Indigenismo, Populism, and Marxism Author(s): Hctor Daz-Polanco and Stephen M.

Gorman Reviewed work(s): Source: Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 2, Minorities in the Americas (Spring, 1982), pp. 42-61 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2633503 . Accessed: 04/03/2013 18:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AND INDIGENISMO, POPULISM, MARXISM

by Hector Diaz-Polanco* Translated by Stephen M. Gorman When one attempts to understand the agrarianquestion in Latin America, it is almost certain that one is immediately confronted with what is termed the "campesino problem" and, furthermore, as a specific phenomenon for certain countries of the continent, the "indigenous problem." Naturally these problems could be approached-and in fact have been approached-from diverse points of view. Although frequently these viewpoints appear to correspond to differing "intellectual"inclinations or to the personal theoretical conceptions of the analyst, it would not be difficult to discover beneath the apparent heterogeneity certain commonalities on fundamental propositions. This is so because we are not, in reality, confronted with individual opinions, but rather with class outlooks.' Very schematically, it is possible to identify at least three positions concerning the campesino and indigenous socioeconomic groups that in general reflect three clearly differentiated class viewpoints: The first perspective emphasizes the backward character of these systems in reference to the Western-capitalist pattern and, in consequence, proposes
The author, a cultural anthropologist, teaches at the Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico (UNAM) and is associated with the Centro de Investigaci6n para la Integraci6n Social (CIIS) in Mexico City. The translator teaches political science at North Texas State University, Denton. Readers should note that throughout this article the author uses the terms "populism" and "populists to define the ideology and program of modern neoindigenistas whose views found their clearest expression in the Barbados I and II Declarations and whose ideological tradition can be traced back to the populism of the Russian Narodniks. This is not necessarily how the neoindigenistas would categorize themselves, since Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran, for example, claims to be a Marxist. But, as he explains, the author is here concerned with the class outlook rather than the self-definition of these theorists. The specific use of the category of "populist" and the historical link to Narodnism are explained below (issue editors). 1Iwill present in this essay an analysis of the diverse focuses, without pretending to give the ultimate word, on a theme that is not and is far from close to being exhausted. Neither will the author pretend to assume an "impartial" position. Owing to the very character of the subject, I will frequently make references, in a polemical tone, to the opinions of other persons that have dealt with the theme. The author has confidence that the debate has already achieved a level of development and maturity that makes possible such references without wounding sensibilities.
42
*

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

POPULISMAND MARXISM INDIGENISMO, DIAZ-POLANCO:

43

the integration of these systems into the larger society. Contrary to the previous view, the second position intensively concentrates on the positive character of these social and economic systems, especially of the cultural complex, at the same time as proposing to emphasize the unfavorable effects of the capitalist system [on these subsystems]. This perspective rejects the integrationof campesino and indigenous groups into the capitalist system and upholds the rights of these groups to conserve their identities through an "autonomous" development; that is to say, to procure the reproduction of these systems for which capitalism, according to this point of view, proposes no solution except destruction and degeneration.The third position maintains that the above-mentionedsocioeconomic groups, because of the low development of their productive forces and the limited social structure within which they develop, lack an adequate setting for the resolution of their problems, much less an adequate structure within which to organize society in its totality. Nevertheless, neither can the capitalist system offer solutions within its laws and patterns of function. Therefore, the solution to the problems of the campesinos and indigenous groups can only come about through a complete restructuringof the entire society, that is to say, the campesinos and indigenous groups can only be freed from exploitation, discrimination, poverty, etc., by destroying the force which in the end is responsible for that situation: capital. Cultural singularities and, in general, ethnic identities can only be protected and developed within this new organization of society. Naturally, we are dealing with an extremely simplified outline of three positions that acquire on closer examination greater complexity and sophistication. Throughout this text we will have the opportunity to reveal their complexities in more detail, but for the moment, it is important to point out that these three central positions have constantly manifested themselves in struggle, at least during most of the last decades. It is not difficult to associate the first position with that held by the dominant classes in Latin America. In contrast, the third position is that which the Marxists have sustained, more or less systematically, based on what has been termed the proletarianviewpoint. What viewpoint, then, does the second position represent? It embodies the petty-bourgeois view-based on an idealization of the noncapitalist socioeconomic systems, but associated organically with capitalism-which assumes the "defense" of the campesino and indigenous interests. This doctrine, considered in its general outline, is known in Marxist literature as Narodnism or populism. It is now necessary to determine exactly the content of these concepts, since they are frequently utilized polemically by one group or another when in reality they are notions with clear theoretical meanings.2 THE CONCEPT OF POPULISM The theoretical battles Lenin waged against the Russian Narodniks (populists) during his efforts to define a revolutionary political strategy are
2Lenin had noted this inadequate use of such concepts: I have already had occasion to remark above in the article on economic romanticism that our opponents display remarkable short-sightedness in regarding the terms reactionary and petty-bourgeois as polemical abuse, when they have a perfectly definite historicophilosophical meaning (Lenin, 1967: 74).
LatinAmericanPerspectives:Issue 33, Spring 1982, Vol. IX, No. 2

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

44

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

well known. Within this process, he proceeded to delineate the fundamental features of the populist "system of ideas." For its precision, it is appropriate to express this conceptual definition in Lenin's own words.
By Narodism we mean a system of views, which comprises the following three features: (1) Belief that capitalism in Russia represents a deterioration, a retrogression. Hence the urge and desire to "retard," "halt," "stop the break-up" of the age-old foundations by capitalism, and similar reactionary cries. (2) Belief in the exceptional character of the Russian economic system in general, and of the peasantry, with its village commune, artel, etc., in particular. It is not considered necessary to apply to Russian economic relationships the concepts elaborated by modern science concerning the different social classes and their conflicts. The village-commune peasantry is regarded as something higher and better than capitalism; there is a disposition to idealise the "foundations." The existence among the peasantry of contradictions characteristic of every commodity and capitalist economy is denied or slurred over; it is denied that any connection exists between these contradictions and their more developed form in capitalist industry and capitalist agriculture. (3) Disregard of the connection between the "intelligentsia" and the country's legal and political institutions, on the one hand, and the material interests of definite social classes, on the other. Denial of this connection, lack of a materialist explanation of these social factors, induces the belief that they represent a force capable of "dragging history along another line" . . and so on (Lenin, 1967: 72).

It is clear that Lenin intended to delineate the theoretical outline of a ''system of ideas" directed at facilitating the analysis of diverse positions without this implying a lack of awareness that certain "differences"can exist between the elaborations that the populists themselves make. But at bottom, those apparently heterogeneous elaborations or polemics strictly coincide.3 It is important to clarify from the outset that if indeed it is certain that Marxist thought has systematically battled populism, it is no less certain that in determinate phases it considers this conception to be within the "progressive currents of social thought." In effect, populism assumes a critical attitude toward capitalism and singles out problems that bourgeois thought is incapable of identifying. Such is the case with "critical" anthropological thought or the new indigenismo that assumes a combative posture in the face of the capitalist-integrationist system, whereas the traditional or official indigenismo (e.g., Mexican indigenismo) rationalizes the process of capitalist assimilation and elaborates clearly apologetical conceptions. But the objection made by populism is based on a "romantic and petty-bourgeois critique of capitalism," which determines that the solution that is proposed will be "totally unworkable."If in fact this critique was able to maintain itself while the development of capitalism was very weak, it is no longer relevant to the present state of this system nor to "the actual state of our understandingconcerning history and economic realities." Hence,
3Lenin explains: Among these individual representatives there are differences, of course, and sometimes important ones. Nobody ignores these differences. But the afore-mentioned views are common to all the most diverse representatives of Narodism . . . To deny these differences between the Narodniks in the narrow sense and the Narodnik in general would, of course, be wrong; but it would be more wrong still to ignore the fact that the fundamental socio-economic views of all Narodniks coincide on the afore-mentioned major points (Lenin, 1967: 720).

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIAZ-POLANCO: INDIGENISMO, POPULISM AND MARXISM Once progressive, as the first to pose the problem of capitalism, nowadays Narodnism is a reactionary and harmfultheory which misleads social thought and plays into the hands of stagnation and Asiatic backwardness (Lenin, 1967: 74).

45

Therefore, the polemic between Marxists and populists has led to the most grave confusions and, above all, misunderstandings. Frequently the bourgeois theorists lump Marxists and populists together into a single category (because of the coincidence of their critical attitudes toward capitalism) under the rubric "Marxists."But, in reality, this is of the least importance. It is very symptomatic, on the other hand, that the populists with equal frequence identify Marxist theorists with bourgeois theorists on the basis that both conceptions are "integrationist."4 Finally, on occasion, bourgeois theorists are identified from a Marxist position with populists, erasing with a stroke the progressive nucleus that the latter focus can contain. Apart from confusion, all this has fomented dogmatism. It would be useful, then, to clearly establish the fundamental points of disagreement between the three positions. The present essay proposes to make a provisional contribution in this regard, inserting itself into a debate that surely will broaden and deepen in the course of the coming years. The interest for the present discussion gains actuality from the fact that in recent times the populist current has reappeared in Mexico, acquiring an unexpected impetus from the sharpening of the crisis provoked by the devastating development of capitalism in the countryside. We intend, therefore, to analyze the principle positions presently operating in the analysis of the indigenous problematic.'
INDIGENISMO: THE CAPITALIST PROJECT OF INTEGRATION

Since indigenista theory is well-known, we will omit a detailed exposition of its fundamentals.6 But for purposes of comparison and analysis, it is necessary to identify the basic aspects of its theoretical framework. The long and patient construction of indigenous theory in Latin America (particularly in Mexico) has taken on an appearance more showy than complex that conceals its theoretical roots. Hence, indigenismo frequently presents itself as an original elaboration appropriate to specific conditions of the indigenous problem of our countries.7 Nevertheless, it is not difficult to discover that indigenista action responds to the general practice of the capitalist system, which everywhere expresses itself in a constant process of destruction and assimilation of the other forms of production with which it comes in contact.
4This confusion has favored some bourgeois theorist to maneuver in order to present themselves as Marxists, underlining supposed points of coincidence with this last conception. An example of this can be found in the work of G. Aguirre Beltran. 5For reasons of space, we will leave aside here an examination of the specific focuses concerning the campesinos (campesinos parcelarios). Nevertheless, it is enough to note that in its general features, the positions that are advanced in the field of indigenous analysis regarding the campesino do not vary substantially. 6Again, reasons of space impede further discussion of this point. A more detailed analysis of this issue can be found in Victor Bravo, et a]. (1977). 'Although it is true that often this pretended originality has fooled the critics of indigenismo more than indigenista theorists themselves.

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

46

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

In the nineteenth century, the anthropologic theory par excellence of the epoch (evolutionism) had elaborated schemes that would permit the organization of diverse social systems in hierarchical schemes ranging from the most simple societies to the most complex. In this fashion, anthropology made possible the designation of "superior" and "inferior" societies in terms of certain criteria that permitted specifying the degree of "progress"achieved. Later, that system was utilized by the Western European capitalist countries to justify colonial expansion (Diaz-Polanco, 1977). Particularly in Mexico during the past century, a policy of clear evolutionary extraction was implemented whose declared objective was to assimilate indigenous groups, integrating them into the "national society." This process of assimilation expressly implied the abandonment on the part of the natives of all their cultural features, which were visualized negatively as responsible for the "backward" degree of development in which they were found. The Inter-AmericanIndigenista Congress, convened in Patzcuaro, Mexico, in 1940 expressed a change of attitude. This change, theoretically speaking, rejected the old nineteenth-century theory of the European colonialist countries and adopted a cultural-relativisttheory of North American extraction. In this manner, the evolutionist conception is accused of ethnocentricity,and there is postulated thereafter (as stated by Aguirre Beltran [1975e:27], without doubt the most elaborate of the indigenista theorists) an "integrationof the Indians into the national society realized with respect for the values of their culture and their human dignity." In all events, indigenismo has insisted in maintaining the definition of its objectives in terms that can be summarized as follows: Indigenismo proposes noncolonial integration of the Indian into the national society, but in a different fashion than the simple assimilationist policy that was promoted during the past century. Indigenismo seeks to realize integration while respecting cultural values, that is to say, it postulates the integration of the native "with his milieu and cultural baggage." Above all, one would have to appreciate that the indigenistas, in proposing "integration,"do not suppose that the Indians live separately from the national society. They recognize a linkage between the indigenous and national societies which they conceive as an undesirable colonial relationship. Although they consider that "Indians and ladinos [(mestizos) who live in indigenous areas and there form the dominant group] live in socioeconomic symbiosis," they do not see this as being based on class relations but rather on caste relations that derive from an ancient colonial situation. What indigenismo desires is to promote integration of the Indians under distinct conditions that erase these "colonial relations" and cause to disappear the obstacles that imply "caste situations" in order to bring about the full incorporation of the natives into the national society in the quality of full ''citizens" with the same "rights" as other members of the nationality. This being the case, why do the populists oppose this program? Would the integrationproposed by indigenismo not break with the brutal relations of exploitation to which natives are subjected? Furthermore, could this last objective not be achieved while at the same time guaranteeing "cultural pluralism"or "multiethnicity"-an objective that has been the most defended

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIAZ-POLANCO: INDIGENISMO, POPULISM AND MARXISM

47

proposal of the populists? It appears that in assuming an attitude of rejection, the populist intuition has functioned in the right direction, although the option that they propose, on the other hand, is disputable. In effect, the above indigenista proposition, in spite of the fact that it has been maintained intact as a project since its full elaboration starting with the Congress of Patzcuaro and has been incessently repeated up to the present, very quickly had to modify its theoretical expression. A similar proposition derived from the influence of cultural relativism, which at the time rejected the absolutist ethnocentrism of classical evolutionism8based on the consideration that the observed differences between diverse societies could not be interpreted from notions of "superiority"or "inferiority,"proposed a relative consideration of the diverse cultural systems. Accordingly, Western capitalist society ceased to be the pattern against which other sociocultural formations were measured. And consequently, no social pattern or paradigm was adopted par excellence. Therefore, all social systems were conceived as adequate contexts within which social life could fully develop on its own terms and from which was logically deduced a program of respect for different cultural forms.9 But very quickly the relativists realized the contradiction that existed between this postulate of absolute respect for all cultures and the necessity of the capitalist system to implement projects of integration,that is to say, of accumulation. If respect were elevated to its ultimate consequences, to its logical conclusions, it would be impossible to promote plans of integration or change directed at the assimilation of these indigenous sociocultural systems. Relativism would then seek the solution to this conflict through the notion of "acculturation." The indigenistas would have to accomplish this properly. For example, Aguirre Beltran (1975e:27) notes that in the Congress of Patzcuaro they gave "great attention to the postulates of cultural relativism that demand respect for cultures under seige," but immediately he adds that in order to prevent "action from becoming sterile as a consequence of such a formulation"it was necessary to establish the "additional principle" of "social justice" (Aguirre Beltran, 1975a: 27). Although we cannot expand on this theme here, it is worth noting that what began as a small irritation converted itself over the long run into a contradiction and, finally, a break with cultural relativism.10
8One has to remember that starting after 1955, evolutionist thought was reborn under the form of "multilinear" (neoevolutionism). See Angel Palerm (1972) and Steward (1974). 9Naturally, there are reasons to think that a similar theory should have developed in a country like the United States, not involved at that moment in the process of colonial expansion pursued by European powers, particularly in Asia and Africa. Such a theory, in consequence, can be interpreted as an ideological expression of the struggle between capitalist power. See Bastide (1972: 19) who suggests this interpretation. '0For example, Aguirre Beltran (1975b: 226-227), after placing in relief "the assimilationist postulates" of evolutionism, says: Cultural relativism, on the contrary, places in doubt the ideas of progress and evolutionism, dogmatically considered; it maintains the necessity of evaluating each culture in its own context and not from the framework of ethnocentric and supposedly superior Western civilization. Conforming to this focus, the indigenous cultures are not considered as backward forms, but, simply, different responses to existential problems and for this it requires respect and comprehension . . . , Nevertheless, the pluralist thesis sterilizes indigenista action in that it becomes bogged down in the foundation on which it bases its

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

48

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

And it could not be otherwise if one recognizes that indigenismo had to implement an integrationist practice. What is important to emphasize here, then, is that indigenismo-anti-evolutionist in its origin-had to retrace its footsteps to reintroduce, although more surreptitiously, the ethnocentrism that had been rejected with such scandal. Again, Western capitalist society became a pattern, and the indigenous groups were obliged to integrate themselves into that pattern if they wanted to secure the "social justice" that only the nation (capitalist system) could offer and guarantee them. Furtheron we will see that indigenismo is unilinear evolutionist in another sense. This being the case, and in its eagerness to solve the contradiction, indigenismo placed itself in a curious situation. It sustained the position that it was neither culturalist nor assimilationist, "but both things at the same time." The indigenous cultures cannot be respected as a bloc: some aspects should be changed and others (like language) can be respected. Strictly speaking, therefore, "respect" is reduced to maintaining certain superstructural features so long as these do not contradict the "strategicaspects" of the national culture. This has permitted the indigenistas to sustain importunely that the integration of the Indians does not fatally imply the extermination of their singular qualities. This project should be subjected to a theoretical and empirical examination that cannot be realized within the limits of this article. At any rate, it appears clear that indigenismo has not elaborated procedures to promote a type of integration of indigenous societies into the capitalist system that would not provoke a constant and systematic dissolution of their "singularities."Without doubt, this failure is not owing to a "deficiency" of indigenismo, but to the characteristics of the integrationist capitalist system. Capitalism, in effect, has demonstrated historically that it does not tolerate a society of true cultural pluralism. It is necessary to return to the abstract argumentations.When it has been said that Mexican indigenismo has failed in its policy of assimilation, Aguirre Beltrain himself has jumped into the arena to demonstrate that, on the contrary, indigenista action, in his opinion, has been successful in achieving, for example, the "Christianization"and "Mexicanization"of the Indian, with what appears as integration implying not a conservation of [Indian] singularities but, on the contrary, the destruction of singularities. When indigenistas have attempted to prove that "the absorption of Indian values on the part of the national culture implies the survival-not the cultural annihiliation-of these values in the irreversible process of acculturation that contracts the formation of a national state," what one infers from their arguments is sincerely that the "nationality"has attempted to reclothe itself with values taken from the indigenous culture, but not that the indigenous groups conserve intact these values as central elements of their social system
intervention, as a movement that proposes to modify an undesirable situation. In effect, if the Indian cultures do not represent survivors in the evolutionary sequence, but rather products derived from different evolutionary lines, then there is no basis to procure their modernization, given that they are modern cultures although distinct from Western modernity. From here he passes to a direct critique, reproaching the relativists for their pretention of conserving the indigenous groups as "museum objects" and accusing the thesis of cultural relativism of being a "modern and subtle variant of the thesis of the noble savage."

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIAZ-POLANCO: INDIGENISMO, POPULISM AND MARXISM

49

(Aguirre Beltran, 1975a: 67). In conclusion, and in spite of its ambiguities, indigenismo comes out to be a more elaborate version of the old and traditional assimilationist policy that the capitalist system has implemented. Thus, the postulate of integration with due respect for indigenous "singularities" reduces itself to its true terms: dissolution, simply, of the indigenous groups.
POPULISM: THE ROMAN7IC PROJECT

What attitude does populism assume toward the indigenista program? Synthesizing their position, the populists (1) warn that indigenista integration signifies dissolution of the indigenous communities and their absorption by the capitalist system, and consequently, they reject the ability of this solution by pointing out the negative aspects of the capitalist industrial system. (2) On the other hand, the populist conception isolates the positive aspects of the indigenous communities, praising their "harmony," their "solidarity," their "integration,"etc. (3) The solution, therefore, does not consist in integration into the capitalist industrial system, but in conservation of the indigenous group and their identity, their system of internal organization, their customs, etc. In summary, this solution is based on the first two features that Lenin had identified as typical of populist conceptions; the third follows logically from the first two as we shall see further on. There are frequent passages in the literature produced by the new indigenistas or the critical anthropologists dedicated to labeling capitalism as a system that in no way can be advanced as a paradigm, since it only introduces into the communities blemishes and defects which these latter lack. Moreover, the aspects of capitalism that can be held up to demonstrate its "superiority" to the indigenous systems are limited, if not altogether nonexistent. A good example of a similar conception is encountered in a recent publication:
Industrialsociety is not superiorin all, but, at most [only] in part, to preindustrialsocieties. That it is more advanced on the technical-economiclevel does not signify that it is also
more advanced on the social and moral level. Already in 1925 Sapir accused Western culture of inauthenticity and superficiality, because of its lack of equilibrium and harmony, of self adequacy, that reduces the individual to a mere cog in a great machine, and this signifies frustration, alienation. Also, Malinowski would sustain, a few years later, that Western society is more poorly integrated than many "primitive" societies. There is no direct relationship between integration or harmony and advanced technological or "intellectual" degrees. What is certain is that Western man already lost in large measure his sense of relationship to the society to which he belongs, and completely the sense of his relationship with the physical environment. The first opens the door to totalitarian repression. The second, to ecological destruction that is overshadowing the future of humanity (Colombres, 1977: 30).

Leaving aside the ambiguities and symptomatic imprecisions of this passage, what attracts attention is the author's desire to outline the shortcomings of the capitalist system ("Westernsociety") which are not encountered in indigenous societies. It is necessary, therefore, to point out that the abovementioned vision of capitalism as a regressive system always has a counterpart-the idealization or romantic vision of indigenous societies.
LatinAmericanPerspectives Issue 33, Spring 1982, Vol. IX, No. 2

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

50

LATIN AMERICANPERSPECTIVES

Before examining this second aspect of the populist system of ideas, it is interesting to verify that confronted with the necessity to relativize history, that is to say, confronted with the necessity to find arguments with which to ignore the progressivecharacter of socioeconomic systems (e.g., of capitalism compared with earlier systems), the populists have been obliged to return to nothing less than cultural relativism, although not without reproaches. Certainly after utilizing a relativist argumentation,the populists who analyze the indigenous problem can point out with bitterness that North American culturalism "did not reach the neutrality it proposed for itself." Thus, they accuse relativist culturalism of "betrayingits own postulates" (Colombres, 1977: 32). But relativism cannot be accused of such a thing. From the beginning, this theory called for a supposed respect for indigenous cultures only with the secret hope that they might integrate themselves on their own into Western capitalist society; when this did not occur, the relativists passed on to integrationist action, inscribing on their banner the password of "acculturation." The bourgeoisie, which cannot be accused of not knowing its own interests, very quickly realized that it could not maintain relativism in its pristine expression. The bourgeoisie, in other words, understood that it could not carry out a historical project of multiethnic or cultural plural society without converting itself into a systematic obstacle for the process of accumulation. The populists, nevertheless, still harbor the hope of realizing that miracle within a capitalist social formation. On the other hand, if anyone "betrays"relativism, it is the populist who frequently arrives at setting forth inclusively the "superiority"of indigenous society: an inverted and mystified ethnocentrism that catalogues real capitalist society in reference to the pattern of an indigenous "community" that is in major part a product of science fiction. A good example of the idealization of indigenous communities is encountered in a work by Salomon Nahmad (1977:10) in which he warns of the problems of social relations that are generated in "a community already integrated with the values of Western culture" compared with what takes place in an isolated "closed" community. In a community of this latter type ("closed"), the same status is maintained between natives.
Classes do not appear as in the mestizo community. In the indigenous community there is a permanent redistribution of wealth. In general, the closer a community conforms to this model, the greater the uniformity we encounter in the form of consuming the products that it produces . . . (Colombres, 1977: 10).

Images like this abound in the anthropologicalliterature.The populists do not appear to realize that such a vision of the indigenous community corresponds more to the particular perspective of functionalism than to the real characteristics (viewed dynamically) to which the nature of the communities conform today. The functionalists, champions of a harmonious vision where social contradition is conspicuous for its absence, would subscribe with pleasure to this image of indigenous societies. Briefly stated, the populists do not realize that they desire to defend and conserve a system that capitalism has already begun to effect profoundly. Societies such as those proposed to us by these anthropologists can only be conceived as Weberian

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

POPULISMAND MARXISM INDIGENISMO, DIAZ-POLANCO:

51

"ideal types"; reality marches on in another direction. Lenin had warned against this tendency of romantic idealization:
Carried away by their desire to retard and stop the break-up of the age-old foundations by capitalism, the Narodniks display an amazing lack of historical tact, they forget that antecedent to this capitalism there was nothing but the same exploitation combined with countless forms of bondage and personal dependence, which burdened the position of the labourer, nothing but routine and stagnation in social production and, hence, in all spheres of social life. Contending against capitalism from their romantic, petty-bourgeois angle, the Narodniks throw all historical realism overboard and always compare the reality of capitalism with a fiction of the pre-capitalist order (Lenin, 1967: 75).

And this is the substance of the matter. It is necessary to understand that in its larger part-except, of course, for those few groups that remain truly isolated in certain pockets of the world-the precapitalist order, such as populists conceive it, is already a fiction. The so-called indigenous societies cannot be conceived, on the condition that one observes their characteristics with rigor and maintains an adequate analytical unity, as "primitive" or "precapitalist"societies, at least in the sense of being "antecedents" to, or "alien" from capitalism, since what they are today has to be seen in conjunction with this system-to which they are articulated-more than the populists suspect. These societies have not arrived in total "purity" to the contemporary world, but strictly speaking have been recreated by the capitalist system; that is to say, the actual nature of such societies cannot be understood at the margin of the restructuralization and refunctionalization that the capitalist system has provoked in them." In this sense, the reflections of Medina'2make a point, warning that often:
The distinct characteristics of the Indians are considered as remnants, survivors of a cultural and socioeconomic situation now disappeared. Ethnology thus reduces its object to the reconstruction of Indian history from existing features and from scrutinizing colonial sources . . . Nevertheless, the existing Indians are as much product and aspect of the national historical process as are the rest of the [nation's] inhabitants; the homogeneous character that is inferred by the classification under the term "Indian" hides an economic, social, and ethnic diversity whose roots reach back to antiquity, but whose actual "This does not mean to say, nevertheless, that the indigenous communities do not maintain certain particularities, which it would be an error not to consider. Annulling the differences or particularities would be as incorrect as supposing an irreducible originality. To understand this dialectic of unity and specificity, then, it appears useful not to confuse the singularities of particularities with the latter notion of "originality" that breaks the comprehension of the unity of the historical process, while causing an inclination to look for specific or "autonomous" solutions. l2Lourdes Arizpe (1976: 3) has expressed it in similar terms: We will clarify to begin with: the natives are Mexican campesinos that, by historical chances, speak native American languages and conserve, in greater or lesser degree, distinctive customs and institutions. We will not speak of these as prehispanic because anthropology has already demonstrated that a large part of their cultural norms have been developed since the Conquest. It is believed, erroneously, that since that point in history the indigenous cultures remained congealed, crushed, true ruins that have been deteriorating the same as archeological monuments when they need attention. No culture stagnates: it continues recreating ancient elements, incorporating the new, and integrating both in a spiral of continuous development.
LatinAmericanPerspectives:Issue 33, Spring 1982, Vol. IX, No. 2

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

52

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES significance corresponds to the conditions defined by the contradictions of Mexican social formation (1977: 22).

It is only by a curious idealization of the indigenous society, only by closing their eyes to the fact that these societies already contain clear contradictions and are producing in themselves a sustained process of internal differentiation-impacted as they have been by the capitalist system-that populism can plan an indigenous solution, or a "via indigena." Only by not acknowledging the articulation of these systems in a concrete social formation, moreover, can they conceive of the possibility of realizing an indigenous solution under conditions of capitalist domination. Frequently the populists accuse Marxists of not knowing the "cultural" factor, the particular "ethnic" characteristics of indigenous groups, and of reducing everything to economic factors and class relations. Nevertheless, it is worth noting here that such accusations rest on a misunderstanding. The Marxist position cannot be confused with economic reductionism. Marxism recognizes the "cultural"factors, but refuses to consider this level of reality as something unimpeachable. Furthermore,Marxism has maintained from its birth that, as a fundamental methodological procedure, the analysis of any aspect of social reality should take the economic structure as a point of analytical departure. This methodological position does not imply the negation of the other levels of reality, but rather the consideration that these superstructuralphenomena can only be understood, in their real sense, from an analysis of the concrete conditions from which they derive. Several decades ago, Mariategui had noted the strategic and privileged character of the economic question in the analytical process in connection with his study of the Peruvian indigenous problem:
All theses concerning the indigenous problem that ignore or elude this as a socioeconomic at times only verbally-condemned problem are equally sterile theoretical exercises-and to an absolute discredit. The good faith of some does not save them. Practically all of them have not served other than to obscure and disfigure the reality of the problem. The socialist critique discovers and clarifies it, because it looks for its causes in the economy of the country, and not in its administrative, juridicial and ecclesiastical mechanisms, nor in its duality or plurality of races, nor in its cultural and moral conditions. The indigenous problem springs from our economy (Mariategui, 1976: 35).

Thus, the fact that cultural particularitiesare noted in these groups does not justify considering them in actual circumstances as the bearers of an originality that would permit them to accede to their own course, to realize their own schemes of development, outside the general laws of development of social formation in which they are already inserted. This is, of course, a grave point of disagreement between populists and Marxists, given that the former group not only conceives this course as a realizable possibility, but also as desirable. Suffice it to remember, as a means of illustration, the allusion of the socalled "Declaration of Barbados I" on the
right which the indigenous populations have to experiment with their own schemes of self-

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIAZ-POLANCO: INDIGENISMO, POPULISM AND MARXISM government, development and defense, without these experiments having to adapt or submit to the economic and sociopolitical schemes that predominate in a determinate moment. The transformation of the national society is impossible if these populations do not feel that they have in their hands the creation of their own destiny. Moreover, in the affirmation of their sociocultural specificity, the indigenous populations, in spite of their small numerical magnitude, are clearly presenting alternative courses to the roads already traversed by the national society (as quoted in Robinson, 1971).

53

Although verbally the populists constantly manifest their respect for the "autonomy"of the indigenous solutions, frequently in fact they show a great lack of confidence in these very experiences, for which they feel constantly tempted to conceive all manner of indigenous "solutions." Lenin, as has already been said, had noted this populist inclination:while closing their eyes to the real tendencies of the different social classes, in terms of their specific and concrete conditions, they have a propensity to undertake "(forgettingthe circumstances that surround it) all possible manner of social projects by whatever 'organization of agrarian work' and ending by the 'communization
of production' . . . " (Lenin, n.d.: 102).

An example of this habit of elaborating "projects"is encountered in the afore-mentioned article of Colombres (1977: 45), expressed in a program called "autogestion"(self-management) and that ranges in its programs from the "consolidation of communal power," passing by degrees "in order to avoid the corrosion of individualism and the rise of a social stratification capable of placing in danger the communitarianspirit," to the constitution of an "inter-Americansuper organism."The author conceives of indigenous selfmanagement as "the only [form] that would permit the ethnic groups to subsist as such within a dependent capitalist system" and provide shelter under which indigenous groups could defend themselves, "while the process of liberation of the entire society is not yet completed" (Colombres, 1977:43). With this solution to the indigenous problem in mind, our author goes on to examine the forms of ethnic articulation that Cardoso de Oliveira describes (as quoted by Colombres), touching on the relation "that unites whites and natives in a symetrical, egalitarian, and interactive relationship." Unfortunately, Cardoso de Oliviera considers this relationship as unrealizable, utopian. Colombres does not agree; he believes this egalitarian relationship possible. The argument that he brandishes to sustain such an optimistic opinion is surprising:dissenting from Cardoso de Oliviera-in considering the ethnic relationship mentioned as utopian-"it is nothing more than the form of ethnic relationship pursued by the theory of self-management"(Colombres, 1977:47). The "project"or the theory of self-management"elaborated by the anthropologistacquires the force of a historical truth:The mere conception of a project of indigenous organization makes possible, independent of the concrete historical conditions, an "egalitarian, symetrical and interactive relationship." Similar examples of populist projects oriented to giving a solution to the campesino problem are also abundant. We encounter a recent example in the proposition by Esteva (1977) that the "Popular Alliance for Production" should be "peasantized."This author believes that to "realize the identity and perspectives of the peasants and their organization signifies understanding and accepting them as a point of departure for a superior development."
LatinAmericanPerspectives:Issue 33, Spring 1982, Vol. IX, No. 2

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

54

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Under this vision, Esteva (1977:578-579)concretely proposes "a new organization of producers"that would consist in associating "capitalist entrepreneurs, small property' owners, ejidatarios, comuneros, colonos and campesinos" together in productive units. Of course, in the midst of this organization of wolves and sheep would be the state, "regulating the relations between them." Certainly, there is present in this project the populist conviction, identified by Lenin, that the dominant classes and the politico-juridical institutions [of capitalist society] (in this case the state) can "deviate from the road" (of capitalism). Only this belief could make Esteva think that his "project" could solve the problems of the campesino, guaranteeing him 'sufficient earnings and income.'' In forgetting that the capitalist state apparatus has a basic function-the defense of the interests of the dominant bloc and the guaranteeing of the reproduction of relations of exploitation-the populists often fall into "state idolatry" that disposes them to hope for more from the state than good sense advises. Under this perspective, for example, appears to be included the long list of "duties" toward the indigenous communities that the previously mentioned Declaration of Barbados assigned to the state; a list that ranges from "guaranteeingto all indigenous populations the right to be anrdremain themselves," to the bureaucraticquestion of specifying the authority that will be assigned in relations with indigenous groups.
POPULISM IN OPPOSITION TO MARXISM

Inasmuch as the Marxists do not consider joining with those that invest their energy in reproaching the capitalist system for the dissolution of the indigenous communities by the inexorable process of proletarianization being realized day by day, the populists raise the accusation that they (Marxists) coincide with the indigenistas in not opposing assimilation. At times the populists go further, claiming that Marxists in reality ardently desire that the natives be proletarianized as soon as possible, given that this is their inevitable destiny-under the dull topic, repeated a thousand times-that they want "to sharpen contradictions."'3 It is essential to immediately clarify that there does not exist any agreement between Marxists and indigenistas on this or any other point. If the Marxists do not melt away in lamentations, it is because they observe the process of dissolution and proletarianization as a real process that responds to the logic of specific and determinate historical laws. Historical development cannot be detained by tearful sighs nor by procuring a utopian separation from the overall society by the groups that suffer the dissolution, but rather by struggling precisely against the force that provokes that disintegrating movement: capitalism. Thus, Marxism recognizes that capitalism cannot offer the indigenous groups anything but exploitation, oppression, and misery. But the comprehension of what the obscure present offers does not make the Marxist turn toward an idyllic past, but toward the future. If there is to be a solution to the
l3Further on, we will have occasion to refer to the supposed Marxist thesis of inevitable proletarianization.

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIAZ-POLANCO: INDIGENISMO, POPULISM AND MARXISM

55

indigenous problem, the Marxist maintains that this will come about through a solution for all the society. Populism appears to argue, on the other hand, that the solution for all the society will come about through the (populist) solution of the indigenous problem (or campesino problem, according to the case). The struggle from the Marxist point of view should concentrate, then, on the project of constructing a completely new society, the only sphere that can guarantee and promote the cultural and ethnic singularities so dear to the populists. In the interim, it is indisputable that capitalism not only will realize, but that it is already realizing, a profound movement of proletarianization.14

But we will say a few words, parenthetically, on the question of the "evaluation" of capitalism since the Marxist attitude is related to the historical conception of this system. Some populists consider that valid criteria do not exist for assigning any type of "superiority"to capitalism over indigenous communities. Others, in a more radical version, go even further: capitalism not only does not represent an advance with respect to earlier socioeconomic systems, but, seen correctly, represents a retrogression or regression. Both versions coincide, nevertheless, in not conceding to capitalism the character of a system that represents a historical progress in comparison with preceeding systems. It has become commonplace for certain anthropologists to consider the notion of "progress"as totally lacking in meaning. At times it is forgotten, nevertheless, that the negation of the possibility of establishing objective criteria of progress directly leads to the most subjective of possible relativisms. And this is the best terrain to erase with the stroke of a pen the historical perspective. It does not appear to be a work of chance that the tendency to erase the notion of progress from social thought takes root at the dawn of the present century and affirms itself with the development of bourgeois social thought, from Durkheim, passing through functionalism, to the North American culturalists. During the past century, the bourgeoisie adopted the notion of "progress"(just as that of "order")while it proposed to develop its own historical project. At the close of the nineteenth century, precisely when this project achieved a high degree of maturity, the bourgeoisie abandoned the idea of progress and took up again the standard of "order"right to the present day. It tries now to reproduce a socioeconomic system that is no longer a plan but a palpable reality: what is important now is to maintain order. Their fierce fight against the notion of progress in the present century will become even more imperative if it is taken into consideration that other historical projects of social organization began to crystalize starting with the Russian revolution. Relativism begins, in the field of anthropological theory, on the cultural level or superstructuralfeatures. Having established the enormous cultural diversity of the people of the earth, the argumentationslips toward the social system in its entirety. Furtheron, this gives rise to the view that there do not exist socioeconomic systems that represent diverse grades of progress or
l4This does not signify, nevertheless, that before producing the total reorganization of society, capitalism must have completely proletarianized the indigenous population and absolutely swept away their cultural features. In reality, this last notion is an indigenista and not a Marxist thesis, as we will see.
LatinAmericanPerspectives:Issue 33, Spring 1982, Vol. IX, No. 2

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

56

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

historical development, but, simply, different but equally viable systems. The objective criteria to define historical progress have vanished. Already Boas (1965: 209) had noted "there does not exist absolute progress." All this humbug was elaborated under the pretext of combating "the errors of evolutionism," the sacrosanct task to which practically all anthropological thought was dedicated during most of this century. Thus, not precisely inadvertently, the notion of historical progress was identified with evolutionist conceptual defects. But it is one thing to reject the evolutionist notion of unilinear and abstract progress, and quite another to forget the historical concept of social progress. In reality, what appeared unacceptable to bourgeois thought was the occurence of Morgan (1970: 476)-who elaborated the most developed and unexpectedly materialistic nineteenth-century system in the anthropological field-in the sense that if the law of society was progress, then humanity would have no reason to detain itself in the capitalist system but would progress ahead destroying private property in the means of production (see also Diaz-Polanco, 1977: 22). Such humor by Morgan did not win him any thanks either from the bourgeoisie or the anthropologists under its influence. Obviously, for the bourgeoisie the notion of progress converted itself into a barrel of gunpowder that had to be abandoned as soon as possible. Marxism, naturally, has not fallen into this trap even though it does not agree with the evolutionist approach to understanding social reality. Firmly sustaining the historical approach, Marxism has maintained that the diverse modes of production constitute epochs of progress in the economic formation it is often erroneously of society; without this conception implying-as interpreted-a "chronological" and/or unilinear sequence, in the sense that all societies should pass of necessity through determined stages at least until the capitalist system appears historically. Thus, capitalism represents the highest historical development and, at the same time, the "last antagonistic form of the social process of production." The basic criteria that permits determining the degree of social progress is that which constitutes the level of development of productive forces, in conformity with determinate relations of production. Over this real base "is raised the juridical and political superstructure and the corresponding determinate forms of social consciousness." It is certain, as has been said, that capitalism constitutes an antagonistic form of social production. "But the productive forces that develop in the bosom of bourgeois society offer at the same time, the material conditions for the solution of this antagonism (Marx, n.d.[b]: 340-342). The solution, in consequence, cannot be reached by turning our eyes idyllically toward social stages less developed, but rather by correctly making use of the exceptional conditions created by the maximum development of the productive forces achieved up to that moment. Only on this base can one overcome economic misery, social constriction, intellectual poverty, and all the alienations that arise from the past or originate in the present. It is because of all that has in sum, bourgeois society provides the material condibeen said-because, tions for the solution-that Marxism cannot view capitalism as a "regression" nor can it dispense with its real development in an attempt to close forever

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIAZ-POLANCO: INDIGENISMO, POPULISM AND MARXISM

57

the pages of the "prehistory of human society" and enter the true history that will not be based on human exploitation.15 But we will take up again the thread of the populists arguments in order to examine the question of the proletarianization of natives and campesinos. Considering the earlier Marxist arguments, populists of diverse tendencies have given into the vulgar idea that Marxism "promotes" proletarianization and, moreover, sustains the point of view that indigenous liberation will come about only through the prior proletarianization of this group.16 Because of its evidently absurd nature, we will leave aside the alleged Marxist promotion of proletarianization. Marxism does not promote any proletarianization: it entrusts this to capitalism17 as well as the increasing sharpening of social contradictions. On the other hand, it is important to examine the idea of "prior proletarianization" since it is clear that the populists commit a grave error in assigning parentage for this notion. PROLETARIANIZATION AND THE PROLETARIAN CLASS VIEWPOINT In effect, the thesis of the prior and inevitable proletarianization of one could not hope for anything else-by natives has been sustained-and the bourgeois point of view, which is to say by indigenismo, and not by Marxism. Even more, it can be affirmed that the plan to "proletarianize" the natives is actually one of the most elaborated fundamental pilars of indigenista theory (and practice). Aguirre Beltran is the one who has most clearly synthesized this position in proposing that indigenous groups pass from a "caste situation" to another condition by class relations. To justify this plan of development of capitalism, the indigenista thinkers argue that after being proletarianized, the natives will find themselves in a position to fight for their "emancipation." Aguirre Beltran has expressed it in this manner:
As is well known, in the intercultural regions of refuge, these programs [of indigenous deof colonial relavelopment] are aimed at transforming a caste situation-characteristic tions-into a class situation, typical of countries of capitalist structure. Certainly, passing from archaic forms to modern forms of exploitation would not appear to be a great advance, but the simple fact that the Indians enter the proletarian class places them in a position of struggle that offers better prospects (1975c: 105).

When it has been said that this conception is simply an "anthropological" expression of the historical project of capitalism, Aguirre Beltran has invoked
"It is with this perspective in mind that Marx and Engels wrote: "The bourgeoisie has performed a highly revolutionary role in history" (Marx and Engels, n.d. [b]: 23).
I6To illustrate this curious populist interpretation, let us refer, because of its direct character, to a

passage from Colombres (1977: 39): "On appearance, the Westernism of the left does not conceive of the liberation of the native without a previous proletarianization, even knowing that such proletarianization signifies the disembowelment (destribalizaci6n) and death of the group as such." Following this, the author identifies Marxism and the "direct or indirect base" of such conceptions. l7Already Roger Bartra (1976: 96) had to respond to this absurd idea that "the Marxist interpretation proposes that capitalist organization of agriculture be promoted to the end that proletarianization brings with it a new mode of production, the socialist mode," responding that "Marxists do not 'promote' forms of capitalist development and, for another part, in Mexico nobody has called 'them' to promote anything in this respect."
LatinAmericanPerspectives Issue 33, Spring 1982, Vol. IX, No. 2

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

58

LATIN AMERICANPERSPECTIVES

nothing less than Marx and Marxist theory to justify his proposition:
The passing of the Indian into the proletarian class is, certainly, at least at the outset, a simple translation of dependency to a new and more refined system of exploitation. But it also situates the Indian in the revolutionary class whose emancipation will create a new society because it cannot emancipate itself on its own without emancipating all the rest (1975d: 212).

We do not have the space here to examine all the suppositions of this indigenista position. Nevertheless, it is necessary to emphasize at least two points. First, if indigenismo wants to convert "caste" relations into class relations, it is because it refuses to recognize behind the manifestation of the first the reality of the second. The indigenista believes in observing a social "duality" in the so-called "regions of refuge," since there are social and cultural barriers there that express themselves in cultural and racial discrimination prejudicial to the Indians: the barriers and discrimination conform to the "caste system" (Aguirre Beltran, 1973: 169). This notwithstanding, the nature and reproduction of such "caste relations" could not be understood without the base that sustains them: the class relations. In this manner, the cultural and racial discrimination and other features that conform to the supposed "caste situation" are nothing more than specific superstructural expressions of a clear relation of classes that is at its base. That is to say, those brutal expressions of the social relationship are nothing more than the particular outgrowth of a specific relation of classes. Thus, apparently, indigenismo would propose creating something that already exists. But one should not be deceived. In reality, what indigenismo does is subsume the notion of class under the notion of proletariat. What it really wants is to create class relations that comprise wage as the center of relations of production; in a few words, to develop capitalism in the countryside. There is nothing to protest in this proposition; it is what an organic theory of the bourgeoisie should attempt to secure. Second, it is a very distinct thing to pretend that one can only accede to the construction of a new society (socialism), or that the native can only aspire to liberation after his proletarianization. With this the indigenista proposes full capitalist development as the immediate option since only this perfect development supposedly will place us in a position to be able to pass someday to a new social state. That is to say, it proposed immediate capitalist development (with the consequent proletarianization) in exchange for the future hope of a better society. Be that as it may, it is curious that indigenismo, after declaring war on evolutionist anthropology and agreeing with the North American culturalist anthropology, retraces its footsteps to adopt the most blatent unilinear evolutionist point of view. Only the least imaginative evolutionism permits supposing that societies should pass through determinate phases of development, always following the same route and taking exactly the same steps. But it is not necessary to be very severe with indigenismo for this error since, after all, traditional anthropology has always adapted its focus to the economic and political project of the dominant bloc: theoretical changes do not correspond strictly to the "advances" of the anthropological sciences-a rather to historical myth created by the anthropologists themselves-but changes that derive from distinct class projects.

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

POPULISMAND MARXISM INDIGENISMO, DIAZ-POLANCO:

59

Also respecting this point, the indigenista, populist, and Marxist positions clearly differentiate themselves. The indigenistas, naturally, want to carry capitalism to its ultimate consequences, proletarianizing the natives. The popularists oppose this proletarianization and desire to conserve the "identity" of the indigenous groups, "arresting" capitalist demolition. The Marxists recognize the reality of the process of proletarianization, but do not accept the idea that it is necessary to await total proletarianization to promote a new organization of society;18 they fight immediately against capitalism, proposing a new social system. It is this struggle and its results that "arrests" proletarianization.

If it is not necessary to wait for the exploited natives and campesinos to convert themselves into proletarians to promote revolutionary change, how can one hope for the natives to insert themselves in the struggle that this change requires? Marxism has repeatedly proposed that the natives (the same as the campesinos) insert themselves in the movement of the workers against capital, without losing their specific singularities as a cultural group and without previously becoming wage laborers, yet adopting the proletarian class viewpoint. This thesis does not imply previous proletarianization, i.e., real subjugation of labor by capital-although, we repeat, proletarianization is not just a sustained process but one that acquires increasingly brutal methods in our countries-nor the previous requirement of a renunciation by the natives of their "identity" and the right to be protagonists of their own liberation, as is ambiguously maintained by the populists. Before all else, one would have to avoid the use of ambiguous terms that have lost their content by being converted into empty passwords or simple polemical resources. If what is understood by the "identity" of these groups is the combined complex of their cultural features, systems of organization, customs, etc., then the above thesis does not require their invalidation. On the

contrary, the revolutionary struggle of these groups should pass through the corridor of this identity, precisely with the result of utilizing and making more effective their action within the general struggle of the workers. But if,
on the other hand, by "identity" is understood the class viewpoint of these groups, whose basic content is expressed in the desire to conserve their conditions of production, maintaining their situation as "free proprietors," deepening their separation from the general destiny of the workers, etc., then it is evident that the proletarian thesis supposes the renunciation of such a point of view and its consequences.19 This is so because the struggle for such
18Marxism, in effect, rejects all historical conception derived from a unilinear focus. It would suffice, for example, to examine the enormous Marxist literature dealing with the concept of the "Asian mode of production." It is important, nevertheless, not to confuse the Marxist perspective with the elaborations of multilinear evolutionism. 19Lenin(n.d.: 70, 82) has been clear in this respect: "On the other hand, respecting the peasantry, we do not assume in any way the defense of their interests as a class of small property owners and cultivators of the land in contemporary society." And also: "The proletariat distinguishes itself from the other classes oppressed by the bourgeoisie and opposes it precisely because it does not pin its hopes on the detention of bourgeois development, on the blunting or softening of class conflict, but, on the contrary, on its free and complete development, on the acceleration of bourgeois progress."
LatinAmericonPerspectives:Issue 33, Spring 1982, Vol. IX, No. 2

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

60

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

"identity" supposes the defense of small property, assuming a conservative position and in great measure reproducing the fundamentals of the system or pinning their hopes in an idyllic and regenerative return to the past.20 For another part, the adoption of a proletarian viewpoint does not carry the implication of a renunciation on the part of the natives of their right to be "protagonists" of their liberation. The populist demand, a kind of "ontological" preoccupation of protagonistic action, insists in not distinguishing the action of social groups (that thus constitute themselves into historic and social forces) from the programs that can be inferred from the diverse class viewpoints. The adoption of the proletarian viewpoint does not suppose, therefore, that the natives should not participate in the general struggle of the workers that will lead to their own liberation, nor does it propose that this action and participation not acquire and develop particular features on passing through an ethnic corridor. Assuming the proletarian viewpoint implies, in general, that minimally one pins ones hopes not on restraining bourgeois development but on the destruction of bourgeois society, that one not outline solutions within capitalism or simply place oneself apart from capitalism, but that one be against capital and in favor of its destruction.21 REFERENCES
Aguirre Beltran, Gonzalo 1973 Teoria y pritica de la educaci6n indigena, Mexico City: SepSetentas 1975a "Encuentro sobre indigenismo en M6xico," Obra pol6mica, Mexico City: Seplnah 1975b "Etnocidio en M6xico: una denuncia irresponsable," Obra pol6mica, Mexico City: Seplnah 1975c "De eso que liaman antropologfa mexicano," Obra pol6mica, Mexico City: Seplnah 1975d "El indigenismo y la antropologia mexicana, Obra pol6mica, Mexico City: Seplnah 1975e "Un postulado de polftica indigenista," Obra pol6mica, Mexico City: Seplnah Arizpe, Lourdes 1976 "Primer congreso nacional de indigenas," Nueva Antropologia (Mexico City), I (3) Bartra, Roger 1976 "Notas para fomentar una pol6mica," Historia y Sociedad (Mexico City), X Bastide, Roger 1972 Antropologfa aplicada, Buenos Aires: Amorrortu Editores Boas, Franz 1965 Cuestiones fundamentales de antropologia cultural, Buenos Aires: Solar/Hachette

Bravo, Victor, Hector Dfaz-Polanco and Marco A. Michel 1977 Teoria de la integraci6n social: un examen critico, Mexico City: CHS Colombres, Adolfo 1977 "Hacia la autogesti6n indigena," in 7 ensayos sobre indigenismo, Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Cuadernos de Trabajo Dfaz-Polanco, H6ctor 1977 "Morgan y el evolucionismo," Nueva Antropologia, 11 (7)

Esteva, Gustavo 1977 "Una opci6n campesina para el desarrollo nacional," Comercio Exterior (Mexico City), XXVII (5) 2"The evaluation of Ernest Feder (1978: 51) hits upon this point in the sense that "the ,regeneration or resurgence of the peasantry in the capitalist system' is a romantic myth."
21"Only the fall of capitalism can raise the peasant; only an anticapitalist, proletarian government

can put an end to its economic misery and social degredation" (Marx, n.d.[a]: 200).

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIAZ-POLANCO: INDIGENISMO, POPULISM AND MARXISM

61

Feder, Ernest 1978 "Campesinistas y descampesinistas. Tres enfoques divergentes (no incompatibles) sobre la destrucci6n del campesinado," Comercio Exterior, XXVIII (January) Lenin, V. I. n.d. "El programa agrario de la socialdemocracia rusa," La alianza de la clase obrera y del campesinado, Moscow: Editorial Progreso 1967 Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow: Progress Publishers Mariategui, Jos6 Carlos 1976 7 ensayos de interpretaci6n de la realidad peruana, Lima: Biblioteca Amauta Marx, Karl n.d.[a] "Las luchas de clases en Francia de 1843 a 1850." in C. Marx and F. Engels, Obras escogidas, Vol. I, Moscow: Editorial Progreso n.d.[b] "Pr6logo de la contribuci6n a la critica de la economia politica," in C. Marx and F. Engels, "Manifesto del partido comunista," Obras escogidas, Vol. I Moscow: Editorial Progreso Medina, Andres 1977 "Los indios," in 7 ensayos sobre indigenismo, Indigenista, Cuadernos de Trabajo Morgan, Lewis H. 1970 La sociedad primitiva, Madrid: Ed. Ayuso Nahmad, Salomon 1977 "Gobierno indigena y sociedad nacional," in 7 ensayos sobre indigenismo, Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Cuadernos de Trabajo Palerm, Angel 1972 Agricultura y sociedad en Mesoam6rica, Mexico City: SepSetentas 1977 "El evolucionismo en Mesoam6rica," Nueva Antropologfa, 11 (7) Robinson, Scott S. 1971 El etnocidio ecuatoriano, a recopilation of "Declaraci6n de Barbados: Por la liberaci6n de indig6na," Mexico City: Universidad Iberoamericana Mexico City: Instituto Nacional

Steward, J. H.
1974 "Un enfoque neoevolucionista," in A. and E. Etzioni (eds.) Los cambios sociales. Fuentes, tipos y consecuencias, Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:42:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions