Automatically translated by AI.

By Sofía Martínez – Alternativa Socialista Perú

A few hours ago Mario Vargas Llosa passed away, a figure who transcended beyond literature to become an emblem of Latin American conservative thought. This writer, whose work established him as one of the greatest exponents of narrative in Spanish, not only used his pen to explore the darkest corners of history and politics, but also to position himself as a tireless defender of a deeply unequal economic and social model. When reflecting on his legacy, it is important to unravel the contradictions of an author who, while denouncing the injustices of totalitarian systems, did not hesitate to embrace neoliberalism, whose devastating impact on the working classes has been the true totalitarian system of the 21st century.

The betrayal of its origins

Vargas Llosa was born into a very specific context: a Peruvian society marked by inequality and exclusion. Raised in a middle-class family, he experienced the struggles and sufferings of the Peruvian people up close, but soon adopted a worldview that ran counter to these roots. Instead of raising his voice in favor of the masses or the oppressed, he opted for a path that led him to embrace the ideas of the oligarchy and US imperialism.

In his early novels, especially in The City and the Dogs (1963) and Conversation in the Cathedral (1969), Vargas Llosa was already fiercely critical of the corruption and violence of the Peruvian elites. However, over the years, his discourse has moved away from structural criticism and closer to defending a globalized market economy – even at the cost of the social tensions this system causes. This ideological shift is largely a reflection of the involution which, together with his time in Peruvian politics and his liberal positions, turned him into a fervent supporter of neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism: the totalitarian system of modern times

The great contradiction is that Vargas Llosa, a writer acclaimed for his ability to reflect on authoritarianism, became a staunch defender of neoliberalism – a system that perpetuates the oppression of majorities in favour of a transnational elite that accumulates wealth at the expense of the poverty and marginalization of millions of people. In his explicit support for neoliberal policies, such as those implemented in Peru during the 1990s under the government of Alberto Fujimori, Vargas Llosa sided with those who believe that the market is the solution to all problems, without considering that it is this same market that has generated a growing concentration of wealth and profound inequality.

It is true that Peru in the 1980s experienced a period of economic crisis and violence, largely as a result of the policies of a state incapable of meeting social demands. However, the response to this crisis should not have been the savage deregulation, privatization of state companies and flexibilization of work that Vargas Llosa promoted. The supposed economic “miracle” of the 1990s was nothing more than the consolidation of a model that favored big businessmen and multinationals, while condemning the majority of Peruvians to poverty and precariousness.

Vargas Llosa’s double standard

One of the greatest criticisms that can be leveled at Mario Vargas Llosa is his double standard, reflected in his constant attack on authoritarianism, but indifference to the social and human consequences of neoliberal capitalism. He was a firm critic of so-called progressive regimes, such as Hugo Chávez’s government in Venezuela and also, at one time, of the Cuban Revolution. However, he used to turn a blind eye to the authoritarian practices emerging from the neoliberal regimes he supported.

For example, Vargas Llosa praised right-wing governments in Latin America, such as Sebastián Piñera in Chile or Mauricio Macri in Argentina, who, although democratically elected, were responsible for policies of austerity and social repression.

Silence in the face of inequality

In his support for the neoliberal model, Vargas Llosa seemed to ignore the profound inequalities that this system perpetuates. According to a report by ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean), Latin America is the most unequal region on the planet and Peru is no exception. However, Vargas Llosa did not dedicate a single word to questioning the structures that create and maintain this inequality. Instead of advocating a fair redistribution of wealth, he limited himself to promoting the free market as the only way forward.

What Vargas Llosa never saw – or didn’t want to see – was that neoliberalism not only increased poverty, but also strengthened the systems of power that perpetuate social injustice. By defending an economic model that puts private interests above collective well-being, the writer has in fact positioned himself on the side of the enemies of the people – those who seek to privatize what is public and strip the masses of the few resources they have left.

The last gasp of neoliberalism

Mario Vargas Llosa, the writer who spoke so much about freedom, justice and human dignity, fell into the trap of neoliberalism. During the 2021 elections, he gave his timely support to Keiko Fujimori, calling for people to vote for the mafia candidate. A writer who never understood the Andean world and who criticized the work of José María Arguedas, belittling his work – in the words of historian María Rostworowski, one of the causes of his electoral defeat was precisely this lack of understanding of the thinking and feeling of the Peruvian people.

When Peru was urgently crying out for coherence and determination in the defense of democracy, Vargas Llosa rushed to pay homage to the government, to receive the Order of the Sun and to recognize before the whole world the legitimacy of Dina Boluarte over the blood of our brothers and sisters murdered in the demonstrations.

In order to build a more just, equitable society, free from the tyranny of the market, Peruvian society needs to recognize the contradictions of those who, from their intellectual pedestal, defend a system that perpetuates oppression. Let’s work on memory and critical thinking, because here, in fact, we don’t separate the author from his work.