Coffee and Communism

Marxism and communism are often seen in many countries as malevolent boogeymen that cast a shadow throughout the Euromodern world, topics we shouldn’t discuss. However, when we do discuss them in hegemonic “western” academies, we tend to focus exclusively on the U.S. perspective on communism and Marxism, neglecting the reach of this political philosophy far beyond the U.S. By this I mean that we frequently ignore how other countries may view communist ideas, and their different relationship with it as a political project. In response to an arrogance that would confine discussion of communism to the U.S. and Anglocentric perspectives, I wanted to explore how people in some of the rest of the globe may have interacted with it.

With this in mind, I asked an elderly man who is a Quechua immigrant from Peru and a young Georgian immigrant undergraduate student to join in a discussion of their views of and experiences with communism. Both drew from how their home countries portrayed it. This conversation took place over a few cups of coffee one evening in November 2022.

The older Peruvian man of Quechua heritage served in the Peruvian counter-terrorism unit, Direccion de intelligentsia contra terrorismo (Dincote), of the country’s police investigators, the Peruvian Investigative Police (PIP). He came to the U.S. after having lived in Peru for thirty-four years.

The undergraduate student was born and raised in the country of Georgia. She spent time between the capital of Tbilisi and her family’s rural farm. She came to the U.S. at fifteen. She grew up in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse and was surrounded by remnants of its regime. Readers should also know that Georgia is widely known as the home country of Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili, who moved to Russia and changed his name to Joseph Stalin.

In what follows, the Peruvian man is referred to as “A” and this identification appears at the beginning of each of his responses. The Georgian student identification is “B,” which appears at the beginning of her responses.

When did you first hear about Marxism? How was it portrayed?

A: I first learned about communism in high school because we were required to read a book by a Marxist known as José Carlos Mariátegui, who admired Mao and Karl Marx intensely. He spread the ideology and was a professor at a university in Peru. He made it appealing, and we all loved the ideas of receiving equality and no need for a strong and large government. Having this measure of freedom and equality was enticing, as I grew up in agriculture [in a rural farm community] in Huancayo and the majority of us were poor. The arrival of communism also encouraged us to band together and support this proletariat revolution. Communism was not a boogeyman like in the U.S. To us, this ideology was made to appear as exclusively Peruvian. We had no idea of how it played out in the Soviet Union or China. However, this revolution never came, and the idea never stuck. Its theory was very attractive to us, as we were poor and there was so much inequality in Peru.

B: (Nodding) My first encounter with Marxism [and communism] was similar. I first heard about the definition of Marxism during college. It was in one of my first political science classes. However, I was already familiar with Marxist ideology, due to my upbringing. Although funny enough, I did not know it was a separate ideology from capitalism. I would often hear a lot of adults reminisce about communism during my adolescence because the adults I knew were children at the time of Georgia’s integration into the Soviet Union. They were born into it or were children or teenagers. I’ve heard very good experiences and bad ones, but the focus was on the absence of financial hardships, as many went to college for free. Once communism was failing, they had a very different experience, where all the good experiences they had under the peak of the regime flipped entirely. In short, it was portrayed as a successful regime that was unable to last for longer than a few generations. It was portrayed well and as a tangible achievement. Looking back, to me it felt like communism was more focused on the human experience rather than a capitalist regime that focuses on work, paid time off (PTO), and wages.

A: I find that interesting, as in Peru communism had very negative connotations from the start. To us, it emerged violently as soon as these “revolutionaries” arrived in Lima in 1990. They attacked banks, apartment buildings, power lines, bridges, office buildings, schools, police stations in the cities, and caught the attention of the rich. While we did not have a successful communist regime, its “revolutionary approach” was violent and quickly rejected. Cities in Peru rejected communism quite rapidly. However, in the countryside, farmers believed in communism more, because they were never educated fully about its ideas, which were twisted to make them believe. They believed that communism would stop their financial hardships and let them leave the farms. They supported communism because they couldn’t read, write, or attend school, so it was easy to persuade them to see communism as a messianic promise. They were like church-goers following a pastor without reading the Bible or being capable of exploring the beliefs.

Why do you think Communism in Peru was mostly supported by farmers and people from the countryside?

A: Communism started in the farms. They were discontented with the government. The states further from the capital embraced communism and the Shining Path. The government and its president never paid attention to Ayacucho, Huancavelica, Junín, and Apurímac. There were no paved roads or channels to communicate with these people, because traveling to them was so dangerous. This is how communism was able to grow in these regions. In Huancayo, my home, the communists were professors, professionals, and educated people. They came from the University of San Marcos too, or were students from universities in Lima. These people came from the capital to convince the poor farmers that communism was their salvation. A considerable number of these people were children of farmers who managed to leave for Lima to be educated.

B: Aside from the nature of their attack, I believed that professors, who were descriptive representatives of these poor communities, were the best-suited revolutionaries. For example, growing up in Georgia and seeing the effects of making Marxist ideology work properly, I think highly educated people who know what they’re doing need to be in charge. Power to the people, of course, but the people in charge need to understand and feel empathy for their people rather than be susceptible to corruption. I think someone who came from a rich background cannot lead a regime change. It needs to be someone who has struggled, so they can understand the needs of the people rather than just how to distribute the wealth and resources properly.

A: While it is a good idea to have these revolutionaries coming from the same class as the proletariat, the issue is how they spread the message and how they oppose the bourgeoisie. For example, when Abimael Guzmán decided to bring communism to Lima, he made the mistake of attacking businesses and banks. These were owned by wealthy people. Nobody cared about communism until the rich decided they needed to kill these communist “terrorists.”  The rich realized they let the communists grow too large, and pushed the political institutions to create squadrons within the police and army to hunt them down, especially in Ayacucho, where the agency first grew into prominence. Direccion de intelligentsia contra terrorismo (Dincote) is where I come in, as I was tasked with hunting down the leaders of this group in conjunction with Colina which was the military equivalent of Dincote. In the end we succeeded, and we captured Abimael Guzmán, the founder. Ironically, we did this in November 1992, on the anniversary of the founding of Peruvian Investigative Police (PIP).

What were the shortcomings of communism, and do you think this philosophy is  politically feasible?

B: Coming from a poor/almost middle-class family, I wouldn’t see the Soviet Union as having any shortcomings, given what they hoped to accomplish. We only interacted with others in the same social class and, looking back at this social class, they all had good experiences. They all gained wealth and property. They all became more established in the world than they were before. The poor benefited the most in the communist regime because they did not have anything else to lose. In fact, they gained property and regular access to drinking water, which was already an accomplishment for them. It is public knowledge that communist apartments were built for the poor. They were built for the people who had been homeless, who did not have housing, or people who simply participated in lotteries that would win you a free home, with everything included. That’s how my family obtained an apartment in a Soviet building. However, wealth inequality and corruption remained. Communism did not eradicate wealth inequality and corruption. Much of it remained and benefitted those who already were in power, such as politicians.

A: I look back at Cuba and even Venezuela (which isn’t communist), and I see that inequality exists and there is no liberty or equality. I don’t believe communism is achievable or worth entertaining when looking at China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea. There is no liberty, free thought, or action. You are forced to do what others wish. I think Peru was never prepared to embrace a communist ideology, let alone regime change. I think communists did a good job of pointing out the flaws of Peruvian society, but [they] never allowed people to be better and enact positive change. These terrorists brought destruction and setbacks. We lived in constant fear and trembling. We were afraid to continue with our lives. Car bombs were so common, many didn’t step out of their homes. I believe communism brought nothing of benefit to Peru. I hated communism with a passion. I was tired of it. I wanted nothing to do with it. I saw it as the opposite of what it preached.

B: While I don’t agree with the approach of the Shining Path, I think that, in the case of Georgia, when the regime was established, people were comfortable with it and it worked. While it benefited some, it didn’t benefit all. There was no perfect equality, but it was a work in progress that needed time to achieve greater or full equality. The uniform distribution of wealth and social status would not be achieved overnight. I think for communism to be achieved it needs to be established for longer than we’ve seen it so far. I don’t believe that a mass change of ideology can happen overnight, as there will be many resisting the change. I also believe that some rules and laws will have to be implemented to fit Marxist ideology to contemporary times. But I think humans are finally realizing that human interactions are better and that community building is better than an egocentric capitalist society that promotes a self-oriented and self-absorbed perspective. Regardless of the type of regime that a country is following, everything will eventually lead to communism.

A: I think ego exists in Marxism, as in the case of Peru, the Shining Path fed into the ego of Abimael Guzmán and his lieutenants. The view of him as some messiah twisted the aspirations of the Shining Path, as nobody, of their own volition, integrated into the communist movement. They were pushed by force and intimidation, especially women and children. They took people’s farms and children to serve in their organizations. The overwhelming majority of the general population detested communism because of the misguided actions of the Shining Path. If anything, the shortcomings of this communist group demonstrated that they were never going to accomplish anything related to The Communist Manifesto.

B: I agree that the human ego is a reason why we see such twisted implementations of communism. Stalin was from Georgia and we cringe when he is mentioned. Funny enough, we have a bit of a rivalry with Armenia, which recently tried to claim Stalin was Armenian, along with other parts of our heritage, such as food and clothing. We gladly told them on social media that they can keep Stalin! His descendants all remain in Georgia in some sort of hiding. I don’t want to come off as minimizing or negating your experience, but I do have hope for communism because of the success that my family enjoyed. By contrast, my experience with communism was the effect of a failed regime. I experienced the civil war that occurred once the regime fell. I did not experience communism when it was established.  My story is that my family benefitted from a communist regime, and my social class also benefited from a communist regime. My family received land and a farm under the regime, and it was the reason we survived the winters after the fall of the regime. Those who did well had land and would harvest and save for winter. We did better than city residents because we didn’t experience hunger to the same degree.

A: (Nodding) How do you view the effects that capitalism has had on Georgia? I understand communism has had a positive impact on your family and allowed you to survive, be educated, and that finances became a background concern. How did capitalism feel to Georgians?

B: There was a lot of pressure from the west on Georgia and neighboring states to make the transition into a [liberal] democratic state. This pressure stated that only [liberal] democracy can work. This put my country in a confused state. They were forced to commit to a 180 degree turn and to renounce all they had known. In a sense, they had to form a new civilization and start from scratch. Because of this, many struggled and there was polarization and conflicting ideologies that prevented Georgia from committing in a unified way to a democracy. Opportunists engaged in corruption and all well-known politicians vanished with the fall of communism. Our first president was assassinated. These experiences coincided with my birth, and the civil war was ending as I was growing up. Conditions improved as organizations emerged, businesses were established, and access to resources broadened. Education became a requirement, but people still had the mindset that “we were born and raised into communism and it worked.” We had been forced to adopt a western mindset that said that how we were raised and what we knew was no longer acceptable. Funny enough, land was never taken away from people. We kept ours after the fall of the regime and during the established democracy. Looking back, communism was more focused on the human experience rather than a capitalist regime that focuses on work, PTO, and wages.

Do you think corruption and wealth inequality existed prior to capitalism in Georgia? I know we briefly touched on the impact the rich had in Peru and on the formation of Dincote. I want to see how corruption appeared in Georgia.

B: I have distant relatives who were politicians and wealthy and well-established before and during the Soviet Union. Their stories are very different from mine, as they were forced to run away as the regime collapsed and to seek refuge in the U.S., because they corrupted the Georgian parliament and were threatened with death by [several] communities. They left as the regime was collapsing, but not during the life of the Union. They still live in the U.S. and enjoy a wealthy life. Their children were young teenagers when [one] relative (a politician) obtained multiple documents that made them suddenly older. The parents paid thousands of U.S. dollars to have them enter the U.S. and settle on the East Coast. They also paid a particular Ivy League institution to admit their children (who did not speak English) from the Soviet Union. They both lived on campus and graduated with immensely prestigious degrees (tuition paid in full for them as well). They now have well-established professional practices in the U.S. That being said, the issue of the rich and wealth inequality was not entirely resolved. This relative was already rich from corruption and their role in the Soviet Union’s regime. The Union did not strip them of their wealth and allowed him to flee the consequences of his actions and continue to live in comfort abroad. This is why there are two very different perspectives of poor and wealthy individuals. The wealthy and the mega rich were forced to [flee] after the fall of the regime, and [they] still managed to grow. Their resources were never reallocated and redistributed to the Union, as corruption and power allowed them to remain above what was championed for [ordinary or working-class] citizens. I think the communist regime did not possess shortcomings for people who needed help. However, wealthy individuals weren’t “kicked out” because of their wealth. They gained and kept their wealth through corruption.

A: I agree. There have always been rich and poor. I never saw a change in this dynamic under communism. However, I do think that communism has the potential to benefit those that need government assistance. However, I am not open to it, as I fear the assistance will never be properly handled.

B: I agree with you. The issue of properly leading a proletariat revolution is important. However, before we conclude, can I add something for the record?

Of course.

B: I also want to point out that the misconception of women being restricted within communism was an American thing. Communism was never restrictive to women. Women were able to work as soon as they were of age. They could obtain medical resources, abortion, and education, and finances were a background concern. This narrative of the failed Soviet medical system and misogynistic society was never told in or true of the Soviet state.

That’s wonderful to hear. I had been told that the medical system failed and was restrictive. It’s good to clear up misconceptions whenever we can.

When considering this discussion, I realized that it reflected two different generations with two very different experiences. They appeared to come from opposing perspectives, with some moments of consensus. The most important elements were the discussion of wealth inequality and if communism benefited the working class. In the case of Peru, the Shining Path targeted rural and isolated populations to become foot soldiers of the movement. Those communities’ lack of education and infrastructures of communication allowed this to happen. In the case of Georgia, by contrast, many described the regime as of great importance and the reason they could survive the harsh winters. Both were unforgiving of the exploitation of people through misinformation and outright harm. They agreed it was unlikely that communism could eliminate all corruption. However, the Georgian student saw that working and poor people still found it more beneficial to them when compared to their current life under capitalism.

Ryan Bastidas

Ryan Bastidas is an Intersectionality, Indigeneity, Race, and Ethnicity in Politics (IIREP) M.A. student in the Department of Political Science at UCONN-Storrs. His field is political theory, and his research focuses on theory at the intersection of Indigeneity and Latinidad. He is also a first-generation Quechua-American and Latino in the United States.