This article argues that José Carlos Mariátegui was one of the most creative and flexible of Marxist thinkers of the last century. He saw Marxism as a method that was nourished by original interpretations of not only Marx, but new realities and a myriad of new thinkers and ideas. He struggled against the dogmatic Stalininist interpretations of Marxism that came to dominate the Communist International and that that have now been roundly discredited. He thrived on new thinkers and ideas and resisted dogmatic thinking. As such he suggests the type of dynamic interpretation of Marxist thought -- open to new ideas and interpretations-- that is much needed in the Twenty First Century.

Three dimensions of Mariategui’s thought of the early 20th century—1) his concentration of the indigenous masses as revolutionary subject in Peru; 2) his study of the Peruvian economy based on the inseparability of the Indian and the land; 3) his relation to Marx’s Marxism;—are briefly examined in relation to challenges which characterize our present moment: a rampant globalized capitalism under Pax Americana; the threatened eclipse of dialectic thought; and (3) the apparent lack of a concept of revolutionary subjectivity.
 

In this paper author shows the difference in the work of J.C. Mariátegui and Indigenism. She supports that difference from the fact that existent indigenisms do not apply scientific theories but myths in their foundations and "as a last resort" they base on legalist or protectionist actions for their solution, to difference of Mariátegui who puts  materialist-dialectic foundations for a real importance of the state of things that margins to the old owners of America.
 

Victorio Codovilla, the leader of the Comintern’s South American Secretariat, instructed José Carlos Mariátegui, the founder of the Peruvian Socialist Party, to prepare a document for the First Latin American Communist Conference in Buenos Aires in June of 1929 analyzing the possibility of forming an Indian Republic in South America. Codovilla selected Mariátegui who was already well-known for his defense of Peru’s marginalized rural Indigenous peoples for this task because of his “profound knowledge of the subject.” Mariátegui asserted, however, that nation-state formation was too advanced in the Andes to build a separate Indian Republic. This led to intense debates as to whether Indian exploitation was fundamentally an issue of race, class, or nationalism. This paper analyzes Mariátegui’s position on this topic in the context of the Comintern’s desire to organize Latin America’s Indigenous peoples.