You can be a leftist and not lament over the removal of Pedro Castillo from office. In fact, as a leftist, you should rejoice. Castillo was a reactionary and an opportunist. He did absolutely NOTHING for the people of his country, the people he was supposed to have represented. Let’s not water things down to the point where every change of power that happens in a global south country is a US backed coup positioned to curb socialist transitions. Castillo was neither embraced by the populace of Peru nor the left-wing parties he was supposed to have come from. And because he has this origin story as a backcountry teacher, he’s easily deified as a leader of the working classes. But regardless of one’s background it’s possible to become a corrupt and spineless servant of the capitalist class, which is just what Castillo became. While, sure, he might be a step up from the fascist Keiko, son of fascist Alberto, he was elected as the lesser of two evils and on day one became a puppet of the oligarchy with no convictions to speak of.
And if you want to talk about authoritarianism, he had the curious strategy of imposing a curfew, by force of the military, any time he did something that he felt could potentially cause a rebellion.
Finally, it’s absolutely beyond me why the author of this article decided to specifically add Black people to the mix of underrepresented Peruvian citizens when Black people compose no significant portion of the Peruvian population. Is not the majority Peruvian population with indigenous ancestry worthy of liberation? To me, this seems to be a desperate attempt to jump on the bandwagon of the popular yet reactionary and counterproductive BLM movement. When we mix liberal virtue signalling trends into the class struggle, we are just diluting our own message.
Castillo got what he deserved and it’s gonna take a bit more struggle before any form of socialism takes hold in Peru (i.e. something more than just elections).
I watched the badempanada video and it seems like he was genuine, he just was a little socially reactionary as sometimes comes with being poor, and he had to push right to avoid being couped, as his congress could do anytime due to a provision in the fascist constitution.
I know it’s not your main point, but I’m curious about this:
popular yet reactionary and counterproductive BLM movement
Would you say more about that? Or have you read something particularly interesting on the subject?
I have observed it first hand from many different angles and spoken to many people with different perspectives and have not been able to detect any progress whatsoever in terms of black liberation of black rights as a result of BLM. Fred Hampton said: the solution to White Capitalism is not Black Capitalism; the solution to White Capitalism is Socialism. The BLM movement promoted exactly that: “black-capitalism”, and as such, has not contributed in any real changes in the material conditions of the black population, even though it may have made a few individuals rich. This is how the establishment convinces us that progress is being made, when really it is not. Black liberation and the liberation of ALL minority groups and even working class white people will not happen as a result of “anti-racism” and whatever other creative concoctions of social justice people try to promote, but rather with the actualization of socialism, and that alone. We do not need to separate it into several smaller “sub-movements” as these only serve to divide the masses and make us more manipulable by the ruling class.
not sure what to think about this whole situation tbh
Castillo’s mistake wasnt a tactical one, the circumstances that he was elected into does not suffice much, at the same time he does indeed did much less than it afforded. For Christ sake he was elected with a slight margin, not by a successful revolution. And do not compare it with different LatAm countries, their history different, material reality is different.
deleted by creator
Instead of downvoting, try to offer some insights. That’s what this community is for.
That being said, my opinion has slightly shifted as I gathered more information. Considering how the US jumped at the opportunity to back Boluarte, I’m sensing that Castillo may have posed that slightest threat to the imperialist-backed oligarchy. He also stood up for his people by condemning her and the treatment of protestors, which I admire.
It’s possible that, as others have said, he was well-intentioned but was constrained by the fascist establishment that dominates Peru’s government, such that he was not able to make any progress. But even then, you get no credit for making no progress, even if you are well-intentioned, in my personal opinion. But if he in some way prevented a backslide into even deeper fascism, then that’s worth applauding, although whether that is the case and to what extent, we may never know.
The main point of this is: don’t just align yourself in a black-and-white fashion to whavever side seems to be Leftist or whatever. There are plenty of well-disguided reactionary movements, and this is exactly what the establishment loves to see, at is cripples the progress of the real leftist movement and causes division among the working class.
I wouldn’t go so far as to rejoice it because I don’t think the people who couped him are going to make things better. But I don’t personally feel bad for him.
