III, continuation of Annexes), we include the following as annexes:
I
As an introduction:
In the light of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism, Chairman Gonzalo has shown how the semi-feudal and semi-colonial character of contemporary Peru is maintained and new modalities 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 Peruvian society and revolution.
The character of contemporary Peruvian society, which not only remains, but which, in the midst of its general irreversible crisis and to-be-swept-away process, deepens as we have seen in these notes. In this process, it lashes out like a deadly wounded beast. Thus, the old society and the old State that represents and defends it are mortally wounded, dying, but not dead. This situation will continue until the democratic revolution culminates with the seizure of power throughout the country; because today, any revolution can only be accomplished through the People’s War, the main form of struggle, led by the Communist Party and the revolutionary armed forces, the main form of organization. In the case of the democratic revolution, like ours, the path to be followed is that of surrounding the cities from the countryside (CCCC – Camino del Cercar las Ciudades desde el Campo), as a unitary People’s War, the countryside as the main and the city as a necessary complement.
That Chairman Gonzalo masterfully establishes that the capitalism that is developing in Peru is a bureaucratic capitalism hindered by the subsistent shackles of semi-feudalism that bind it and on the other hand subjugated to imperialism that does not allow the national economy to develop, it is, therefore, a bureaucratic capitalism that oppresses and exploits the proletariat, the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie, and that constrains the middle bourgeoisie. Why? Because the capitalism that is developing is a delayed process and only allows an economy for its imperialist interests. It is a capitalism that represents the big bourgeoisie, the big landlords and the rich peasantry of the old type, classes that constitute a minority and exploit and oppress the great majorities, the masses.
Bureaucratic capitalism is not a process particular to China or Peru, but rather it is due to the late conditions in which imperialism subjugates the oppressed nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America and when these have not yet destroyed the subsisting feudalism and less developed capitalism.
Logic and history show us the full validity of what Chairman Gonzalo established regarding the character of the semi-feudal and semi-colonial Peruvian society in which bureaucratic capitalism is developing, regarding the targets of the revolution, the tasks to be undertaken, the social classes and the essence of the democratic revolution and also how it is being carried out today and its perspective.
In this Annex I, we show how the ROL intends to revise Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo Thought, in relation to the problem of bureaucratic capitalism and the evolution of semi-feudalism.
In 2013, the revisionist and capitulationist Right Opportunist Line, continuing its course of revisionist renegades and traitors to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo Thought, the Communist Party of Peru, the People’s War, the Peruvian Revolution and the world revolution, raised the “dependent capitalist” character of Peruvian society, in which semi-feudalism was undermined and the semi-colonial condition was evolved.
Chairman Mao and Chairman Gonzalo clearly showed that the point is to sweep away, through the People’s War, the three mountains that oppress us: imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism and semi-feudalism, not to undermine or evolve, for which the democratic revolution must be completed with the seizure of power throughout the country. The process of sweeping away the old social relations of production and the old power takes place midst restoration and counter-restoration, midst the fluidity of the People’s War. The Peruvian revolution and the People’s War led by the PCP are in this process, which in order to continue its victorious development and carry the revolution to the end demands further development and completion of the general reorganization of the Party.
We know that the People’s War can never be stopped, because as long as there is a single communist in the Party, it will have to raise everything again and continue the task.
1. Fundamental question: semi-feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism
Chairman Gonzalo, in the Second Plenary Session of the Central Committee (1991), on such approaches of reaction and revisionism, in the document, said:
What we must know is that they seek to confuse problems and in this way aim to make us believe that there is a capitalist process that advances, and thus avoid and cover up bureaucratic capitalism.
We must see what the specific, concrete situations are in Peru (starting from bureaucratic capitalism) because today they are leading to an unbridled dispossession of the peasants’ property.
We make the peasants struggle against this dispossession and we tell them that only with a new order there will be a profound transformation and that this will benefit them.
The so-called “agrarian reform” of the fascist government of Velasco did not resolve the problem of land ownership, neither the latifundium nor its counterpart the minifundium were destroyed. What was done was to deepen bureaucratic capitalism according to fascist and corporate molds.
The peasantry wants the land for those who work it and the exploiters could not and cannot apply that, they are opposed to the slogan of true agrarian reform because this can only be fulfilled if semi-feudalism is destroyed with a People’s War, raising the peasantry and leading it towards a red republic, the People’s Republic of Peru, only by applying the peasant path led by the Communist Party.
Semi-feudalism persists with its three characteristics: latifundium, serfdom and gamonalism, despite the evolution generated by the big-landlord-path of development of bureaucratic capitalism.
The important thing is that in the Sierra the extensive properties are maintained despite the fact that there has been an “agrarian reform.”
To differentiate: in one way the peasant class is exploited: as an organized class the bourgeoisie exploits it through the State by means of taxes; and as capitalists, in the modalities of usury, of loan, of capital, of interest, those that are not paid are charged with the mortgage. And how does the big landlord exploit? Through rent. This is how semi-feudalism is differentiated.
The feudal forms have three modalities: the payment of rent in personal labor, in kind and in money; also the payment in money is a feudal modality, and the fact that the capitalist applies it does not mean that it does not have feudal roots.
Criticizing one of the conclusions of a report by a representative of the reaction, which stated: “The relative importance of the minifundium, which increased its average size, is reduced”. The Chairman says, of course his position is that there is a capitalist development derived from his successful reform, hence he minimizes or misrepresents reality; here his own words are: “the minifundium is reduced”, therefore, it exists and has not yet disappeared, so there is no such success of his reform; the servile forms of exploitation also subsist, the latifundium and the minifundium continue to coexist.
He says, the minifundium determines a setback in the cultivation of the soil, because the possibility of applying new forms is restricted. On the parcel, the whole family works until exhaustion, a great labor force is invested, but the net product decreases progressively with the increase of the gross product. The same applies to micro and small production. This is optimal for imperialism because it buys at lower cost and exploits immensely.
This phenomenon (it is in the semi-feudal basis of bureaucratic capitalism) in the countryside, also has repercussions against the proletariat because the countryside has to consume less, production has to go down, the wages of the workers are reduced and there is much room for unemployment.
See in the Line of the Democratic Revolution: The outdated semi-feudal system continues to subsist and to mark the country from its deepest bases to its most elaborate ideas and, in essence, maintaining persistent the problem of land, the motor of the class struggle of the peasantry, especially the poor, who are the vast majority of the peasantry.
The associative forms that were developed with Velasco’s corporate law collapsed.
With the Fujimori government since July 1990, it is the new concentration that now pretends that private enterprise tends to play an important role in the Peruvian economy.
To say that this process (of parceling) has begun spontaneously is also to ignore the fact that what is being expressed is the peasant path that subsists and develops in contrast to the big landlords path; and above all that with the parceling today what is being sought by the reaction is to give the peasants property titles to tie them to the process of mortgage and usury, to strip them of their lands and for them to be appropriated by the bankers, the big bourgeoisie and the big landlords; they want a wide field so that they can invest in the countryside and develop agro-industry; to seize the lands; to benefit from the few irrigations that there are or to grab the large concessions of vacant lands through the “PRIDI”.
In synthesis, the dispossession of the peasants’ land so that the big landlords and the big bourgeoisie can take over and develop the countryside according to what imperialism demands: producing for export, not to feed the people (but if a country does not produce its own food, it begins to depend on others, and we must not forget that the policy of imperialism is precisely to control food production).
The big bourgeoisie, especially the compradors, is favoured by the parceling out because it facilitates the dispossession for a new concentration with the objective of evolving the countryside, to create large agro-industrial complexes.
They do the parceling out in function of new accumulation of capital, they bring bureaucratic capitalism to the countryside.
The community is not as it is believed, an organism that works collectively, it is not like that, they are made up of family productive units, there is a distribution, a distribution of lands, that should make one think because then a process of dismemberment of the community is taking place, it is not like the PUM (revisionists) say, a united process in which everyone has the same interest. It is not like that.
In the communities there are poor, middle and rich, apart from the fact that they are constantly harassed by the big landlords. This means that there is the process of that decomposition of the community. There, of course, forms of collective work subsist, such as sowing, ayni (translators note: Andean mutual aid work), etc. These things are like that, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t see classes within the community.
In the communities, what is also happening? Owning the land is the clear demand of the peasantry, that is a key element in the background of the destruction of the associative forms. That expresses the survival of the peasant path and obviously in a dominant order, which directs the reaction, that path becomes a subservient and subsidiary path that complements the other; but they express two paths: the peasant path and the bureaucratic path, we must keep that in mind.
I insist again, the community is in a process of increasing decomposition and there are rich, middle and poor. That phenomenon, I repeat, is expressing the peasant path.
The problem is that the titling and the exercise of their rights within this order, only leads to coupling to the system, to being a complement to it; but if the peasant path is not directed by the revolution, it serves bureaucratic capitalism.
In 1972, at an event in Ayacucho, analyzing the land invasions, particularly those of Caccamarca and Pomacocha, in the province that was then Cangallo, the Party concluded that all this courageous, heroic and bloody struggle, which cost blood, although it gave the land, by not developing a revolutionary process, ended up coupling and complementing the old order and linking, unfortunately, to the power of gamonalism, which in the Sierra is the system through which the old State exercises its functions.
Something similar to what was previously stated, we should consider today. The parceling out of lands that occurs, dismantling the associations, expresses the peasant path that is concretized in that need of the peasantry to have their own land; but if it is not linked to the revolution, it will also simply be a complement and serve bureaucratic capitalism in the countryside. This is what we must think about.
The Fujimori government sees a long time frame for rural development, focuses on productive development and wants to change the model; it is awaiting for what the presidents of Latin America decide to adjust to Bush’s initiative for America; it is within the criteria of the Cepal that we studied at the Bureau in August 1990, it states that in Latin America, by the year 2000, land will not increase nor will the number of workers increase, so it should focus on agricultural productivity; it says that the problem is to develop agricultural technology, etc. That is precisely what Fujimori is proposing and what the comprador bourgeoisie applauds; for them the problem is no longer the distribution of land, because it has already been distributed, but rather productivity, how to produce more, with what techniques, with what organic devices, what markets to cover, etc. etc.
There we have the position of the comprador bourgeoisie in Peru, seeking to evolve the countryside, to regularize the titles of property for dispossession and new concentration. (This scientific prediction of the Chairman has been fulfilled and there has been a new concentration of land in the hands of big landlords and the big bourgeoisie, as we have been seeing with reports from academics and reactionary institutes, for export and not for the benefit of the people).
As we will show with other reports, which study the new concentration of land, what the Chairman said has been fulfilled, that:
The big bourgeoisie, especially the comprador bourgeoisie, is favored by parceling because it facilitates dispossession for a new concentration of lands because the lands are small and unproductive; they want parceling with the objective of evolving the countryside, to make large agro-industrial complexes.
Also on the social classes in the countryside, the Chairman says:
We can take the agricultural census of 1972, the National Survey on Rural Households that has been done in the countryside, although it has some limitations (we now have the last census from 2012 and the new Surveys, our note), so we could establish a table to classify based on property and exploitation relationship, to define the poor, medium and rich peasants, the big landlords and the agricultural wage workers; and in turn establish the differences in each of these layers. What we must know is that they seek to confuse problems and in this way aim to suggest that there is a capitalist process that advances, and thus avoid and cover up bureaucratic capitalism.
He tells us that we have to look at “sharecropping”. We have seen very small smallholders, now we are seeing tenants, who rent their land because they cannot work or who, not being able to work it, are linked to whoever has capital and work with tax modalities and in this way the semi-feudal relationship is concealed. It could be sharecropping or another form; it could simply be delivering in kind, in products (we will see all this in detail with the new reports that we will address in these notes).
The Chairman quotes part of a report, which says: “Of the population grouped in agricultural production, 2,175,000, that is, 96.5%, would correspond to households that own agricultural holdings. These households add up to 1,573,000.”
And he comments: An immense mass. When he speaks of households here, he refers to the entire family that works on the agricultural holding. “From this group, what could we derive? 601,000 are employed in family farms and/or are salaried workers of other units or of an associative company.” Very interesting and extremely important. Of course, this is discounting the group of people who manage these work units. The question is, as you say, that there are a good number of salaried workers.
Let’s take your figures, 1,700,000 would be direct and indirect conductors, but there are 702,000 who are salaried workers, 45% more or less. Very important. In other words, we have a good percentage of agricultural salaried workers, here they are not called that, but they are; they are not simply salaried workers, they are not industrial proletariat, nor are they factory proletariat, they are agricultural proletariat that sells their labor force in agricultural tasks. They are direct brothers of the proletariat. It is very important to work with this sector, there are, roughly speaking, 700,000 agricultural workers, they are rural proletarians, they do not have the peculiarity of the industry, the factory, but both are proletariat, they generate surplus value.
We are in the process of conquering power and we should consider doing an investigation ourselves into the general and specific situation of the Peruvian proletariat. There are so many in the factory, so many in mining, so many in the countryside as agricultural wage laborers. Then, in the factory, classifed by production sectors, how much they contribute to the GDP, how much is taken from them by surplus value, how they are being exploited more and more, how their purchasing power is being reduced, what are their working conditions like, how they apply their own reactionary laws torn from the struggle of the Peruvian proletariat, what is the working day like in each sector. There are 80,000 miners, but their importance lies in the fact that they move wealth, they generate 50% of the foreign currency at a national level by exporting. The agricultural proletariat is important because of its size and of course, it is in the countryside. It would be a good instrument to penetrate more rural areas because they come from the mountains or from coastal towns that we have not yet worked… Then, these semi-salaried workers would also have to be organized, the fact that they are temporary does not mean that they are not salaried workers.
On the peasants from the mountains who emigrated to the jungle, he says:
It is a peasant mass that has to develop within a relationship, no longer servile but of capitalist modalities, but what type of capitalism? The capitalism that gives them the land, within the peasant path or the forms of capitalist property within the landowning path that develops semi-feudalism under bureaucratic capitalism? Who rules over all this? The big bourgeoisie and imperialism.
Here, too, the two paths that confront each other are expressed, both paths occur and collide; the peasantry wants the land, wants to have property over the land and finds itself with the possibility of possessing few and not so good lands. In order to develop its plans, the reaction facilitates land ownership for the national bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie, but above all it facilitates the large property, the big bourgeoisie, the big landlords, and imperialism so that they can invest in large areas for products to be exported. It also favors the imperialists who apply development plans in the jungle and in the lower jungle, for example the CORAH project of the World Bank.
All this makes the two paths collide and the Peruvian experience shows that in these areas of the jungle, when one passes from one form of exploitation to another, from semi-feudalism to capitalism, they engender sharp class struggles; this is what explains the mobilization and the sharpening of the class struggle that occurred years ago, for example, in Quillabamba and recently in San Martin.
We have to specify the demands that the middle bourgeoisie, the rich peasantry, the national bourgeois have; also those of the petty-bourgeoisie in the countryside and in the cities. In the specific case of the countryside, we persistently uphold and put into practice the idea of basing ourselves on the mainly poor peasantry, but in certain cases we are expressing it not as the main one but as the exclusive one and that is not good, although they are the majority there are also middle and rich people and the revolution is democratic.
(The above extracts belong to the document “II. PLENO DEL COMITE CENTRAL, DEL PARTIDO COMUNISTA DEL PERU, EXTRACTOS DE LA SESIÒN PREPARATORIA DEL II. PLENO DEL COMITÈ CENTRAL)
2. Bureaucratic capitalism and the agrarian process in Peru
……………..