Part of Muntjac Issue 2: Insurgency & Counter Insurgency
Introduction
José Carlos Mariátegui (1894–1930) was a Peruvian Marxist thinker, journalist, and political activist whose ideas reverberate throughout Latin America’s leftist movements even today. Despite his relatively brief life, Mariátegui profoundly influenced how we understand class struggle, anti-colonialism, and especially the role of Indigenous communities in shaping revolutionary politics. His seminal work, Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality (1928), stands as a watershed text in Latin American Marxist and decolonial thought, bridging Western socialist theory with the specificities of the Andean and broader Latin American context.
Through this essay, I (a Peruvian migrant living in the UK) will examine how his emphasis on the Indigenous Question, communal forms of organisation, and the lived realities of colonised populations provides a framework for analysing and critiquing both revolutionary movements and state repression. Weaving in a decolonial lens, we will situate Mariátegui within the broader trajectory of Latin American anti-colonial struggles, from Indigenous resistance to later guerrilla movements, showing why his thought remains pivotal for non-white and anti-colonial activists, particularly within anarchist and other radical circles.
If insurgency is understood as a challenge to entrenched structures of domination and counterinsurgency as the array of techniques used by states and elites to maintain the status quo, Mariátegui’s call for an “Indo-American socialism” offers both a conceptual and strategic blueprint. By placing Indigenous communal forms at the centre, Mariátegui effectively reorients socialism—traditionally perceived as a European product—to the historically colonised geographies of Latin America.
Part I: Historical Context and Intellectual Trajectory
Mariátegui’s Early Life and Influences
José Carlos Mariátegui was born in Moquegua, Peru, in 1894. Raised in relative poverty and suffering health issues that plagued him throughout his life, Mariátegui’s early experiences gave him direct insight into the harsh realities faced by Peru’s marginalized communities. At a young age, he became a journalist, quickly turning his vocation into a platform for radical critique.
Peru was grappling with the social and political aftershocks of the War of the Pacific (1879–1884), which had left the country economically and morally destitute. The oligarchic republic that emerged in the early 20th century was dominated by landed elites benefiting from resource extraction and the exploitation of Indigenous labour. The Indigenous population (the majority of the country) was relegated to near-feudal conditions in haciendas, deprived of fundamental rights, and disparaged by official national narratives. This deeply stratified society became Mariátegui’s chief area of investigation.
Mariátegui left Peru in 1919, journeying to Europe (particularly France and Italy) where the Western avant-garde, Italian Futurism, and nascent communist movements influenced him. Significantly, he was exposed to Gramscian ideas in Italy, learning about the importance of cultural hegemony and the necessity of engaging popular culture in revolutionary struggle. However, Mariátegui was no mere importer of European thought: upon returning to Peru, he critically adapted Marxism to the specific realities of Andean society, including its Indigenous communal traditions.
Encounters with Marxism and Latin American Realities
Mariátegui rejected a Eurocentric application of Marxism that failed to account for the material and cultural specificities of Peruvian and Latin American contexts. Far from advocating a sterile, dogmatic version of historical materialism, he saw Marxism as a living method capable of renewing itself when confronted with different social formations. He insisted that socialism in Peru could not merely copy European or Soviet models but had to engage intimately with Indigenous peasant realities and the legacy of colonisation.
Simultaneously, Mariátegui drew on the intellectual ferment spurred by the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920), our region’s first major socialist-inspired revolution of the 20th century, and the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) in Russia. Although his exposure to the Mexican Revolution was indirect, its impact on Latin American socialists at the time—through the idea of agrarian reform and peasant-led insurgencies—deeply influenced how revolutionaries throughout the region approached class struggle. Mariátegui’s critical contribution was to bridge these developments with a renewed focus on Indigenous communal forms, or what he called the ayllu—the basic unit of traditional Andean society.
Decolonial Praxis in the Early 20th Century
Decolonial thought in Latin America can trace an important lineage to thinkers like Mariátegui, who recognised that colonisation was not a mere historical event but a structure that continued to shape race, class, and power relations. His perspective diverged from many Eurocentric Marxists by emphasising that the capitalist exploitation of Peru’s Indigenous population was intertwined with centuries of colonial subjugation. Hence, the material struggle against capitalism and the cultural-epistemic struggle against colonial oppression could not be separated.
These insights are crucial to understanding how Mariátegui’s writings speak to insurgencies—uprisings aimed at overturning systemic injustice—and the counterinsurgencies that state deploy to defend their power. Where state-centric narratives in Latin America often framed Indigenous mobilisations as backward or dangerous, Mariátegui saw these communal struggles as seeds for a new socialist society anchored in local forms of reciprocity and mutual aid.
Part II: Mariátegui’s Core Contributions to Revolutionary Theory
- The Indigenous Question and Decolonial Socialism
Mariátegui’s most celebrated contribution is arguably his articulation of the “Indigenous question” as central to revolutionary politics in the Andes. In Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality, he devoted extensive analysis to how race, land dispossession, and colonial continuities shaped Peru’s socio-economic landscape. He called for a “socialist solution to the Indigenous question,” meaning a transformation that recuperated communal landholding traditions (the ayllu) as part of a broader socialist project.
* Reclaiming Communal Traditions: Rather than treating Indigenous communalism as a relic of a premodern past, Mariátegui saw it as a vibrant tradition that could inform specifically Peruvian socialism. He rejected paternalistic and assimilationist approaches that aimed to “civilise” Indigenous peoples through Western capitalist paradigms. Instead, he posited that these communities already embodied forms of collective labour that were ethically and structurally akin to socialist principles.
* Indigenismo vs. Revolutionary Praxis: While the prevailing intellectual trend of his time, indigenismo, sought to recognise Indigenous peoples within the national narrative, Mariátegui critiqued it for seldom moving beyond reformist advocacy or folkloric celebration. For him, the Indigenous question was not only a cultural or racial issue but a revolutionary one, inseparable from economic emancipation and a break with neo-colonial power structures.
* Decolonial Marxism: Mariátegui anticipated many subsequent critiques of Marxism’s Eurocentric blind spots. By situating the Indigenous peasantry at the heart of a revolutionary alliance, he called for an approach that overcame the typical urban bias of Marxist movements. While he acknowledged the importance of proletarian organising in factories and mines, Mariátegui never lost sight of the rural, communal bedrock upon which Peru’s social fabric was built.
- Critique of Oligarchy and Colonial Legacies
Mariátegui’s analysis of Peru’s oligarchy underscores a pattern of racial capitalism rooted in the colonial era. He illustrated how the white or mestizo ruling class enriched itself by exploiting Indigenous labour, perpetuating racial hierarchies established by Spanish colonial administrators. This system was maintained through violence—both the structural violence embedded in unjust land tenure and the more explicit violence of state-led repression.
* Collusion Between the State and Landed Elites: Mariátegui examined the Peruvian state’s complicity in protecting the privileges of landowners. Indigenous uprisings and peasant movements were invariably crushed under the argument of “maintaining order.” Here, we find the seeds of Latin America’s counterinsurgency doctrines, as the state historically de-legitimized Indigenous revolts by branding them criminal or subversive.
* A Call for Land Reform and Peasant Power: Land reform, for Mariátegui, was not merely about redistributing territory but about decolonising social relations. He envisaged a scenario where the Indigenous majority, organised collectively, would reclaim the land not as individual property but as communal spaces for production and social life. This stance challenged the individualist model of liberal land distribution, aligning more closely with anarchist and decolonial philosophies that emphasise collective stewardship.
- The Role of Culture and Myth in Revolution
A less heralded but equally important component of Mariátegui’s thought is his discussion of myth. He posited that revolutions are driven not just by cold economic calculations but by mythic, imaginative forces—hope, solidarity, sacrifice, and communal identity. By revitalising Indigenous and popular cultural traditions, revolutionaries in Latin America could tap into a deep reservoir of collective energies.
This cultural dimension resonates with anarchist traditions that value decentralised networks, communal ethics, and direct action anchored in local cultural contexts. Mariátegui diverged from orthodox Marxists who prioritised the industrial proletariat and rationalist lines of class analysis, stressing instead that forging a new world required creativity, spirituality, and the forging of a new “historical bloc” that included peasants, workers, and the broader masses.
Part III: Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Latin America
- Defining Insurgency & Counterinsurgency
Insurgency, in the Latin American context, typically entails armed or militant opposition against established political and economic structures. From the independence struggles of the 19th century to the rural-based guerrilla movements of the 20th century—such as Cuba’s 26th of July Movement, the FARC in Colombia, or the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) in Peru—insurgency has often been a response to intense marginalisation, poverty, and landlessness.
Counterinsurgency, conversely, includes the tactics, strategies, and ideologies states employ to destroy or neutralise insurgent movements. In Latin America, counterinsurgency often relies on a blend of military repression, propaganda, and sometimes social reform measures meant to reduce the insurgents’ support base. Historically, these approaches have been heavily influenced by U.S. military doctrines (e.g., the School of the Americas) and are designed to preserve the status quo of racial capitalism and neo-colonial control.
- The Peruvian Experience: Shining Path and Beyond
Though Mariátegui did not live to see the rise of Peru’s Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) in the late 20th century, his ideas nonetheless cast a long shadow. The Shining Path emerged in the 1970s under the leadership of Abimael Guzmán, blending a Maoist interpretation of Marxism with a violent, doctrinaire strategy aimed at “protracted people’s war.” While the Shining Path did invoke the Indigenous question in rhetorical terms, it largely centralised authority and carried out brutal campaigns that often victimised the very communities it claimed to liberate.
From a Mariáteguian perspective, one might argue that the Shining Path represented a deviation from the decolonial and communal aspects of Indigenous struggle. Although Shining Path emphasised peasant mobilisation, its rigid vanguardism and violent tactics alienated large portions of the rural Indigenous population. The Peruvian state’s counterinsurgency response was equally brutal, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, widespread human rights violations, and atrocities primarily inflicted upon Indigenous communities in the highlands and the Amazon.
Mariátegui’s insistence on a socialism that grew out of Indigenous communal practices—rather than being imposed from above—stands in sharp contrast to the Maoist-inspired centralism of the Shining Path. Similarly, an anarchist perspective critical of hierarchical party structures and authoritarian ideologies might find Mariátegui’s communal emphasis more resonant than the top-down militarism that characterised much of the Shining Path’s insurgency.
- Counterinsurgency as Neo-colonial Continuity
Counterinsurgency in Peru (and elsewhere in Latin America) often replicated the racial logic of colonial and neo-colonial regimes. In Peru, the worst atrocities against suspected insurgents and entire communities—especially in the Andean regions—mirrored centuries of colonial violence against Indigenous peoples. Under the guise of defeating “terrorism,” the Peruvian military and associated paramilitaries committed acts that reaffirmed the low value assigned to Indigenous lives in a society still marked by colonial hierarchies.
From Mariátegui’s vantage point, such state violence defends the oligarchic and neocolonial order. The cyclical nature of insurgency and counterinsurgency in Latin America is inextricably linked to incomplete decolonisation; so long as the agrarian question, racial hierarchies, and economic exploitation remain unaddressed, militant rebellions will continue to spring forth from subaltern communities.
Part IV: Decolonization and the Legacy of Mariátegui
- Connecting Mariátegui to Decolonial Theory
Mariátegui’s thought prefigures many arguments of contemporary decolonial theorists such as Aníbal Quijano, María Lugones, and Walter Mignolo, who emphasise how the coloniality of power structures race, gender, labour, and knowledge. While Mariátegui wrote decades before “coloniality” became an academic term, his insistence that capitalism in Latin America cannot be properly understood without its colonial heritage places him firmly in this tradition.
* Coloniality and Racial Capitalism: For Mariátegui, and later decolonial thinkers, capitalism’s global expansion was made possible through the racial hierarchies forged under colonialism. In Peru, this manifested in the oppression of Indigenous peoples and the monopolisation of land by white and mestizo elites. Only by dismantling these racialised class structures can true emancipation emerge.
* Epistemic Decolonization: Mariátegui was keenly aware that colonisation extended beyond physical domination into the realm of culture and knowledge. This awareness undergirds his project of fusing Marxism with Andean communal logic, representing a deliberate effort to create a distinctly “Peruvian socialism.” He thus challenges the standard linear narratives of modernity by placing Indigenous epistemologies at the centre of societal transformation.
* Beyond Extractivism: Although he lived in an era before the environmental crisis reached its current, catastrophic proportions, Mariátegui’s respect for communal land practices implied a more sustainable and collective relationship with nature. In contrast to the extractivist paradigms fuelling capital accumulation across the Global South, Mariátegui’s approach reclaims local stewardship. This dimension has become increasingly urgent in contemporary decolonial critiques that link environmental devastation to ongoing colonial plunder.
- The Relevance for Contemporary Movements
Contemporary Latin American movements—ranging from Indigenous-led uprisings in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Chile, to Afro-descendant communities resisting land dispossession in Colombia, Brazil, and beyond—invoke principles that Mariátegui championed nearly a century ago. These include communal organisation, reclamation of land and resources, and the integration of cultural revitalisation with socio-economic demands.
* Anarchist Resonances: While Mariátegui was explicitly Marxist, his valorisation of communal forms and direct action resonates with anti-authoritarian principles found in anarchist traditions. He opposed both top-down state socialism and liberal market-centric approaches, emphasising the autonomy and leadership of Indigenous communities in shaping their own destiny.
* Insurgency in a Post-9/11 World: In the post-9/11 era, states worldwide have expanded the rhetoric and apparatuses of counterterrorism, which often conflate insurgent movements with terrorism. This dynamic continues to criminalise Indigenous and peasant mobilisations, labelling them as security threats rather than legitimate social struggles. Mariátegui’s perspective would assert that these movements are not mere criminal phenomena but expressions of long-simmering discontent with colonial and capitalist oppression.
* Gender and Intersectionality: Although Mariátegui did not extensively analyse gender as a distinct axis of oppression, his decolonial stance implicitly challenges patriarchal structures embedded within colonial societies. Modern-day decolonial feminists, who highlight the intersection of race, gender, and colonial oppression, can find a starting point in Mariátegui’s insistence on combining Marxist analysis with local cultural realities. In particular, Indigenous women often spearhead community-based insurgencies, linking land defence, cultural revival, and gender equality in ways that extend Mariátegui’s foundational insights.
Part V: Decolonial Reflections on Insurgency & Counterinsurgency
- The Moral and Ethical Dimensions of Resistance
Mariátegui understood that any insurgency—even if militarised—must rest on moral legitimacy derived from the communities it claims to represent. Insurgencies rooted in popular aspirations for land, dignity, and cultural renewal can effectively mobilise collective myths and identities, becoming powerful vehicles for socio-political transformation. However, if an insurgency loses this moral core—by adopting overly authoritarian or violent tactics—it risks alienating the same communities whose support it relies upon.
From a decolonial anarchist perspective, the reliance on hierarchical command structures or cults of personality can distort an insurgent movement’s original emancipatory aims. Mariátegui’s approach implies that “people’s war” should be led by the people themselves, anchored in communal assemblies and direct democratic practices. If the struggle ceases to be communal, it risks reproducing the same forms of domination it ostensibly opposes.
- Counterinsurgency as Epistemic Violence
States do not merely deploy military might to crush insurgencies; they also wield epistemic violence, controlling the narratives that define who a terrorist, who is a criminal, and who is a legitimate political actor. Latin American ruling classes often frame Indigenous demands as archaic, irrational, or subversive to national “unity,” thereby delegitimising communal autonomy. Decolonial critiques highlight that such epistemic violence is a continuation of colonial attempts to delegitimise Indigenous worldviews.
Mariátegui’s insistence on the legitimacy of Indigenous communal knowledge counters this hegemonic narrative. By positing that Indigenous traditions are not obstacles to modernity but viable alternatives to capitalist exploitation, Mariátegui challenges the standard justifications for counterinsurgency. His stance forces us to question how official discourses brand movements as “violent” or “illegitimate,” often ignoring the structural violence that prompted resistance in the first place.
- Lessons for Present and Future Movements
* Building Alliances: One of Mariátegui’s core insights—building alliances between urban workers and rural Indigenous communities—remains crucial. While class struggle remains at the heart of Latin American insurgencies, an awareness of racial and colonial oppressions is vital to forging unity. Modern movements could expand on Mariátegui’s blueprint by including Afro-descendant, LGBTQ+, and women’s collectives, recognising that multiple forms of oppression intersect and fuel insurgent discontent.
* Centring Indigenous Authority: Any revolutionary strategy in the Andes (or other Indigenous-majority regions of Latin America) that fails to recognise the autonomy and leadership of Indigenous communities is doomed to replicate colonial patterns. Mariátegui’s emphasis on communal democracy offers a guiding principle for anarchists and other anti-authoritarians seeking to support local struggles without imposing external agendas.
* Resisting Militarisation: While armed struggle has been a historical recourse against extreme exploitation, Mariátegui’s perspective encourages caution against militarisation’s pitfalls. Movements that embrace rigid hierarchies or vanguardist doctrines may replicate forms of patriarchy and authoritarianism, undermining the broader goal of decolonial liberation. Anarchists and non-white communities often experience the brunt of state repression; hence, a careful strategic calculus is needed when deciding whether to adopt armed methods or focus on grassroots organising, dual power structures, and other forms of direct action.
* Revolutionary Culture and Education: Mariátegui gave considerable weight to culture, art, and myth. These elements cannot be dismissed as superfluous; instead, they are part of building a collective identity that can sustain resistance over the long term. Education—especially popular education—becomes a site of struggle, challenging colonial narratives and fostering a new generation committed to communal, anti-capitalist ethics.
Part VI: Critical Engagements and Contemporary Resonances
- Anarchist Critiques of Mariátegui
From an anarchist point of view, Mariátegui can be critiqued on two main grounds:
- His Commitment to the Party Form: Mariátegui did attempt to form a socialist party in Peru, the Peruvian Socialist Party (which later became the Peruvian Communist Party). This orientation implies a degree of centralisation that may clash with anarchist opposition to political parties. However, Mariátegui’s support for a party did not necessarily translate into authoritarian or rigid Leninism. His writings suggest a more flexible, localised approach to political organisation.
- Underdeveloped Analysis of Patriarchy: Like many male revolutionaries of his time, Mariátegui did not fully articulate how patriarchal oppression is intertwined with class and colonial domination. Anarchist feminists, particularly women of colour, might argue that his vision remains incomplete without a robust gender analysis. Nevertheless, his emphasis on the communal and the critique of colonial patriarchy provides an entry point for expanding his ideas in more explicitly feminist directions.
- Beyond the Peruvian Context: Latin American Solidarity
Mariátegui’s critiques of land concentration, oligarchic power, and neo-colonial intervention echo throughout Latin America, where Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities continue to face violent dispossession. From the Mapuche struggle in southern Chile to the Garifuna communities in Honduras defending their ancestral territories, the same logic of colonial capitalist expansion remains entrenched.
In a region marked by repeated coups, dictatorships, and waves of neoliberal restructuring, Mariátegui’s clarion call for a socialism that arises from local realities remains a touchstone. The Bolivian experience under Evo Morales, for instance, attempted to integrate Indigenous leadership into state structures, revealing both the potential and the contradictions of institutionalising Indigenous-led governance within a capitalist framework. While the Morales government advanced certain decolonial policies, it also succumbed to extractivist pressures that alienated Indigenous and environmental movements.
- Paths Toward Decolonial Futures
If we read Mariátegui not as a rigid dogma but as a living methodology open to adaptation, his work provides valuable insights into how communities might navigate the complexities of 21st-century struggles. Global crises—climate change, pandemics, entrenched inequality—underscore the urgency of articulating alternatives to capitalist modernity.
* Horizontalism and Communal Economies: In times of crisis, local assemblies and mutual-aid networks often spring up to fill the gaps left by neoliberal states. Mariátegui’s championing of communal labour resonates with these efforts, suggesting that cooperative and horizontal economic structures have deep historical roots in Latin America’s Indigenous communities. This can bolster anarchist arguments for self-management and localised autonomy.
* Spiritual and Cultural Revivals: The revival of ancestral ceremonies, languages, and spiritual practices continues to fortify communal identities in regions such as the Andes, Mesoamerica, and the Amazon. Mariátegui would likely see these cultural revivals as vital components of a broader insurgent identity, one that counters the assimilationist imperatives of both colonial and capitalist modernity.
* Transnational Solidarity: Given that colonialism was always a global phenomenon, decolonial insurgencies must likewise be international in scope. Migrant communities, diaspora networks, and global Indigenous alliances have begun to connect struggles across continents. Mariátegui’s emphasis on forging new myths of solidarity could be extended to create transnational bonds that defy the borders erected by colonial and neo-colonial regimes.
Conclusion
José Carlos Mariátegui’s legacy stands as a crucial bridge between Latin America’s Indigenous and peasant histories of resistance and the broader socialist and anarchist imaginaries that seek to overturn capitalist modernity. In addressing insurgency and counterinsurgency from a decolonial standpoint, Mariátegui offers nuanced insights rather than a universalising Marxism imported wholesale from Europe. He champions a localised, culturally embedded approach that places Indigenous community forms at its core.
He reminds us that insurgencies must be both materially grounded and spiritually fuelled—myth and culture are as potent as class analysis in mobilising a people for radical change. Counterinsurgency, conversely, is not just the physical repression of rebellion but also the epistemic violence that delegitimises subaltern worldviews and fortifies a colonial-liberal consensus. This understanding remains painfully relevant in contemporary Latin America, where Indigenous and Afro-descendant movements continue to confront the militarised might of neo-colonial states and global capital.
For today’s global majority anarchists, Mariátegui’s writings resonate with a shared recognition that domination operates on multiple axes. The struggle is not confined to class exploitation alone but extends to cultural, racial, and gendered forms of oppression that originate in colonialism. His radical call to centre Indigenous communal structures challenges the “one-size-fits-all” models of revolution that have so often failed to emancipate the most exploited and marginalised.
Yet Mariátegui’s legacy is no panacea. His own Marxist commitments, potential blind spots regarding gender, and the historical distance between his era and our own require critical engagement. Still, his central questions remain urgent: How can colonised people reimagine socialism so that it reflects their histories, cosmovisions, and communal practices? How might insurgent movements avoid reproducing the same logic of domination that they initially set out to destroy?
In grappling with these questions, Mariátegui’s work encourages us to seek alliances beyond the confines of classical Marxism, incorporating feminist, anti-racist, and anarchist critiques that further decolonise our political frameworks. In the face of ever-evolving counterinsurgency tactics, from media disinformation to militarised police, the lesson is clear: true liberation requires more than just replacing who sits in the halls of power. It demands a radical redefinition of social relations, an unearthing of colonised knowledge, and a re-centring of communal bonds that have sustained subaltern communities through centuries of exploitation and oppression.
By embracing Mariátegui’s “Indo-American socialism” as a living tradition to be reworked and expanded, contemporary movements can draw on his hope, creativity, and respect for the Indigenous communal spirit. In so doing, they carry forward a vision of insurgency that is rooted in solidarity rather than coercion and a practice of counter-hegemony that reclaims epistemic and cultural spaces from centuries of colonial assault. The path to decolonial futures, as Mariátegui noted, is not given—it must be made in the crucible of struggle, collectively shaped by the people who live its realities day after day.
In sum, José Carlos Mariátegui’s relevance for discussing insurgency and counterinsurgency in Latin America lies in the clarity with which he anticipated the intersection of colonialism, capitalism, and racial oppression. His thought enriches anarchist critiques of state power by reminding us that the root causes of rebellion are deeply historic, anchored in centuries of communal forms that refuse to vanish. Whether on the frontlines of a land defence struggle in Latin America or in the diaspora (over 43 million living out of our region), the Mariáteguian tradition endures as a testament to the power of local knowledge, cultural reclamation, and revolutionary myth. It remains the task of those who believe in a decolonised world to keep this tradition alive, shaping insurgencies that can genuinely dismantle colonial and capitalist power—and to resist the counterinsurgencies that would contain or obliterate them.
Leonardo Torres Llerena is a Quechua Peruvian migrant living in the UK.
