[A-List] [cortgreene@excite.com: [21stcenturysocialism] Bolivian elections - What position should the Marxists take]

[grok@xxxxxxxxx]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


I'd be really interested in seeing kritikz of this analysis
from other political currents... (as opposed to the usual
vulgarisms about "vanguardism", etc.)

And I hope the masses of Bolivia dispense with any
lingering illusions about Morales and bourgeois
parliamentarism toute de suite & ASAP.

- -- grok.



- ----- Forwarded message from cort greene <cortgreene@xxxxxxxxxx> -----

From: cort greene <cortgreene@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:47:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [21stcenturysocialism] Bolivian elections - What position should the Marxists take
To: handsoffvenezuela@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, vivabolivar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Venezuela_Today@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 21stcenturysocialism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: cortgreene@xxxxxxxxxx
Message-Id: <20051216224702.BE83B299B1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


 http://www.marxist.com/bolivian-elections-position-marxists161205.htm

Bolivian elections - What position should the Marxists take?
By Jorge Martin
Friday, 16 December 2005

The elections in Bolivia on Sunday, December 18th, are
taking place against the background of the intense class
struggle that has shaken this Andean country in the last 5
years, including at least three massive uprisings in
February and October 2003 and May-June of this year.

The victory of the mass mobilisations against the
privatisation of water in Cochabamba in April 2000 opened
the floodgates for the movement of Bolivian workers and
peasants, a movement that has increasingly questioned not
only the policies of this or that government, but the whole
of bourgeois democracy and the capitalist system itself.

However, the fact that when the question of power was posed
sharply in October 2003 ? and more recently in May-June of
this year ? this was not solved decisively in favour of the
workers and peasants, has allowed the ruling class to divert
this huge revolutionary energy into the safer channels of
parliamentary and presidential elections.

The leadership of the workers? and peasants? organisations
played a key role in this. On the one hand Evo Morales?
Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) has always insisted on a
parliamentary road. Evo Morales, who was absent from the
movement in October 2003, helped prop up president Mesa.
When the latter was faced with a mass revolutionary
movement, Morales helped the ruling class find a
constitutional way out in the form of president Rodriguez.

On the other hand, the leaders of the more radical workers?
and peasants? organisations, because of their lack of a
clear perspective at the crucial moment, were also
responsible for wasting two crucial opportunities. The
leadership of the Bolivian Workers? Union (COB) even made a
very sharp analysis of their shortcomings during the October
2003 movement. ?If the workers did not take power it was
because of the lack of a revolutionary party?, they said,
and they were completely right. At that time there was a
nationwide general strike with road blockades across the
country, while a mass of angry workers and peasants, with
the armed miners at the forefront, gathered outside the
Presidential Palace in La Paz demanding the resignation of
the then president Sanchez de Lozada.

When ?Goni? Sanchez de Lozada was finally forced to resign,
power was transferred for a few hours to the streets.
Unfortunately, the leaders of the workers? organisations,
even the most radicalised of them, had no clear idea of what
to do next. By their inaction they allowed the ruling class
to replace Goni with Mesa and re-establish bourgeois
legality. The trade union leaders declared a truce towards
the new government, thereby sowing illusions that somehow
Mesa would rule in favour of the workers and peasants and
would stand up to the multinationals. Although the masses
had not been defeated, once the opportunity had been wasted,
it would take some time for a new mass movement to develop.

In spite of all this manoeuvring it was clear that the
contradictions in Bolivian society had reached boiling point
and could not be solved within the narrow confines of
bourgeois democracy. Mesa tried in vain to meet the demands
of the gas and oil multinationals while at the same time
appeasing the mass movement that he feared so much. This, of
course was an impossible task. Despite all the efforts of
the MAS leaders in parliament to hold back the masses, a new
upsurge on the streets was inevitable. In April 2005 Mesa
made a dramatic TV appearance in which he revealed the real
situation: the multinationals are really ruling the country
and they will not accept any limitations to their power.
What Mesa was proposing regarding the central conflict over
the ownership and extraction of the country?s vast gas
resources was too much for the multinationals to stomach and
too little for the mass of the people to be satisfied with.
A compromise could not be reached and this once again opened
the road to a mass revolutionary movement.

In May-June a nationwide strike movement developed, with its
epicentre in the working class city of El Alto. Once again,
workers and peasants, organised in their trade union
organisations, were on the streets of Bolivia with just one
demand: nationalisation of gas. This time the revolutionary
spirit of the movement infected the ranks of the MAS, who
went beyond their own leaders. Instead of raising the demand
for 50% royalties to be imposed on the gas companies ? the
demand of the leaders of the MAS ? the MAS peasants who had
marched to the capital firmly demanded nationalisation.

This time the struggle acquired a much more advanced
political character. The main organisations made it clear
that the struggle was not to replace one government with
another, but to close down the bourgeois parliament
altogether if it could not guarantee the nationalisation of
gas. As we wrote at the time, ?The leader of the MAS, Ramon
Loayza, had to admit that they had been ?surpassed by the
ranks? and gave Parliament four days to nationalise natural
gas reserves and convene a Constituent Assembly. If this was
not done he threatened that, ?we will close down
Parliament?.? (Bolivia: revolutionary crisis reaches its
peak, June 1st, 2005,
http://www.marxist.com/bolivia-revolutionary-crisis010605.htm).
This was from Loayza, a peasant leader, and also part of the
MAS leadership and a Member of Parliament.

In La Paz and other main cities, daily mass meetings,
cabildos abiertos, involving tens and hundreds of thousands
took place with the participation of workers, peasants,
miners armed with sticks of dynamite, etc. The masses were
on the streets exercising direct revolutionary democracy. It
was increasingly clear to them that the nationalisation of
gas and the solution of their most pressing problems could
only be solved by a workers? and peasants? government, that
is, with the masses taking power into their own hands, and
sweeping away the whole machinery of capitalist democracy.
This could be seen in dozens of resolutions, in the banners
and slogans advanced by the marchers and strikers who in
practice were moving in the direction of taking power.

The ruling class was frightened and a section of the
reactionary oligarchy based in Santa Cruz even toyed with
the idea of breaking up the country. The Army was also
divided and even a section of junior officers sympathised
with the mass movement.

The main tragedy of the revolutionary movement earlier this
year was, once again, that when the crucial movement was
reached, the leaders of the workers? and peasants? movement
did not know what to do. They talked a lot about taking
power but they did nothing concrete to actual organise the
taking of power. Jaime Solares, the executive secretary of
the COB did not understand how the workers could take power.
He was playing with the idea of a military officer emerging
from within the Army who would take power with the support
of the workers? organisations.

The decision taken in El Alto on June 8th by the main
workers? and peasants? organisations to set up a Peoples?
Assembly, which was seen as an embryo of an alternative
power, was an extremely significant step forward. But it
came too late. The ruling class, with the support of the
leadership of the MAS, managed to find a way out of the
crisis with the resignation of Mesa and the election of
Rodriguez as the new interim president. Even this decision
was only be taken by a parliament that had been surrounded
by the revolutionary masses in Sucre (instead of its normal
seat in La Paz), and after the ruling class had failed to
get their first choice, Vaca Diez, elected. As always, the
reformist leaders are brought in as a last resort to save
the day for the ruling class, and so the Bolivian oligarchy
was saved by the MAS leaders who put all their weight behind
Rodriguez.

The trade union leaders like Solares, De la Cruz and others,
who had not learnt the lessons of the October uprising, were
unable to offer any alternative to this new constitutional
derailment of the movement. And as the saying goes ?fool me
once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?. The lack of
a clear way forward, the tiredness of the movement after
three weeks of red-hot revolutionary mobilisation, and the
authority of certain MAS leaders, finally carried the day
and the general strike died down.

However, this time round the position of Rodriguez was
weaker than that of Mesa after October 2003, and he could
only survive by promising early elections. Even the process
of calling these elections was fraught with all sorts of
tricks and manoeuvres by which the ruling class tried to
ensure their victory. For instance, they changed the
relative weight of the different regions in the national
parliament, giving three more seats to the stronghold of the
oligarchy in Santa Cruz, and taking these away from the more
radical working class La Paz, Potosi and Oruro. Some
sections of the ruling class were even playing with the idea
of postponing the elections altogether, using some
constitutional excuses, but this would have been too much
and could have actually provoked a new upsurge in the
revolutionary movement and sealed the fate of the already
discredited parliament.

Revolution is not a game. When the question of power is
posed, the leadership of the working class must be prepared
to take it. If they do not do so, if they confine themselves
to revolutionary speeches without taking decisive action,
the opportunity will be lost. The masses, not seeing a way
out through direct revolutionary action, will get tired of
the endless speeches and talk, of meetings and resolutions.
The movement will ebb and the initiative will pass to the
ruling class.

Unfortunately, the leaders of the COB and the other
revolutionary leaders in Bolivia on two separate occasions
let the opportunity escape them. They had the power in their
hands and they allowed it to slip through their fingers.
This is a very sad fact, but it is a fact that cannot be
denied. On two occasions they refused to take power. That
has tremendous consequences!

Once the masses saw that, despite all their tremendous
exertions, the road to power through revolutionary direct
action was blocked, they inevitably looked for another way
out of the impasse. After all, for the masses there can be
no question of waiting with folded arms for a perfect
solution. Their problems are too serious and too urgent to
wait for the revolutionary vanguard to get its house in
order. If the revolutionaries are not serious about solving
their problems, the masses must look for another
alternative.

For their part, the Bolivian landlords and capitalists
breathed a sigh of relief. They could not believe their
luck! Power had already slipped out of their hands. It was
lying in the street. But there was nobody to pick it up. In
other circumstances, the ruling class would have passed onto
the offensive and organised the forces of reaction. The
result would have been a bloody coup as in Chile and
Argentina. But the balance of class forces in Bolivia does
not permit such a scenario ? for the present at least. The
bourgeoisie is obliged to resort to subterfuge. The only
possible outcome is: counterrevolution in a democratic
disguise.

The ruling class is obliged to call early elections. It will
be forced to hand power to Evo Morales. The masses will
grasp the opportunity to express their demands on the
electoral plane. This is not an ideal situation from the
standpoint of capitalism and imperialism. But at least it is
better than the seizure of power by the workers and
peasants.

Morales has gone out of his way to reassure the ruling class
and imperialism, even having meetings in Europe with Repsol
and other multinationals with interests in Bolivia, meeting
the ambassadors of EU countries and even having a secret
meeting with the US embassy. His vice-presidential
candidate, former guerrilla ideologist Garcia Linera, made
it clear from the beginning that he thinks socialism is off
the agenda in Bolivia and that he favours the development of
some sort of ?Andean capitalism?. Nevertheless, the
imperialists and their Bolivian agents feel extremely uneasy
about the likely victory of Evo Morales in Sunday?s
elections. They are not so concerned about Morales himself,
but they are terrified of the forces that stand behind
Morales.

Therefore, the ruling class in Bolivia has launched an
unprecedented scare-mongering campaign against Morales,
accusing him of all sorts of things from being an ?agent? of
?Venezuelan imperialism?, to being a communist (something he
is certainly not). In a very significant move the US took
some 30 surface-to-air HN-5A missiles from the Bolivian
army. These are highly portable and easy to use missiles of
the same kind used by the Iraqi resistance.

This amazing move shows clearly two things. One is that the
relationship of the Bolivian bourgeoisie towards the US is
one of colonial servitude. The other is that the US do not
trust the Bolivian armed forces, are very worried about the
revolutionary situation in the country and fear that these
weapons might end up in the hands of the revolutionary
people. A detailed report in Econonoticias.com
(http://www.econoticiasbolivia.com/documentos/notadeldia/elec15.html
) describes how a purge is being organised within the
Bolivian armed forces by removing from command of troops and
retiring officers that are deemed to be close or influenced
by the demands of the workers and peasants.

Their main fear is that Morales as a president will not be
able to contain the revolutionary aspirations of the masses.
Leon Trotsky explained that under certain circumstances the
reformist leaders can be pushed to go further than what they
intend. Regardless of the assurances of the MAS leaders, the
rank and file of the mass and its electoral base of support
see things in a very different way. For them, voting for
Morales is voting for the nationalisation of gas, against
the oligarchy and against imperialism and the
multinationals. That is what the imperialists fear most.

The electoral campaign of the mass has gathered tens of
thousands of workers and peasants around the country. The
politically uneducated masses do not see things in the same
way as the more advanced proletarian vanguard. They believe
that they are electing to the presidency a man who comes
from the peasant movement, who became a leader starting from
the rank and file, who is considered by ordinary working
people as ?one of ours?. This element cannot be
underestimated.

This is a country that for 125 years has been ruled by
members of the white elite. Evo Morales is of indigenous
background, and thus is also seen as representing that 80%
of the population, indigenous workers and peasant, who have
always been oppressed and discriminated against. For the
masses of workers and peasants these things count more than
any meetings Morales has had with the multinationals. Their
class instinct tells them that if the oligarchy attacks Evo
so much, then they should support him.

At the same time, the support of the masses for Evo Morales
does not signify blind faith. The latter have been through
the school of revolution and have drawn certain conclusions.
This was clearly seen during the May-June movement, when the
rank and file of the MAS, the peasants who had marched to La
Paz, rejected his demand for 50% royalties and under the
influence of the powerful strike movement adopted firmly the
demand for nationalisation.

The last few years of struggle have made the masses in
Bolivia very weary of their leaders. There is a strong
feeling that leaders should be accountable to the rank and
file, and even known leaders have been thrown out of their
organisations or expelled from demonstrations when they were
seen as not respecting the mandate from the rank and file.

The most likely perspective seems that Evo Morales will win
the elections. All opinion polls show him having
approximately 34% of the votes as against 28% for Tuto
Quiroga, the main candidate of the oligarchy. Since it is
unlikely that he will get more than 50% of the vote which is
needed to automatically become president, the decision will
be left to parliament, which has the power to choose either
of the two candidates with the highest number of votes.
Theoretically this could be used to impose Quiroga as a
president, but in practice this could provoke a new social
explosion with the masses of workers and peasants coming out
on the streets to defend their election victory.

What should be the attitude of revolutionary Marxists faced
with these elections? Last weekend there was a meeting in El
Alto of the First National Workers? and Peasants? Summit. A
statement was agreed which was signed by the El Alto Region
of the COB, the national COB and the miners? federation
FSTMB. These represent the most advanced organisations of
the Bolivian workers and played a key role in the
revolutionary mobilisations of the last few years.

In the statement they point out that ?the workers and social
movements of Bolivia, now more than ever, are convinced that
the elections? were called in order to derail the tenacious
struggle of the oppressed of this country, and will not
solve the problems that are asphyxiating the Bolivians nor
will they defend the sovereignty and the dignity of the
Nation?. Then they add that the main characteristic of their
recent struggle has been the inability to take power and
that therefore they have ?the elementary duty to consolidate
the National Originary [Originaria] Peoples? Assembly as an
organ of power?.

The statement reaffirms the main demands of the struggle and
adds that they can only rely ?on mass direct action and our
own tools of struggle? and it finally calls for the
formation of Regional Peoples? Assemblies in March 2006 and
the convening of a National Peoples? Assembly on April 10th
next year.

This statement contains a number of correct points and
observations, but the main problem is that it does not take
any position regarding the elections, which are taking place
now. In order to carry out a revolution it is not sufficient
that the vanguard should want a revolution. The vanguard
must win over the masses, educate them in a revolutionary
spirit and maintain close links with them. In order to do
this, it is essential that the vanguard should understand
the instincts of the masses and ensure that its slogans are
not too far ahead of the masses, such that the link between
the vanguard and the class is broken. A simple repetition of
the need to take power is not sufficient.

The vanguard must provide concrete answers to concrete
questions. The declarations at the above mentioned meeting
may be correct in a general revolutionary sense, but they
provide no answers to the burning question of the moment. A
Bolivian worker and peasant will say: yes, all that is very
good, but how do I cast my vote next Sunday?

It was the inability of these same leaders to offer a clear
way forward in June that allowed the ruling class, with the
help of the reformists, to derail the movement in the
direction of elections. That is a very unfortunate fact, but
it is a fact nonetheless. The objective conditions have
changed and we must not act as though this were not the
case. Can the vanguard remain indifferent in these
elections? That would really cut us off completely from the
masses. The latter have to pass through the school of Evo
Morales, the school of reformism, which in Bolivian
conditions is likely to be a very hard school. But our duty
is to advance shoulder to shoulder with the masses,
explaining at each stage what must be done and helping them
to draw the conclusions.

In June, the question that was posed starkly was the
question of power, of who rules the country. Now the
question that is posed in front of the masses is what do we
do in these elections? The majority of workers and peasants
will no doubt be voting for the MAS, particularly since
there is no other alternative on offer. In July, August and
September the COB discussed the possibility of standing in
the elections through the setting up of a Political Tool of
the Workers. But these discussions ended up in nothing.
There were also discussions with Felipe Quispe?s MIP so that
some trade union leaders would stand in his lists, but
finally there was no agreement.

It is quite clear that these organisations, which were in a
position to take power in October 2003 and June 2005, are
not in a position to take power now. They are clearly unable
to organise a serious boycott of the elections. This is why
they are not calling for such a thing, but at the same time
they are leaving the most advanced worker activists without
any clear lead on what to do. For the mass of workers and
peasants these elections are important and one cannot just
step aside and pass them off as if they were not. Without
winning these workers and peasants who will vote for the MAS
in these elections to the side of the revolution, there will
be no successful revolution in Bolivia. The experience of a
Morales government is a necessary step in the development of
the consciousness of the masses in Bolivia. And the
elementary duty of revolutionaries in Bolivia is to
accompany them in this experience.

They have no alternative but to call for a critical vote for
the MAS, and at the same time conduct agitation over the
main demands of the movement, starting with nationalisation
of gas with no compensation, demanding that this be the
first step taken by Evo Morales when becoming president, and
warning that this and the other demands of the movement can
only be achieved by revolutionary mass action of the workers
and peasants themselves. In fact, the statement of the
Workers? and Peasants? Summit is broadly correct but makes
one fundamental mistake: it does not give any concrete
orientation in relation to what is now seen as the most
important field of struggle by the masses: the elections.

Amongst some of the advanced activists and even a section
the masses, there is a very critical mood towards Morales.
Naturally! They have seen his past record, and his present
statements and regard him with suspicion. Nevertheless they
will vote for him as against the open candidate of the
ruling class. On the other hand the majority of the workers
and peasants will vote for him, not because of his talks
with the multinationals and his assurances to the US
embassy. On the contrary, they will vote for the MAS as a
vote for nationalisation of gas, against foreign imperialist
meddling in the country, for a solution to the problems of
national oppression, land, jobs, etc.

Revolutionary Marxists must find a way to relate to all
these moods and not cut off the most advanced activists from
the masses. The workers and peasants who will vote for the
MAS are the same ones who participated in the uprisings in
the last two years, and are the same that will participate
in the uprisings that are being inevitably prepared for the
future.

In the meantime they must create an organisation that brings
together the most advanced activists that played a role in
these movements. Gather them on the basis of the
revolutionary ideas of Marxism so that next time round when
the question of power is posed, this can pass to the hands
of the workers and peasants once and for all.




- --
*** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! ***************************************
*          Boycott the Bourgeois Economy: BUY PROGRESSIVE          *
****** Critical endorsement only ***** Gift-giving Year-round ******
* http://gxonlinestore.org            Global Exchange online store *
* http://gxonlinestore.org/strongroots.html MST BrasÃl online store*
* http://takingaim.info/vp.html             Taking Aim books & CDs *
* https://www.peacecoffee.com            Peace Coffee (fair trade) *
* http://thenewpress.com                             The New Press *
* http://www.chickenhawkcards.com  Deck of Republican Chickenhawks *
* http://www.deckofbush.com                           Deck of Bush *
* http://www.nationbooks.org                          Nation Books *
*******  Where the barricades end -- real democracy begins  ********
GPG fingerprint = 2830 CEE8 4B63 72A0 F86E  622D 6245 9357 A705 91FA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDo2wAYkWTV6cFkfoRAhjeAJ9nPrVVg52SB2p/W8uhMn3HY++EzgCbBmDt
NijWrU9/lM2eSLcNizLpOFI=
=Wiwm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----