[Marxism] Bolivian unions press for insurrectional strike -- peasant leader Morales is opposed (excerpt)

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Athough a sectarian line threads through this article, much of which
is actually dedicated to unbridled denunciations of Bolivian peasant
and parliamentary leader Evo Morales, I think this is a significant
report on the sharpening crisis in Bolivia. Obviously, if the workers
and peasants can take power in Bolivia today and replace the
parliament and state machine with their own institutions, that would
be a good thing in my view.

But there is also the danger of sections of the workers' movement
going off on an ultraleft course -- sections of the masses can do this
in revolutionary and prerevolutionary situations, not just sectarians.
An example was the July Days in the Russian revolution, where the
Bolshevik leaders contained the insurrectional thrust by a large
section of the workers and thus saved the possibility of forging the
workers and peasants alliance needed to establish a revolutionary
government.

Of course, unlike the Bolsheviks, ultraleft and sectarian currents
such as that represented by Martin would never dream of containing
such a thrust and pursuing the workers to pursue a more patient road
to an insurrection, waiting to win the real mass of the peasantry to
this course.

>From this point of view, two things strike me as danger signals: one
is the division between the unions and Morales, who still has a mass
following of among the peasants and is likely to win any presidential
election called by the present government. Some of the workers leaders
are denouncing Morales as an agent of imperialism for opposing their
proposal to stage an insurrection to abolish parliamnet in favor of
the "people's assembly."

The second danger signal is the counterposition of the perspective of
transferring power to the  People's Assembly to the call for a
constituent assembly to write a new constitution and establish a new
form of government.  Martin calls the latter a trick by the ruling
class even though he acknowledges it was initiated by Morales.

I don't know Bolivia today concretely enough to judge this, but I
cannot help but recall that Lenin and the Bolsheviks carefully avoided
any such counterposition of "soviets" -- as the alternative class
institutions were called in the Russian revolution -- and the
constituent assembly. This was because large sections of the masses,
especially among the peasants, looked to the constituent assembly as a
symbol of democracy and overthrow of the old regime.

Mrtin dismisses Morales' claim that the course of the COB would open
the door to a military coup.  But it seems to me that a deep split
between the workers and peasants at this time would do exactly that.

A further point is Martin's dismissal of the proposal by Argentina to
provide landlocked Bolivia with a corridor to the sea and a port.
Martin dismisses this as laughable and a diversion from the struggle,
but it is not at all clear to me why this is the case.  This raises
the issue to me of how the leaders of the current thrust toward a new
insurrection view their relationship to other struggles and
anti-imperialist developments in Latin America -- Cuba, Venezuela,
Brazil, and Argentina.
Fred Feldman





Bolivia is moving towards a third uprising


?Those who defend this bourgeois parliament are on the side of US
imperialism?

http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/bolivia_third0401.html>


by Jorge Martín


The national enlarged meeting of the Bolivian Workers? Union (COB)
gathered in Cochabamba on January 22, and decided to call for an
indefinite general strike with road blockades in twenty days time if
Mesa?s government does not concede the demands of the October
insurrection and continues with its announced austerity measures. The
COB meeting ?ended with the decision to take power, by closing down
Parliament? (El Diario, January 23, 2004)

This decision marks the end of the truce given by the worker and
peasant leaders to Carlos Mesa?s government, which came to power after
the overthrow of Sanchez de Lozada through an insurrectional general
strike in October last year. As we said at the time, the aim of Mesa?s
government was to try to win a certain social basis of support by
making all sorts of promises to the movement. We also warned that
these promises would vanish because his government is faced with the
complete bankruptcy of Bolivian capitalism, which could not afford any
concessions.

Against those who said that the October insurrection had ended in a
defeat, we argued that although an opportunity to take power by
workers and peasants had been wasted because of the lack of a genuine
Marxist leadership, the masses had not suffered any decisive defeat
and their own experience would push them again into a major clash with
the bourgeoisie, represented by the new Carlos Mesa government. This
has been the experience that the oppressed in Bolivia have gone
through in just three months. In the words of COB executive secretary
Jaime Solares ?Mesa?s government is nothing more than the continuation
of the President which was ousted last October, keeping on the road of
the World Bank and the IMF?(El Diario, 23/1/04). To this we must add
that this process would have gone faster had it not been for the
vacillation of the leaders of the workers? and peasants? movement, who
were prepared to give breathing room to Mesa?s bourgeois government,
thus creating certain illusions and missing the opportunity to take
power at the key moment of the October insurrection.

After the first days in which he promised everything to everyone, Mesa
soon revealed his true character. What happened to his promises?
Regarding the cultivation of coca leaves, he made it clear that his
policy was going to be a continuation of the policy of former
president Goni, that is to say the policy of US imperialism: the
eradication and destruction of the livelihood of tens of thousands of
peasant families without offering them any alternative. As for the
referendum on the sale of gas (the spark which ignited October?s
insurrectionary uprising), after announcing a date for it, now the
government, using all sort of legalistic excuses, has decided to
postpone it by at least 90 days. It is also not clear what the
question asked in the referendum will be, so the door is open to all
sorts of tricks (for instance, asking whether people agree with the
sale of gas to the US, rather than asking about the renationalisation
of gas, which is the real issue). As for the convening of a
Constituent Assembly, the date seems to be fading further away. After
having promised its immediate calling, the date was then postponed to
2005, although the president also announced, in clear contradiction
with this, that he was going to finish his mandate which expires in
august 2007. It is clear that the ruling class only uses the card of
the Constituent Assembly in order to divert the attention of the
masses when it feels itself to be in real danger, and when the
pressure diminishes all promises vanish into the horizon.



Bankruptcy of the state, austerity measures for the masses



As for the other demands of the workers? and peasants? movement, not
only have none of them been met, but also Mesa, in his New Year
speech, announced a new package of austerity measures against working
people. Amongst these are an increase of taxes on wages (exactly the
same measure which was defeated by the first insurrection in February
last year), ending the subsidies on the price of domestic gas and an
increase in the price of fuel. When he announced these measures,
Economic Development Minister Xavier Nogales, was clear in pointing
out that they would mean ?blood, sweat and tears?. The Minister
conveniently forgot to explain that what was being proposed was the
extraction of blood, sweat and tears from working people and that
these would then be given to the capitalists, land owners and the
multinationals.

This is a finished recipe for a new social explosion, but at the same
time the policies of Mesa are the only possible ones from a capitalist
point of view. The Bolivian ruling class can only balance the finances
of a bankrupt state (with a budget deficit of 700 million dollars or
8.5% of GDP) and recover its profits through more attacks on the
living standards of the majority of the Bolivian people. It is no
surprise therefore that the World Bank (which is promoting these
policies) in a recently published report warns that ?after having made
an economic, social and political analysis of the current situation ?
there is still the risk that social conflict could erupt again in
February-March 2004? (quoted in Econoticiasbolivia.com, January 7,
2004). Obviously, in reality the policies of the World Bank do not
leave Bolivians with any other alternative but to struggle, that is
why this institution can forecast explosions of this kind with such
certainty!

To all this we have to add the failure of the Mesa government mission
to Washington, which had the aim of trying to get a few crumbs from
the imperialist countries. The meeting of the so-called Support Group,
called by the US, which is facing the danger of a new social explosion
in the Andean country, ended with lots of good words but no hard cash
to cover the 105 million dollar emergency aid the Bolivian government
was begging for. It would seem that the international financial
institutions do not think that Mesa will be able to carry out this
austerity plan without provoking a social explosion. This leaves Mesa
in an even more difficult position, since the already harsh austerity
measures announced will not be enough to avoid the complete bankruptcy
of public finances, which in the words of the President ?will need in
the next few months at least 100 or 120 million dollars? (Erbol). The
main contradiction is that these measures, which are not enough from
the point of view of the oligarchy, are intolerable for the masses.

In these conditions it is not surprising that, in an increasingly
bolder and clearer way, the workers? and peasants? organisations and
their leaders have been declaring themselves for an end to the truce
with Mesa and for a new offensive in the struggle. Already on December
30, the leader of the El Alto Regional Workers Union, Roberto de La
Cruz ?questioned the failure of the new government to meet the demands
of the people formulated in October and demanded the closing down of
parliament?(Bolpress, 30/12/03).

Also the main leader of the COB, Jaime Solares, addressing the
Ordinary Congress of the Potosí Departmental Workers Union, made an
appeal for ?strikes, blockades and other measures to paralyse the
country?s economy in order to fight against a government which only
follows US economic recipes? and added that ?the theory of revolution
will be put into practice through the road of insurrection?. In the
same statement, quoted by Econoticiasbolivia.com on January 15,
Solares pointed out ?that the oligarchy must fall so that the people
take power?.

All these statements, which undoubtedly reflect the pressure and
growing impatience of workers and peasants, prepared the way for the
decisions of the national enlarged meeting of the COB on Thursday,
January 22. In a meeting which took place in the headquarters of the
La Paz Urban Teachers? Federation and which lasted for more than ten
hours, the COB declared ?war against the government?. The workers?
union decided to ?declare a national state of emergency in the whole
of the country, to establish and prepare an indefinite strike with
mobilisations (to be carried out in 20 days), to plan the basis for
the definition of strategy for measures to pressure the government and
to establish a political front of struggle against the government?
(Econoticiasbolivia.com, 23/1/04). To the demands already made to the
government in October they now added the ?refounding of Comibol and
YPFB [the former publicly owned mining and oil companies] under
workers control? (La Razón, 24/1/04).



The question of power



One of the most important aspects of the discussions of the enlarged
meeting of the COB is regarding the question of power. Already on
previous occasions (particularly after the February insurrection,
during the national COB congress, and during and immediately after the
October insurrection) Bolivian workers and peasants were forced to
pose the discussion on taking power. This is the result of their own
experience of struggle, because in the crucial moments in February and
at a higher level in October, the masses of the oppressed felt that
power was in their hands, but that their leaders did not have a clear
strategy of how to consolidate it and replace the democracy of the
oligarchy with the democracy of working people.

In the words of Jaime Solares: ?The new social movements will point to
the closing down of the national parliament for lack of effective work
in favour of the Bolivians ? The Bolivian people demand the closing
down of Parliament and the COB has no other option but to implement
this mandate? (Econoticiasbolivia, 23/1/04). These words clearly
reflect just how discredited bourgeois democracy is in Bolivia.
Increasingly wider layers of the masses have understood that this is a
democracy which only benefits the capitalists and the multinationals
and that it must be replaced by a different form of government. It is
in this context that the bourgeoisie clings to the idea of a
Constituent Assembly (first raised by Evo Morales and the leaders of
the Movement Towards Socialism, MAS), which offers them a way to clean
up the image of capitalist democracy and give their regime a new
breath of life. However, already at the national enlarged meeting of
the COB during the October insurrection, loud voices were heard
warning against this manoeuvre. Solares at that time also hinted at
the calling of a Popular Assembly as an alternative. Now this proposal
has been made concrete. The COB is proposing the closing down of
Parliament and its replacement by a People?s Assembly.



T

A socialist programme



It is clear that although there is still some confusion regarding the
slogan of a Constituent Assembly, the workers? organisations clearly
oppose this manoeuvre of the ruling class when they pose the People?s
Assembly as an alternative. At the same time the call to close down
parliament has a clear class and anti-capitalist content. Thus Solares
stated that, ?the Constituent Assembly will not solve the economic and
social crisis, as long as the current capitalist structure remains?
and added that, ?capitalism in the world cannot be maintained without
wars, corruption and lies, while in Bolivia this model has destroyed
the national economy?. Roberto de la Cruz said that, ?the people want
a legislative power expressing a real participatory democracy and to
close down the current bourgeois parliament that does not want to make
structural changes and represents a fictitious democracy? (Bolpress,
26/1/04). ?We want a People?s Assembly because that is the mechanism
to reverse poverty, because we will change the structure of this
economic model for another one which will be more humanitarian, more
social - not like now where the system is an assassin?, declared the
Social Assistance secretary of the COB, Crecencio Machaca. (La Razon,
24/1/04).

Strengthening the unity of the workers? movement and the peasants?
movement which was forged during the October insurrection, the peasant
union leader of the CSUTCB, ?Mallku? Felipe Quispe supported the COB?s
programme of struggle: ?If the COB wants to close down parliament we
will buy some big padlocks or we will close it by force, this is not a
problem, but this should be a proposal made by real men, not pretty
ladies who only make empty threats and speeches and then do nothing in
practice, and then lose support.? (La Razon, 24/1/04).

As was to be expected, all parliamentary parties denounced the
?ultra-leftism? of Solares and defined the COB proposals as being
seditious. To this Solares correctly replied that, ?the workers defend
real democracy ? the workers have reconquered democracy, but not so
that we die of hunger?. (Econoticiasbolivia.com, 23/1/04)

However the most significant reaction was that of Evo Morales and the
rest of the MAS leaders, who rushed to denounce the COB?s plan of
struggle. ?Those who are thinking about closing down parliament are
not on the side of democracy and are joining in the chorus of the US
embassy together with the parties which were defeated in October.?
Roberto de la Cruz replied: ?those who defend this bourgeois
parliament are with US imperialism?.

The MAS leaders have become the strongest defenders of the Mesa
government. Their strategy is to win the council elections this year
and maybe the forthcoming general election. The disease they suffer
from is parliamentary cretinism against which the Bolivian workers are
luckily already inoculated. When the MAS Senator Filemon Escobar
defended the respect for bourgeois parliament at the COB enlarged
meeting, as well as elections and Mesa?s government, his position was
soundly defeated and his intervention was received with booing and
abuse. Solares himself publicly challenged Evo Morales to define
clearly ?whether he is with the people or with Mesa?s government.?
(Econoticiasbolivia.com, 23/1/04). It is important to combine this
public challenge with an open appeal and a conscious orientation
towards the rank and file of this movement, where it is clear that
amongst the coca growers there is a ferment against the policies of
their leaders, who are defending a government which has promised to
follow the same policy of eradication as its predecessor.

Morales? warnings that the COB proposed strike is playing into the
hands of imperialism and of those sections of the army who are
preparing for a military coup has no basis whatsoever. The reason why
imperialism and the Bolivian capitalists might attempt a coup is
precisely because they can no longer contain the struggle of the
masses for their just demands through normal ?democratic? methods.
Therefore the only sure way of avoiding a military coup, if one
follows this line of reasoning, would be to demobilise the masses and
forget about their demands.

If the Bolivian workers and peasants would only be ?reasonable? and
passively accept hunger, misery, unemployment and the expoliation of
the country?s natural resources, then they would not provoke reaction
or imperialism. This seems to be what Morales is proposing. To this he
adds an ?alternative? to the mass struggle: the electoral struggle.
The problem is that even if Morales were to win the election, if he
were to try to apply a policy opposed to the interests of imperialism
and in favour of the working class, then ? he would also provoke the
reaction into organising a coup! This is precisely what the experience
of the Allende government in Chile shows: the ruling class will never
accept the loss of its privileges through elections.

An attempted reactionary coup now could have disastrous effects for
the ruling class. In conditions of revolutionary mobilisation of the
masses like we have now in Bolivia, this could provoke a further
radicalisation of the struggle, as happened with the first attempted
coup by Banzer in January 1971, or more recently with the reactionary
Carmona coup in Venezuela in April 2002. However this does not mean
that the Pentagon and the Bolivian army are not worried about the
situation, and they are also making their own preparations.

Fearful that the situation of social upheaval that Bolivia is
experiencing could spread beyond its borders, there was a meeting in
Buenos Aires at the beginning of January of the chiefs of the armies
of Argentina, Brazil and Chile. According to a report published in the
Argentinean paper La Nación, ?amongst the contingencies which are
seriously being analysed it is said that, reaching a certain point,
there could be the need for the intervention of a regional
stabilisation force? (La Nacion, 9/1/04). Translated into civilian
language this means that, if the Bolivian workers and peasants take
power, the militaries of Argentina, Brazil and Chile would be prepared
to, under any excuse, intervene militarily in the country.

Because of the enormous repercussions that a measure of this kind
could have (including in their own countries), it is not likely that
this would be implemented in the short term. However, the fact that
this is discussed at all is significant in itself as an indication of
how worried they are about the advance of the Bolivian revolution.



Access to the sea for Bolivia



In the short term it is clear that the Bolivian ruling class would
prefer to play another trump card, that of whipping up nationalist
feelings in relation to the demand of access to the sea for Bolivia,
as a means of diverting the attention of the Bolivian masses from
their immediate enemy (which is of course the Bolivian oligarchy which
has sold out to the multinationals) to the foreign enemy (Chile).
There has already been a whole symphony of statements in this
direction and this was also one of the star subjects at the Monterrey
summit. The ?offer? which has been made by Argentina is the
establishment of a one kilometre wide corridor from Bolivia to the
sea, on which a railway and a road would be built ending in a Bolivian
harbour. The proposal, laughable in itself, contains a trap: this
corridor would be administered by?Mercosur! It seems that what
Argentina is looking for with this kind of proposal is access to the
Pacific for itself. In any case it is highly unlikely that Chile and
Peru would reach an agreement to cede territory for the proposed
corridor, since Peru has already stated firmly that they already lost
enough territory in the war with Chile.

W
We cannot forget that the economic backwardness of Bolivia is not the
result of the lack of shores, but rather of the reactionary, parasitic
character of the alliance between mine owners and landowners which has
sold itself out to imperialism and ruled the republic since its
foundation. Neighbouring Peru has kilometres upon kilometres of
shores. Nevertheless the living conditions of workers and peasants
there are very close to those of their Bolivian counterparts.

All conditions are set in Bolivia for the workers and peasants to
overthrow this capitalist regime once and for all which has only
brought hunger, misery and unemployment, and replace it with a genuine
workers? and peasants? democracy which takes under its control the
natural resources and the country?s economy and runs them under a
democratic plan for the benefit of the oppressed majority.



Build a Marxist leadership



It is necessary to learn the lessons of the rich history of
revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and the indigenous people of
the high plateau. In order to overthrow the exploitive capitalist
regime, it is not enough to pose the question of power (as was already
done in October). Detailed preparations must be made to solve the
question in favour of the workers and peasants. To do this the
movement must create democratic structures of workers? and people?s
power that reflect the will of the mobilised masses. The delegates to
the People?s Assembly must be elected in cabildos abiertos, in all
towns and cities, in the factories and the mines, and in the peasant
villages. They must carry a clear mandate from those who elected them
and be recallable at any time by those who elected them. The national
People?s Assembly must be filled with content calling for the creation
of Assemblies on the same lines at departmental, regional, local and
neighbourhood levels, as well as calling for them to link up on a
national level, which can become an alternative structure of power to
the power of the oligarchy.

But for this power to be victorious it is necessary on the one hand to
create workers? and peasants? militias under the control of the
Assembly and its organisations, and at the same time to incorporate
the soldiers, the revolutionary police officers and even revolutionary
sections of the NCOs to the Assembly through the formation of
committees and assemblies within the army which would elect their own
delegates. In this way, the army, as a tool of repression of the
capitalist state, would be partially neutralised while at the same
time a situation like that of the El Alto massacre, when the masses
had to face the army barehanded, would be avoided. The oppressed
masses of the high plateau have shown in many occasions that this is
possible. In April 1952, and once again in January 1971, the workers
faced military coups and even, like in 1952, disarmed the army and set
up workers? militias. This is the road to take and these are the
traditions of struggle that must be reawakened.

At the same time, the experience of the different revolutionary
situations in Bolivia, in 1952, in 1970/71, and during the 1982 and
1985 upsurges, shows the need for a revolutionary leadership with a
clear programme, one which will not vacillate at the crucial juncture,
one which maintains its class independence and which guarantees
victory for the workers and peasants. They have shown since the ?water
war? in Cochabamaba, and particularly in the last year, that they have
very clear class instincts and more than once they have gone further
than their leadership. With a Marxist leadership they would be
invincible. The elements to forge such a leadership already exist in
Bolivia. Hundreds of rank and file workers?, peasants? and people?s
leaders are instinctively groping towards the idea of socialist
revolution and already understand a great deal of the tasks necessary
to carry it out. But they must be united in a Marxist organisation
able to raise at every point the right slogans which connect the level
of consciousness of the masses with the needs of the revolutionary
process. Such a Marxist organisation, which could rapidly become a
mass party, is absolutely necessary to guarantee victory, unifying the
movement and directing its blows at every moment towards the aim of
taking power. It is necessary furthermore, for such a party to have an
internationalist position to avoid the danger of a reactionary war in
the region, and make an internationalist appeal to the workers and
peasants of Peru, Chile, Ecuador and the whole of Latin America to
also rise up. This would be the only effective way to prevent foreign
intervention and an international blockade against a victorious
revolution.

It is difficult to say what is going to be the outcome of the general
strike called by the COB. There is certainly the danger of posing the
question of power without having prepared the necessary measures to
solve it in favour of the working class. All indications are that
workers and peasants are responding favourably to the appeal.
According to an Econoticiasbolivia report, the leader of the
Departmental Workers Union in Cochabamba ?demanded from the national
leadership that the date of the general strike and road blockades be
brought forward to stop Mesa?s proposed increase in fuel prices?. The
same source reported the statement of Miguel Zubieta, the main leader
of the miners, who explained the decisions of the national enlarged
meeting of the miners union, FSTMB: ?We have decided to advance the
unity of the workers around the programmatic and revolutionary
documents of the miners, replace the bourgeois parliament with a
People?s Assembly made up of workers, peasants and the middle class,
and to mobilise against the economic measures?. The anger of the
population against the government?s announced proposals is growing
into an unstoppable tidal wave.

It is also possible that the government, frightened by the perspective
of a victorious revolution, will make some concessions, even some
important concessions, in order to deactivate the movement. However
this would not solve anything. On the one hand it would strengthen the
confidence of the masses in their own forces, since it would be seen
as a victory. On the other hand the economic situation would force the
government, sooner than later, to launch the same attacks again. The
decisive conflict would only be postponed. Another possibility is that
the ruling class will try to use elections to demobilise the masses,
either by calling early elections or the convening a Constituent
Assembly. Such an election could be won by Evo Morales? MAS, but a MAS
government would very soon face the dilemma of decisively facing the
bourgeoisie and imperialism under pressure from the masses, or apply
an austerity programme in which case it would be faced with a new
movement of the masses.

T

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism