Central Committee of the Communist Party of Peru: “On the Agrarian Problem”

Proletarians of all countries, unite!
There is one goal, the conquest of power!


Central Committee
Communist Party of Peru

Red Flag PublicationsReproduced by
The Red Flag


Extracted from the Preparatory Session of the 2nd Plenum of the Central Committee. Pages 92-105.

d) The agrarian problem. The current agricultural campaign. Fundamental question: semi-feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism.



Marx describes the situation in which the peasantry develops; to study and differentiate well, he speaks here of a capitalist process of development following a triumphant bourgeois-democratic revolution, when the bourgeoisie was revolutionary and fought feudalism; he deals with the case of the French Revolution of 1789. What is important here is how the peasantry moves in those capitalist conditions, when the bourgeois State reigns. Marx said „the peasant population, more than 2/3 of the total population of France, is composed for the most part of the supposedly free landowners“. In spite of all the misrepresentations of the statistics in Peru, more or less that is the proportion of people linked to agricultural work and, precisely the latest analyses of the agricultural population are expressing an increase of small landowners to whom much importance is being given in the current government, in the current process of the old Peruvian State.

He says: „the first generation freed of feudal burdens had paid nothing for the land“. The situation in Peru is different, here in the first place there has not been a bourgeois revolution, the bourgeoisie was not capable of leading it in its historical moment, when it was revolutionary; today, since the 17th Century in which its era of world revolution opened, the bourgeoisie has become an outdated and incapable class and only the proletariat is capable of leading the democratic revolutions that destroy feudalism, in addition to the socialist and cultural revolutions; therefore, there was no bourgeois revolution of the old type. But, the Peruvian reaction, at the service of imperialism, has developed and continues to develop the bureaucratic path, it takes bureaucratic capitalism to the countryside and applies the evolution of semi-feudalism. Part of this process is the application of its three agrarian laws, in particular, of the so-called „agrarian reform law“ which is nothing more than another law for the purchase and sale of land and which has not destroyed semi-feudalism but has evolved it, what we see today is a consequence of this purchase and sale of land, the associative forms that arose from this „agrarian reform“ are being parceled out and thus, then, situations similar to those dealt with by Marx arise. For example, he goes on to say: „the following generations paid in the form of land prices what their serf ancestors had paid in the form of rents, tithes, personal benefits“; what interests us is that here there was buying and selling. It is also necessary to differentiate that the peasants under the feudal regime pay for the land with serfdom, in the thousand forms in which serfdom is presented; and, in the capitalist system, the peasants pay for the land in money, under the form of price.

From this basis, henceforth, the more the population grew, the more the distribution of land became more accentuated, the more expensive the price of the plot.“ Here they want to form a rural market, the lands are being parceled, the peasant population increases; what does this generate? an increase in the price of the land and this aggravates the people because the peasantry has to pay more for the land. He continues, „but in the same proportion in which the price went up and the peasantry paid for the land, the peasant‘s indebtedness necessarily increased“. He refers to the mortgage, what is taking shape in Peru, what is the big bourgeoisie, the banks, the State, the landowners seeking to impose, that the commercial banks should have facilities to give credits to the countryside and, under mortgage guarantee, take over the land and thus promote a new process of concentration to apply evolving forms of semi-feudalism.

The division of the land, the parcelization, leads to smallholding and this determines a setback in the cultivation of the soil because the possibility of applying new forms of agricultural production is restricted. On the plot, the whole family works until exhaustion, a great labor force is invested, but the net product decreases progressively with the increase of the gross product. The same applies to micro and small production, as we have analyzed above, the more gross consumption the less net consumption and nobody escapes from this law, but this is optimal for imperialism because it buys at lower cost, exploiting immensely. This phenomenon in the countryside, also has repercussions against the proletariat because the countryside has to consume less, production has to go down, the wages of the workers are reduced and there is much room for unemployment. In another text, Marx tells us that small property is condemned by history.

The text continues: „Agriculture, in the same measure in which the population increases and in it the division of the soil, the instrument of production, the land, becomes more expensive and its fertility diminishes and in the same measure agriculture declines and the peasant is burdened with debts.“ This is extraordinary. The population increases in Peru, the land is divided and becomes more expensive; but what is the result of all this? This process decreases the fertility of the land and, consequently, agriculture declines, and as a complement, the peasant is burdened with debts, land mortgages are introduced and in this way the bankers or usurers take away their land, the peasant loses his land. The phenomenon described by Marx is presented, everything is concatenated and we must, therefore, unmask it and establish a specific policy.

Each generation leaves the other generation more indebted, each new generation begins in more unfavorable conditions.“ Isn’t this seen in the cycle of production of imperialism in general? Do you remember the process of decline in decline of bureaucratic capitalism that we studied in the Congress, in the 3rd Session? In the capitalist system and also in imperialism cyclical crises are produced and this continues to rule in spite of the denials made by the big bourgeoisie; this thesis of Marx is valid and nobody can deny it, there has been nobody until today, nor will there ever be, who can demonstrate that cyclical crises are no longer produced in capitalism; what we have to see is how, after so many years since Marx founded his theory, it has been expressing specifications, how today the crises are presented. Well, there are cycles, but each cycle leads to a crisis, to a collapse and then expresses a recovery that starts from a lower point to then generate an expansion, a crisis and a stagnation that reaches a new point deeper than the previous one; and from there a new recovery starts again and the cycle continues, but always from a lower point.

Mortgage begets new mortgage and when the peasant cannot find in his plot of land a guarantee to contract new debts he falls directly into the clutches of usury.“ The mortgage is burdensome, if the mortgage is not paid the land is lost; then it is amortized with mortgage, one mortgage saves another mortgage, but it reaches a point where they can no longer use the mortgage, but as they have to pay they resort to the usurer who charges much higher interest; the peasants jump from Guatemala to Guatemala, to flee the fire they fall into the fire.

Marx says: And thus a situation has been reached in which the French peasantry in the form of interest on mortgages on land, in the form of interest on the non-mortgage advances of the usurer, yields to the capitalist not only the rent of the soil, not only the industrial profit, not only the whole net profit, but even a part of the wage.“ He no longer has to cede not only all his profit but he has to hand over part of what is his livelihood in order to maintain himself, that is to say, he has gone below the physical minimum of the wage. For historical reasons, it is possible to fall below the minimum physical value, then social compensation plans and philanthropy are applied; „the peasant, the traditional settler was plunged into the humiliation of poverty and all under the pretext of being private owners“. That is what afflicts the small farmers, that is what afflicts the smallholders; and in Peru it is being said that today the one that is going to develop the most is the system of landowners. Terrible perspective under the capitalist system, here in Peru under the development of bureaucratic capitalism.

Marx also says the solution: The peasantry needs a red republic, it needs the dictatorship of the proletariat, it needs to unite with the proletariat to fight, only in this way can it find a true historical destiny.“ (The above quotation begins „the peasant population […]“ p. 201 and ends „private owners“ p. 212.)

Marx says: „It is easy to understand the situation in which the French peasants found themselves when the republic added to the old burdens new ones“, „the exploiter is the same, capital, undoubtedly the capitalists exploit the peasants by means of mortgages and usury. The capitalist class exploits the peasant class by means of State taxes.“ He is describing to us in what the exploitation consists, to see the difference, in one way it is exploited: as an organized class the bourgeoisie exploits it through the State by means of taxes; and as capitalists, in the modalities of usury, of loan, of capital, of interest, those that are not paid are charged with the mortgage. And how does the landowner exploit it? Through rent. This is how semi-feudalism is differentiated.

Marx says: The property title of the peasant is the talisman with which capital has been fascinating him until now, the pretext used to whip him up against the industrial proletariat.“ Masterful! When Vargas Llosa presented himself as the exclusive representative of the comprador bourgeoisie, he said all Peruvian landowners; what are they specifically agitating today in the agrarian problem? Landownership; what is Fujimori raising for his plans in the Huallaga? Landownership, recognizing ownership through the issuing of titles; what is he agitating in general for the micro-enterprise, the small enterprise? Ownership. Today, given the circumstances of the supposed defeat of Communism, of socialism, property is a talisman that shines with much demagogy and that is yielding and can yield political dividends. That is why we must make them see, by moving real, concrete facts, how this is a talisman to counterpose the peasantry to the class.

Marx says: „Only the fall of capital can raise the peasantry. Only a proletarian anti-capitalist government can put an end to their economic misery and social degradation. The constitutional republic is the dictatorship of the collateral exploiters, the social-democratic republic, the red republic is the dictatorship of their allies.“ Here it is a democratic revolution and the dictatorship it establishes is a joint dictatorship based on the worker-peasant alliance, it is not yet a dictatorship of the proletariat, that is the perspective, but the essence of things does not change.

Marx says a phrase that should be analyzed: „And the balance rises or falls according to the votes that the peasantry deposits in the ballot box.“ The hegemony of the proletariat in the democratic revolution and not only in it but also in the socialist revolution has to do with the worker-peasant alliance, with the proletariat leading the peasantry, if the peasantry is tied to the tail of the bourgeoisie, the revolution is trapped.

Marx says: „But those who spoke the most intelligent language were the very experience that the peasant struggle already had of the use of the right of suffrage and the disappointments that in the rapid revolutionary development were unloading blow after blow on its head.“ There is therefore propaganda of reaction and there is propaganda of the revolution that has to unmask everything; but in the end, the facts themselves, he says, the very experience of the peasant class that already had the use of the right of suffrage and the disappointments that in the rapid revolutionary development were unloading blow after blow on its head, spoke the most intelligible language, those blows that the peasantry receives make them understand better, faster and more directly. But this is an objective material fact but it does not exempt us from propaganda. He concludes with his great slogan „revolutions are the locomotives of history“.


He raises the problem of the peasantry as a class; on p. 318., Collected Works of Marx and Engels:

Insofar as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence which distinguish them by their way of life, their interest and their culture, from other classes and oppose them to these in a hostile way. The former form a class inasmuch as there exists among the peasants a purely local articulation but the identity of their interest engenders among them no community, no national union and no political organization, it does not form a class, they are therefore incapable of asserting their class interests in their own name, whether by means of a parliament or by means of a convention; nor can they represent themselves but must be represented, their representative must appear at the same time as a lord, as an authority above them as an unlimited power of government which protects them from the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from on high; consequently, the political influence of the peasant farmers finds its ultimate expression in the fact that the executive power brings society under its command.“

It is a class because of objective conditions, it is a class in itself, it exists as a reality because of common interests, but it is not a class for itself, inasmuch as it is not politically conscious or organized to defend its own interests and that is why it looks for someone to represent it. Well, the government is the one that has, for concrete reasons of the social process, the means to appear in this way, to present itself demagogically in this way and this gives the peasantry room to be tied to the tail of reaction and can be used, manipulated, maneuvered by the government, by the Executive; that is why the various reactionary States propose themselves as defenders of the peasantry, they say they will benefit, protect, defend it, an example of this is Morales Bermudez. Even today we see how the government tries to play with the interests of the farmers, with the talisman of the property title.

In Peru, specifically, there is no peasant party, it does not exist; there is a certain degree of peasant organization but those who command these organizations are trade union bureaucracies, bourgeois, revisionists, opportunists, petty-bourgeois who defend their own interests. This is not to belittle the peasantry, but it is to see it with the reality as it is. Do not forget what Lenin taught us, that the peasantry is petty bourgeoisie and as such has no historical perspective, only the proletariat does; historically the peasants have never led a triumphant revolutionary movement. This is not to say that they have not fought, they have been doing so for centuries, they have fought valiantly, heroically and indeclinably, but they lack ideology. Their own condition of being scattered has entered them; they are one of the most exploited and oppressed parts of society, sunk in impoverishment, in deep misery, all of which weakens the peasantry even more, restricts and limits them. If the peasantry has advanced it is because of the action of the proletariat, mainly only when it integrates an alliance with the proletariat.

The practical conclusion that we should draw, apart from the need to further develop the worker-peasant alliance, is to make them understand (that through action they draw the historical lesson and that they assimilate it consciously and that they become more involved in the People‘s War) that it is the People‘s Republic of Peru which will resolve the fundamental problem: the land, the basis and substantive question of the democratic revolution which resolves it for the benefit of the peasantry, mainly the poor.

Marx then discusses how the peasantry is divided in two, one part is for the revolution and the other against the revolution. A revolutionary peasantry that is the very essence and a conservative peasantry. The governments, the reactionary States that demagogically traffic in the interests of the peasantry and that claim to represent it only represent the conservative peasantry, never the revolutionary. Who does Fujimori represent? That conservative peasantry.

The first quote is on p. 318: „Insofar as […] serving society“, the second quote, „But understand […] modern trade“, pp. 322-324.


In People‘s Voice no. 5, page 5, title „The problem of the agrarian law“, the Party in 1969 stated its position regarding law 17716 and what we said there has been fulfilled; in general we must insist that the positions of the Party were attacked and today everyone recognizes and repeats the same, although, as could not be otherwise, now they want to interpret things again, as yesterday, at the service of the system.

We emphasized that this was not a law of agrarian reform, it was simply, like the two previous ones, a law for the sale and purchase of land, and therefore it could only develop an impulse of the evolution of semi-feudalism. We said that it was within the process of developing bureaucratic capitalism; that the State would play a key role and was going to manage the whole process, it was going to act as a landowner for the benefit of the big bourgeoisie, particularly the bureaucratic one; it was part of its task of corporatively reorganizing Peruvian society and that it was developing within the need of imperialism, mainly Yankee imperialism. All these things have been fulfilled from start to finish; it should serve us as an experience to make us understand that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism allows us to understand reality in depth and transform it, if it is applied to it.

The former Minister of Agriculture General Gallegos himself said on the occasion of the last June 24th: having already laid the foundations of the new structure, the process of agrarian reform must now aim at a single great objective, the integrated rural development of our country to make Peruvian socialism a reality.“ Today we could ask ourselves: Where is Peruvian socialism? Didn’t those who today are the Unified Mariáteguist Party (PUM), Letts, Diez Canseco, say that the failure of the agrarian law, which they called reform, was simply that it was not socialist? This is a „theoretical“ drunkenness because the agrarian reform is a democratic vindication.

The document transcribing the words of that general says: „Our great objective in the second stage of the process of revolutionary transformation in the countryside is, therefore, integral rural development“, years have passed, where is the integral rural development, it is the evolution of feudalism that has sunk the peasantry even deeper, which is struggling in the deepest crisis and misery. It is good to remember this, because we are hearing the same words today; this process began in ‘63, more than 25 years with successive laws since ‘63. General Gallegos said „basic aspects are the increase of production and agrarian productivity“ and today they say the same thing; today they also talk about rationalizing the system, agro-industry is presented again as the perspective led by exportation, as Fujimori and Hurtado say. He ends by saying: „And all the institutions, both from the public and private sectors, must concur towards remobilization in order to transform the Peruvian countryside into the fastest and most powerful wheel that will lead the way towards the development of our country.“ Today they speak to us of prosperity, it is the same and Hurtado Miller and Fujimori have also invoked the homeland; but here the call to public and private institutions is outstanding, today they call to unite the State with civil society.

On page 14: „How to understand bureaucratic capitalism in our country, how to understand the agrarian process in our country.“ Here Lenin‘s thesis on the two forms that capitalism can develop in the countryside is stated:

Development in a capitalist country can assume two forms: first, the big landownerships subsist and gradually become the base of capitalist exploitation of the land is the Prussian type of agrarian capitalism in which the junker is the master of the situation is maintained for decades his political predominance, and aggression, humiliation, misery and ignorance of the peasant; the development of the productive forces advances very slowly. The second form, the revolution sweeps away the landed agrarian property, the free farmer on free land, that is to say, cleansed of all medieval encumbrances, becomes the basis of capitalist agriculture, it is the American type of agrarian capitalism. It is the most rapid development of the productive forces in the most favorable conditions for the mass and the people within the framework of capitalism.“

Bear in mind that Lenin did this by analyzing concrete situations that were expressed in Germany; he saw that this evolutionary path was taking place there, the large estates subsist and gradually become the basis of capitalist exploitation of the land; it is evolutionary, it does not destroy the feudal system, it is the one that costs more sacrifice, more effort, more pain, more blood, it is a peasants‘ skinning through this evolutionary maintenance of the medieval defects. As opposed to this path, the North American path, the one that was expressed in the last century, is the one that I also called the „farmers‘“ path, it sweeps away the landed agrarian property; it was fully linked to and derived from the civil war that allowed its wide expansion. As long as there are medieval burdens, one cannot speak of a free peasant.

What is developing in Peru is bureaucratic capitalism and what is developing in the countryside is the process of evolution of semi-feudalism, while the American road is the one developed by the democratic revolution, which we lead through the People‘s War under the leadership of the Communist Party. They are peculiar, different, concrete situations of the epoch in which we are developing. Both roads have undergone modifications, concretions due to the course of the historical process, what is the essence of those two roads? Those roads are given in the concrete circumstances where we already have imperialism, which has already a century of development and that we are an oppressed nation that has its peculiarities. We were told that the paths were wrong, that they no longer corresponded historically, that these theses of Lenin no longer applied. Well, when they speak of parcels as the base of the agrarian foundation of the country what they are talking about is that path of „armers“, but they are conceiving it opportunistically, as always, to serve the order, dreaming that it can be implemented without revolution, apart from denying the existence of the land problem as a basic question.

Lenin: „In reality in the Russian Revolution there is no struggle for ‚socialization‘ and other stupidities of the populists“; when we analyze the problem of peasant promotion, of the non-governmental organizations, there we will see how a sector is labeling them as populists. Populist is nothing but petty bourgeois ideology. Lenin continues: „It served to determine which road the capitalist development of Russia will follow, the Prussian or the North American? Without understanding this economic basis of the revolution it is impossible to understand anything about the agrarian programme.“ That is why they do not understand bureaucratic capitalism, they do not understand the evolution of semi-feudalism due to petty bourgeois ideological positions.

Lenin continues: „All the cadets, supporters of the big bourgeoisie, made superhuman efforts to hide the essence of the agrarian revolution. The cadets confuse, reconcile the two fundamental lines of the agrarian programs in the revolution“; they confuse, reconcile both paths, they reduce them to one, they complement them as if they were the same when they are two contradictory elements. Lenin continues: In the period from 1861 to 1905 the two types of capitalist agrarian evolution were manifested in Russia: the Prussian, gradual development of the landed estate in the direction of capitalism, and the North American, differentiation of the peasantry and rapid development of the productive forces.“ That is what we are seeing here, saving distances, due to historical conditions and considering bureaucratic capitalism, we with the democratic revolution open the field to capitalist development in the countryside, hence we must take into account how to manage this process so that from the very base which is agriculture a capitalist process does not break out and prevent us from developing the second stage of the revolution; we open the field but we will not let the revolution go down a capitalist road which in the end would be a restoration and return to imperialist domination.

But this is not all, Lenin establishes a relationship between these two economic roads and two political roads, he says: „The real historical problem posed by the historical objective social development is this: Prussian-type or American-type agrarian evolution, landlord monarchy covered with the fig leaf of pseudo-constitutionalism or peasant republic of farmers; to close one’s eyes to such objective posing of the problem by history means to deceive oneself and to deceive others, to evade in a petty-bourgeois manner the sharp class struggle and the sharp, simple and decisive posing of the problem of the democratic revolution.“ The landlord road is the road of bureaucratic capitalism and leads to the old Peruvian Republic, to defend and sustain it. The peasant road is the road of the democratic revolution and leads to the People’s Republic of Peru, not to see this political difference means to deceive oneself and to deceive others, it is to evade in the petty bourgeois manner the problem of the democratic revolution.

Lenin says: „We cannot get rid of the bourgeois State, only the petty bourgeois can dream of such a thing: our revolution is bourgeois precisely because in it a struggle is waged not between socialism and capitalism but between two forms of capitalism, between two paths of development, between two forms of bourgeois democratic institutions.“ The revolution is democratic but here there are two roads, as the 6th and 7th Plenums of the Central Committee said in 1976, the bureaucratic capitalist road and the democratic road. The second, as far as the countryside is concerned, implies sweeping away all traces of semi-feudalism, sweeping away the landowners and the big bourgeoisie that has power over agriculture, whether exploiting it in whatever way, as well as the domination of imperialist action. As a counterpart we support and defend the interests of the peasantry, we base ourselves on the poor peasantry, we support the middle and neutralize the rich; this in the case of the peasant problem, but the democratic revolution proposes to sweep away the three mountains: semi-feudalism, bureaucratic capitalism and imperialism; and the basis of that revolution is semi-feudalism which we have to sweep away, yes, but that is part of the other three mountains, we cannot separate them, the three form a unity.

It is very good to see the agrarian problem, because the peasant question is a basic problem of the democratic revolution; but let us always consider it within all that the democratic revolution implies, the overthrow of the three mountains, which demands People‘s War, the overthrow of the old State and the creation of the People‘s Republic of Peru. This great thesis of Lenin is basic to understand the agrarian program within the national democratic revolution. There are those who consider that these two roads are no longer valid, a great error that only serves to cover up support for the agrarian measures of the landlordist road.

The document says: „It develops under new conditions, bureaucratic capitalism […] uses cooperative and associative forms in general.“ Today this landed, bureaucratic, evolutionary path of semi-feudalism is developing but it is specified in a different way, it is no longer about cooperatives, nor associative forms in general; we must investigate ourselves again and better define our policies to manage the current process.

The document continues and says that the peasant path has been extraordinarily developed by Chairman Mao Tse-tung and that the slogan „Land to the tiller!“ continues to be valid, fully valid, it is a slogan that directly continues to imply the complete and total destruction of all the semi-feudal relations of exploitation and serves all the members of the people because the proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and even the national bourgeoisie are also interested; the specifications have to be seen with what we are considering today, with the concrete circumstances of 1990, with the plans of reaction.

The document says: „Mariátegui stated that Peru followed the path of the landowners, we can see it in the final part of the Seven Essays: ‚Capitalist concentration has been preceded by a stage of free competition. The great property does not therefore arise within the great feudal property as the Creole landowners probably imagine. On the contrary, for modern large property to emerge it was necessary the fractioning, the dissolution of large feudal property. Capitalism is an urban phenomenon, it has the spirit of the industrial, manufacturing and mercantile bourgeoisie, which is why one of its first acts was the liberation of the land, the destruction of the fiefdom. The development of the city needed to be nourished by the free activity of the peasantry. In Peru, against the sense of republican emancipation, the spirit of the fiefdom, antithesis and negation of the spirit of the bourgeoisie, has been entrusted with the creation of a capitalist economy.‘“

The document continues: „This is the path that has been followed in Peru, as Mariátegui demonstrated, a path that was promoted in the ‘20s and that has deepened since the ‘50s, especially in the decade of the ‘60s. [In that decade there was the law of bases of Pérez Godoy; in ‘64 there was the 15237 of Belaúnde; and, the so-called „agrarian reform“, the 17716, of Velasco, in ‘69.] There were three agrarian laws characterized by restrictions and limitations of feudal property, expropriation of land and execution by the bureaucratic apparatus of the State.“ We could not say, therefore, that feudal property today is the same as it was before the three agrarian laws. It says: „In synthesis, as it could not be otherwise, this regime, like the previous ones, develops in our country the old landlordism path, only that it is accompanied by cooperatives, SAIS, and associative enterprises of social property.“ This corresponds to the year ø76 and although it is correct and applies today, we need to specify how the two paths are taking place in the countryside. The landlord, bureaucratic road, which evolves feudalism, which brings bureaucratic capitalism to the countryside; and the democratic, peasant road, which develops as a counterpart to the previous one and which we, with the People‘s War, leading the democratic revolution, are taking forward, destroying the semi-feudal relations and opening new social relations; a peasant road which can be coupled to the old order if the revolution does not develop. We insist, the land problem continues to be the basic problem of the democratic revolution and we must always worry about it, see how the plans, the policies of reaction are being specified, how we are bringing about changes in the semi-feudal base of Peruvian society. We need to correctly judge this process of parcelization, the dispossession of land, the titling, the ownership of land, what are the results of the so-called agrarian reform, what are the intellectuals, what are the revisionists and opportunists putting forward? To worry about this problem, more so if we are in the construction of the conquest of power.


The magazine Economic Advance. Article „Twenty years without structural changes“; in it, vol. 10, no. 107, we can find the position of the comprador bourgeoisie. It says that Law 17716, the so-called „agrarian reform“, meant a change of hands; that the land changed owners but that the landless survived; that the State managed to institutionalize its direct presence on the land and became the new owner of the land; this is precisely what we denounced when that law was promulgated during the corporate fascist regime of Velasco; we are not prophets of the past, we are politicians, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists and in the light of our ideology we can analyze everything and define what the reality is; this proves once again that our positions are correct and are confirmed in practice.

It says: „Never, not even under the APRA government was agriculture given the atmosphere it required for production, modernization and progress, particularly in the highlands“; „more precisely, it was the consequence of the policy of importing food with artificially cheapened and subsidized dollars“. Here it is reflecting that agriculture has sunk further and that the APRA government did not promote agricultural production at all, but rather propitiated the sinking of agriculture with the import of agricultural food with the MUC dollars that so much negotiation has allowed them. But the real cause of the sinking process of Peruvian agriculture is the semi-feudalism that subsists in spite of the evolution generated by the landed way. Now that the APRA would not solve the land problem either, we also denounced it and spread it up to the graphic flyer against its agrarian policy. He goes on to say that there was not the agrarian reform that they proclaimed so much, but, it says […] that change, that true agrarian reform is being made by the people“, referring to the process of land parceling and how the associative forms that were created with the corporate law of Velasco have collapsed. Once again we are seeing the verification of our positions, we were the ones who denounced that the associative forms were only the basis for the corporatization of Peruvian society and that they would not solve the land problem. Textually he says: „This agrarian reform has begun some time ago, spontaneously in what refers to the business model, the parceling and distribution of land tenure.“ Let us note, here, as in other articles, the big bourgeoisie and its plumíferos and technicians do not speak of land ownership but of land tenure; then, if they say that the distribution of land tenure has begun, it means that the so-called agrarian reform did not solve the problem of land ownership, that neither the smallholding nor its counterpart the smallholding was destroyed, that the question of ownership is still pending and to say that it has begun spontaneously is also to ignore that what is being expressed is the peasant way that subsists and develops in the face of the landlord way; and above all that with the parceling of land today what is being sought on the part of reaction is to give property titles to the peasants in order to tie them to the process of mortgage and usury, to dispossess them of the land that the bankers, the big bourgeoisie and the landowners are appropriating; They want a wide field so that they can invest in the countryside and develop agro-industry; take over the land; usufruct the few irrigated lands that exist or grab the large concessions of land raised through the „PRIDI“. In synthesis, dispossession of the land of the peasants so that the landowners and the big bourgeoisie can take over and develop the countryside according to the demands of imperialism, producing to export and not to feed the people. This position is part of the plans of the current government, Fujimori has proposed land titles and stolen in the programme he reported to Congress, he emphasized the export process as the leadership of development.

The magazine Economic Advance.(Ibid.) „Interview with Gonzales Olarte and Raúl Hopkins“. The article is called „The coming years of the agrarian reform and its results“. Mr. Efraín Gonzáles Olarte says: „It is well known that the agrarian reform was made with political criteria“, what criteria, then, are going to guide the class struggle, it is established that politics is the quintessence of economics, as Lenin clearly warned in his dispute with Trotsky when he said that this was the a, b, c, of Marxism when he invoked economic reasons.

This specialist, also from the comprador bourgeoisie, agrees with Velasco that the oligarchy‘s backbone had been broken, but he sees a problem in that „the agrarian development model was not thought through“, he says that there were flaws in the development model and that this is proven by comparing how the haciendas functioned with the cooperatives, in the end they defend the estates. He is asked if the objectives of this reform were achieved and he answers: „It did not replace that order with another order“, „the agrarian reform is not a process that has strengthened the rural society“, it broke the back of the oligarchy but that order was not replaced by another one nor was the countryside strengthened, rather it sank even more. But what order should be imposed, according to him, „a democratic business order“ in the hands of individuals, not of the State, in essence he agrees with an agrarian reform but he wants it without the State, with a bourgeois democratic order. Proof that he praises it is in: „one of the most radical reforms in Latin America“. It is that the two factions of the big bourgeoisie have benefited from it.

In analyzing the cooperatives he makes a great discovery, according to him, that the cooperative members were owners and workers at the same time; but if precisely with this it was sought to target the class and make them formal owners. Then: „60% of the cooperatives are parceled“; in the parceling we must see how the two roads are expressed, the peasant road that orphaned of proletarian leadership under the influence of revisionism, of opportunism, with its petty bourgeois ballast, orphaned of good enrumbamiento and in the worst conditions they throw themselves into the parceling of land. The big bourgeoisie, especially the comprador bourgeoisie, favors the parcelization because it facilitates the dispossession for a new concentration of the plots because the plot is small and unproductive; they want the parcelization with the objective of developing the countryside to make large agro-industrial complexes. It says: „The parcel is the epilogue of the agrarian reform and that it did not complement itself“. It says that there are companies on the coast, in the highlands and in the jungle of optimum size: 30, 50 hectares, not much? no; What happens is that to develop a capitalist system, 50 hectares is a good condition to work; even more if you have 50 and that land is well worked, you buy the 30 hectares or the 50 of one of the neighbors. Or the 50 hectares of one of the neighbors, then they develop them and buy those of the other neighbor, in this way they develop the evolutionary, land-owning path and take bureaucratic capitalism to the countryside and apply the plans of imperialism. And the peasantry? Dispossessed of their lands. This is the new concentration that they are trying to achieve now that private enterprise tends to play an important role in the Peruvian economy.

Mr. Raul Hopkins says: „I believe that after the agrarian reform, a whole new situation is produced in economic terms that have no parallel in the development of legislation. It is necessary to develop a whole post-reform legislation, for example, the purchase and sale of land, renting […]“.

It is that a series of economic phenomena are taking place that the law does not allow and that need to be legislated, he considers that informality in the countryside cannot continue, he, like Hernando de Soto, considers that the problem is solved by giving laws. He says: „there is a confusion because the economic fact is at the margin of the legal disposition and this must be legalized, regularized, regulated; this informality cannot continue“. He is not against the military government and its measures in the field; he also thinks that the failure is in the model and that this is its limitation, the technique applied, the failure to impose an exporting system. In short, his position is laws, norms and a stable policy that lasts for a while, guarantees to be able to invest and an export model; whether it is done under bourgeois democracy or under military dictatorship is not a problem, he does not specify.

He continued: „The most important thing is to recognize that the problem of agricultural development cannot be solved in the short term. It is not the problem of a single government; it is the problem of many governments, at least ten years.“ Change the Andean Pact system because it was based on failed models. He conceives a long time for the development of the countryside, he focuses on productive development and wants to change the model; he is waiting for what the presidents of Latin America decide in order to adjust to the Bush initiative for America; he is within the criteria of CEPAL that he studied more in the Bureau of August ‘90, he states that in agriculture in Latin America, by the year 2000 the land will not increase nor will the number of workers increase, therefore, he should focus on the productivity of agriculture; he says: that the problem is to develop agricultural technology, etc. That is precisely what Fujimori is proposing and what the comprador bourgeoisie applauds, for them the problem is no longer one of land distribution because it has already been distributed, but of productivity, how to produce more with what techniques, with what organic apparatuses, what markets to cover, etc.

Here we have the position of the comprador bourgeoisie in Peru, it seeks to evolve the countryside, to regularize the land titles for dispossession and new concentration.

Peru, 1991
National Leadership