[The following interview was obtained in Europe by the Young Socialist in late January. Although it took place before the police strike for wage increases that was smashed by the Peruvian army February 5 and the popular outburst that followed, ' the interview provides background information helpful for understanding the current situation in Peru.
[Hugo Blanco, well-known Peruvian revolutionist, led a movement to unionize peasants in the department of Cuzco in the 1960s. For his role in this movement, he was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. After spending more than seven years in various jails, he was freed by the current regime in December 1970 as the result of national and international pressure. In 1971 he was deported to Mexico for having supported a teachers' strike. Later he went to Argentina, where he was once again jailed. From there, he was deported to Chile, where he lived until the September 1973 coup, when he took asylum in the Mexican embassy. He currently lives in Sweden.
[The translation is by Intercontinental Press.]
Question. Who does the current Peruvian regime represent?
Answer. The current government represents sectors favoring industrial development in Peru. Previously the Peruvian economy was heading toward a severe crisis because of its antiquated structures. Like many other countries in Latin America, our country was used fundamentally for the extraction of raw materials and as a market for goods manufactured in the imperialist countries. The coming to office of the current regime meant a qualitative step toward industrial development. It came in to push industrial development forward.
This does not mean it is independent of the imperialists, because industrial development on the whole is taking place with the support of or under the control of the imperialists.
Q. Are there conflicts between the current regime and the imperialists?
A. There certainly are big conflicts with the imperialists, especially with the United States. However, sectors of the European, Japanese, and even American imperialists supported industrialization. You have to understand that almost the entire country was in the hands of the American imperialists. The European and Japanese imperialists could penetrate only the new sectors, that is, the industrial sectors. In addition, industrial development also suited the interests of the Yankee imperialists who produce machinery.
Some sectors of the army that wanted to strengthen the national bourgeoisie took advantage of this. They give a bourgeoisnationalist tint to the regime, but to do it they have to implement certain populist policies; they have to get support from the masses.
Q. What populist measures has the government taken?
A. The government has nationalized several basic industries and some banking sectors. It is okay with us that they have been nationalized; we give critical support to these nationalizations. We defend then in principle, but we also explain why the bourgeois regime carries them out. Their reasons are different from ours. We also explain the limitations of the expropriations.
For example, we generally demand that the imperialist companies, which have been exploiting us for years, not be compensated. exploiting us tor years, not be compensated. We also demand that the firms be put under workers control to improve management.
Q. What are the aims of the nationalizations and other reforms the government has carried out?
A. Within the general framework of capitalism, nationalizations do not, of course, succeed in freeing the country from imperialism. Although the imperialists are not in the nationalized sectors, they have holdings in the developed ones. Above all they are active in industry and trade-for example, in Sears, which is owned by Rockefeller. Moreover, they have entered the economy through loans, patent rights, and other forms of penetration.
The Peruvian government knows very well that it cannot free itself from imperialism and it doesn't try to. What it does try to do is to get an increasing share of what the imperialists obtain by exploiting the people. As we say, they want a bigger piece of the cake. So there is a dispute, haggling with the imperialists, especially the American imperialists.
All the measures taken by the regime can be explained from this point of view-the agrarian reform, the Industries Law, the Education Law, and so on.
The regime's populism can be explained by the fact that it wants to have a social base of support to enable it to drive a harder bargain, to improve its bargaining position with the imperialists. That is why its measures have always been accompanied by tremendous anti-imperialist, nationalist demagogy aimed at winning mass support.
For example, a few days after this government took office, it nationalized an oil field with a great display of troops. This was done in an unnecessarily ostentatious way to make it seem as if it was almost at war with the imperialists, a war that it was winning. Nonetheless, the government has surrendered larger oil fields, especially to Japanese imperialism.
There is also the Industrial Community Law, copied from European participation schemes, through which it tries to deceive the worker into believing that slowly, little by little, he is going to become owner and administrator of at least half the factory. This is done so that the worker, believing that the factory belongs to him, won't go on strike or fight for wage increases. The agrarian reform has also been accompanied by a lot of demagogy.
All these steps and the government's demagogy have not been enough to win the mass support of the people. At times some sectors of the population have given support, even substantial support. It has never lasted very long, however, because the people quickly realized that nothing more than hot air, rhetoric, and demagogy were involved. That happened with the sugarcane workers, for example.
When the government turned the big sugar companies into cooperatives, saying that they were going to be turned over to the workers, the workers became very progovernment. But after a year they realized that the only thing they had done was to change masters: instead of a boss, they now had a state bureaucrat. Their standard of living remained the same as before and they had no power to make decisions affecting the company. On several occasions they went on strike. These strikes were paradoxical because the supposed owners were going on strike against themselves.
Just as in this case, other sectors of the population have given the government temporary support, but never ongoing, enthusiastic support. The Peruvian people have certain hopes, but only hopes. In this sense we cannot compare the support given to this government with the popular support that the Perón or Allende governments enjoyed.
Q. What is the status of the Peruvian peasantry and what effect has the Agrarian Reform Law had?
A. I should point out that the agrarian situation in Peru is very complex. In the Amazon jungle we have primitive communism-tribes that still have not been smashed by capitalism. We have modified versions of the indigenous communities that existed in the time of the Incas. We have estates with many feudal features, an unpleasant carry-over of the form of relations the Spaniards brought to Latin America. We have the huge industrialized agricultural complexes and many intermediate or combined forms of all of these.
Moreover, there are very different problems in the various climatic regions of Peru-the desert coast with very little water, where it never rains; the mountains with very mixed terrain, where there is rain but also periods of cold weather that damage the crops; the rocky high Andean plateau; and also the Amazon forest, which has the features of a jungle. All these things make the Peruvian agrarian problem very complex.
To characterize the nature of the Agrarian Reform Law, we have to consider it in relation to the general character of the government, a government whose support to industrial development has nationalist and populist features. We can then see that the Agrarian Reform Law is designed to integrate the peasantry as a buyer and seller in the capitalist market and also to win strong social support for the government from one sector of the population.
Q. Has this law been carried out?
A. It has not been applied equally throughout the country. Even this limited law passed by the government, a law that provides for paying compensation to the landowners, has not been applied or enforced.
Of course, it is very difficult to pay the landowners; there is no available money. And, on the other hand, the majority of landowners oppose the Agrarian Reform Law. Many have political influence or can bribe functionaries, thus managing to delay enforcement of the law in their regions.
We also have to take into account that where there is a peasant organization and peasant struggles the Agrarian Reform Law is at times applied to appease the peasants and prevent an upsurge.
So the differing economic situations, relations of production, climatic and geographic conditions, social situations, and even the different political situations at the local level in different parts of Peru make the application of that law very uneven. The general point that can be made is that it has not been carried out even in the form in which the government claimed it would be: in a very limited way serving their interests as capitalists.
There is one more general point: The peasantry continues to be the poorest sector of the country and still has a very low standard of living. That is the situation of the Peruvian peasantry.
Q. How has the international crisis affected the Peruvian government?
A. The government has conflicts with the imperialists on one side and with the masses on the other. It has succeeded in delaying the crisis the country was entering, but it has not succeeded in eliminating the roots of the crisis. In the current situation, when we are entering a crisis on a world scale, when there are countries like Bangladesh, where the people are starving to death, the contradictions in Peru are becoming sharper too, as much between the government and the imperialists as between the government and the masses.
Last June there was a cabinet crisis that reflected this. Economic crises are reflected in political ones. These, in turn, are reflected in the very ranks of the army, which represents the bourgeoisie in general. Thus the conflicts among sectors of the bourgeoisie are reflected within the army. And the conflicts emerged within the cabinet itself.
Q. What form did the cabinet crisis take?
A. The minister of the navy was ousted along with the minister of housing.
Q. Who did these ministers represent?
A. The ultraright.
Q. How has the ultraright developed?
A. The ultraright has begun to raise its head, and it is trying to take the offensive. For example, APRA? and Acción Popular- Belaúnde Terry's party—are trying to form a bloc to demand that elections be held. That is the demagogy the ultraright uses to fight this government.
People don't get very enthusiastic about this, because the governments that have come to power through elections have all been worse than this one.
Moreover, in December a car carrying Premier Mercado Jarrin, Minister of Fisheries Tantaleán Vanini, and another general was attacked. And a bomb was placed in Naval Minister Taura's house six hours before he was to be sworn in.
These were clearly rightist actions, because the previous naval minister had been thrown out precisely for being a rightwinger.
I should also mention the shooting of a writer for the trade-union page of Correo; the fires at state-owned Minero Perú, at a government-owned food distributor, at a cotton warehouse, and at another site in the north.
The ultraright began publishing a new weekly newspaper, Opinión Libre, involving all the journalists from the papers that had been expropriated. It urged the formation of a rightist front. It too has been closed down recently.
In addition, a campaign is being carried out abroad. The Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa [Interamerican Press Society] of Belaúnde Terry, Ulloa, Ravínes, de la Jara Urueta, and Vargas Prada-representing the oligarchy and imperialism-is campaigning against the government.
Many naval maneuvers took place at the end of the year because of these internal conflicts. This is how the ultraright is escalating its attacks against the government.
Q. What is the current situation of the masses?
A. Workers and students struggles are on the rise, as I said. Neither the workers nor the students were ever convinced that this was their government. They have fought steadily for an improvement in their standard of living. In the last few months a certain lull has occurred in this struggle, but it can be explained in part by the vacations.
Most probably the upswing will continue, because the working class has not been defeated. At the end of 1973 big general work stoppages took place in several departments in the south of the country.
Q. How has the government responded to this situation?
A. The government represses both sectors-the right wing and the masses. For example, it has deported some rightists, nationalized the right-wing dailies, and taken such steps as the naval maneuvers.
To deal with the masses, it has issued a decree banning mobilizations. It has repressed many strikes by firing their leaders and jailing them; on some occasions it has carried out massacres.
It massacred the peasants of Huanta and the miners at Cobriza. It conducted a massacre in Puno and another one in Arequipa in 1973. Added to all this is the latest massacre in the south of the country. This massacre was nothing special; it was one of the regime's customary repressive responses.
Q. There has been speculation about a coup in Peru. Is there anything to this?
A. At present in Peru there is the danger of a coup. Not an immediate one, but the threat of an ultrarightist Pinochet-style coup does exist.
Q. How does the government view this danger?
A. The government has taken some inconsistent repressive measures. Recently it gave five rightist exiles permission to return. However it has not permitted the return of any of the leftists, who were deported for having supported the demands of the masses-Breña and I, who were deported for having supported the teachers' strike; Napuri and Cuentas, for having supported the miners' strike; and those who were deported for having participated in the mobilizations in Arequipa.
In addition to the government law against mobilizations and the brake that this places on the mass movement-the surest way to aid a coup-is the government's suicidal position on the question. We saw clearly in Chile that the only way to stop a putsch is by developing the power of the masses, the mobilization of the masses against the coup. What the Peruvian government does is to put a brake on the masses in the same way but to a different extent than was done by the Unidad Popular in Chile, by Perón in Argentina in 1955, by Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, by Torres in Bolivia, and so forth.
As we have seen in Latin America, this paves the way for the triumph of the right. A right-wing victory is guaranteed if you tie the hands of the masses. No other force can stop a coup. Unfortunately the government itself has taken charge of deceiving the masses into thinking that there is no threat of a coup, that the government is all powerful.
Q. How has the left reacted to the danger of a coup?
A. The reformists say the same thing as the government; the Communist party tells the masses the government is strong. The ultralefts say the regime is fascist or something like that, therefore a rightist coup is impossible. What they are actually doing is confusing the masses about the increasing danger of a coup in Peru.
Q. What role should revolutionists play in the struggle against a coup?
A. I think the role of revolutionists is to point out the danger of a coup and that the only way to oppose and smash it is through the independent mobilization of the masses. I say independent because this government, which is confusing the masses about the danger of a coup and which is passing laws to repress mass mobilizations, is not one you can rely on to lead that kind of mobilization against a coup. It would rather commit suicide than mobilize the masses. The role of revolutionists is to point this out.
On the other hand, we have to understand that in Peru as well as in other Latin American countries the struggle against a coup is combined with the steps workers take in winning their own conquests. The struggle must be as much for the defense of gains that have already been won as it is for the achievement of greater ones.
In essence the workers and the masses in general have to carry out the same struggle, whether under governments where proimperialist coups have already triumphed, as in Chile, or under governments like Peru's, where a coup is being prepared.
[To be continued]
Notes
1. See Intercontinental Press, February 17, p. 213.