Bolivias Army Declares Itself Socialist

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2010/11/bolivia-military-socialist-antiimperialist.html


The commanding general of Bolivia's army has declared the Andean nation's forces "socialist," "anti-capitalist," and "anti-imperialist," positions that were immediately echoed by President Evo Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous president.
Gen. Antonio Cueto made the statements Sunday at a ceremony marking (http://aneb.ejercito.mil.bo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=347&Itemid=2) the army's 200th anniversary. Cueto said Bolivia's 2009 constitution allows the army to "emerge as a socialist, communitarian institution," according to the EFE news agency (http://www.google.com/hostednews/epa/article/ALeqM5j6KrA3xcQSMqfVzaDOvVvu-AsE5w?docId=1407270) (links in Spanish).
"We declare ourselves anti-imperialist because in Bolivia there can exist no external power imposing itself," Cueto said. "We also declare ourselves anti-capitalist because this system is destroying Mother Earth."
Morales, who attended the ceremony using crutches because of recent knee surgery, agreed (http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2010/11/15/index.php?section=mundo&article=025n1mun), saying, "History proves that the army was born with an anti-imperialist position because it's been combating the European empire since 1810." (Link in Spanish.)
Cueto also said Bolivia would never allow a foreign military to establish bases within its territory, making an indirect reference to a stalled plan in Colombia to allow (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2010/08/colombia-court-decision.html) the U.S. armed forces to use bases there. Cueto's words drew criticism and rebuke from former military leaders, reported La Razon (http://www.la-razon.com/version.php?ArticleId=121129&EditionId=2347), a daily in Bolivia (link in Spanish). One former commander and current opposition senator said the general was taking a partisan position, and therefore was in violation of the Constitution.
The chief of Bolivia's national police, meanwhile, said this week that his agency would remain "apolitical," EFE reported.

[Broletariat]

So are they going to let the working-class have control of the means of production?

I'm not very keen on the situation of Bolivia or its general history.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The commanding general of Bolivia's army has declared the Andean nation's forces "socialist,"I think there are some inherent problems from a socialist perspective in this sentence.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Whats going on in Latin America is different than any other socialist transformation seen before.

Popularly elected leaders who, for the most part, have military support as well.
It could have ended in 2002 but members of the military moved to rescue Chavez while the people of Venezuela were in the streets.

What this means in Bolivia is that the leadership of the military has decided to align themselves with socialism instead of US/Western political views.

[Stand Your Ground]

Whats going on in Latin America is different than any other socialist transformation seen before.

Popularly elected leaders who, for the most part, have military support as well.
It could have ended in 2002 but members of the military moved to rescue Chavez while the people of Venezuela were in the streets.

What this means in Bolivia is that the leadership of the military has decided to align themselves with socialism instead of US/Western political views.
It sounds like Bolivia is heading in the right direction.

[Steve_j]

But socialism ultimately means equality, ie the generals that are declaring themselves to be socialist will have the privilege that is associated with their position removed from them and their families.

You really think they will give that up without a fight?

Anti imperialist yes, socialist.... i have my doubts.

[scarletghoul]

bla bla bla they havnt instnatly given means of production over tyo direct workers control itrs not real soicalistm bla bal bla
Patience, comrades. These things take time, mostly for conslpolidation of strentgh on the scoialist side; and havuing military support is a big help to us.

[devoration1]

This is no different than the militarists under the various banners of national liberation fronts, partisan groups and marxist-leninist state-capitalist regimes. There is nothing socialist about militarism or state capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Military support for populist (anti-colonialist) regimes is not new to Latin America. Chavez has modeled himself after these progressive nationalists. Elected leaders coming to power after mass movements of workers and the poor is also not new to the region and there was an increase in populist reformers and democratic socialists between WWII and the repression of the 1970s and 80s that ended that movement.


bla bla bla they havnt instnatly given means of production over tyo direct workers control itrs not real soicalistm bla bal bla Well the first problem is that socialism can't be "given" - as Eugene Debs famously said: if I can lead you into the promised land, I can lead you right back out again too.

You'd think after Allende (much more radical in his nationalizations and reforms than Morales or Chavez) socialists would be more weary of an elected reformer saying he is building a "path to socialism" and it's ok because the military has my back... (until it is no longer convenient for the military to do so and the CIA helps a new Pinochet destroy all the reforms and break the back of working class organization).

Are these developments interesting and significant? I think they are very much so - this is the first organized alternative to neoliberal capitalism and US hegemony to come to power since the end of the Cold War. As socialists we should be following these developments, but we should also be clear that it is not socialism and socialism can not be brought about without the working class activly and directly taking center stage in re-forming society.

[S.Artesian]

Whats going on in Latin America is different than any other socialist transformation seen before.

Popularly elected leaders who, for the most part, have military support as well.
It could have ended in 2002 but members of the military moved to rescue Chavez while the people of Venezuela were in the streets.

What this means in Bolivia is that the leadership of the military has decided to align themselves with socialism instead of US/Western political views.

You need to prove that, all of that. You've packed a lot of assumptions into statements with very little evidence-- so

1) that his has never happened before? I think it has-- Peron in Argentina had extensive military support, originally.

2) that it is real socialist transformation? Not hardly. Bolivia's renationalization of oil and gas fields is not socialist, no more than its original nationalization in 1937 (? I think) was socialist.

3) that military support is wide-spread and sustainable? The MNR ruled as a "revolutionary national government" in Bolivia between 1952-1964, during which time it rearmed and refitted an army that almost all Bolivians held in disrepute after the Chaco War ended with the humiliation of Bolivia in 1935.

In 1964, the military, of course, newly equipped by the US with agreement by the MNR then turned around and overthrew the MNR government.

Then after that, all true-believers in the "anti-imperialist" military in Bolivia can explain why that military has provided troops and support to the imperialist occupation of Haiti by MINUSTAH. And after that the true-believers in the "anti-imperialist" military can explain its presence in the UN mission in the Congo region of Africa.

If you look back into the history of the Bolivian military, you'll find strong anti-US sentiment, and even a certain romantic attachment to fascist nationalism in the 1930s.

[Rusty Shackleford]

ill stand corrected on some of those. i dont know much about bolivian military history, and only a general overlay of latin american politics. even then though, there is great potential in this.

[Pretty Flaco]

Undoubtedly, history has told military leaders, much like politicians, to be the best of swindlers.
Unless if the working class of Bolivia is strong and heated with revolutionary fervor, I don't think this really means anything much at all. The proclamation to be against imperialism is nice, but unlike decades ago, the US isn't crawling all over Latin America with cold war hysteria.

[Steve_j]

Patience, comrades. These things take time, mostly for conslpolidation of strentgh on the scoialist side; and havuing military support is a big help to us.

Yes because if someone says they are socialist then it means they are. Eg a psyco with a funny tash..... (no not stalian)

[Rusty Shackleford]

Undoubtedly, history has told military leaders, much like politicians, to be the best of swindlers.
Unless if the working class of Bolivia is strong and heated with revolutionary fervor, I don't think this really means anything much at all. The proclamation to be against imperialism is nice, but unlike decades ago, the US isn't crawling all over Latin America with cold war hysteria.
thats because they are entrenched in the middle east.

[Jimmie Higgins]

thats because they are entrenched in the middle east.Yeah I think that's right: adventures all over the world and they neglected their own "backyard". But now I think the US is actually trying to refocus on latin America after the last decade where they lost influence. They have doubled-down with Colombia, supported a coup attempt (after the spectacular failure in ousting Chavez in Venezuela at the beginning of the decade) in Honduras and have reestablished a major military presence in the Caribbean after the Haitian disaster.

Of course Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and competition with China over influence in Africa ties the US's hands a bit and so that's why I think they will still have to rely on proxies (mainly Colombia) and dirty-tricks for the near-term.

[piet11111]

We also declare ourselves anti-capitalist because this system is destroying Mother Earth.

So anti capitalist because capitalism is not environmentally sustainable ?

[IndependentCitizen]

This is all very nice, but can the workers control the means of production now?

KTHXBAI.

[S.Artesian]

Since they have declared themselves socialists, I assume the generals have all reduced their own salaries to that of the highest paid rank and file soldier; have refused all privileges of housing, transportation, etc. associated with their ranks; will be dismantling the officer corps; and working towards the dissolution of their separate branches in favor of the integration of their enlisted ranks with workers militias, etc. Right? Just waiting for the press release detailing the progress of those changes.

[RED DAVE]

Since they have declared themselves socialists, I assume the generals have all reduced their own salaries to that of the highest paid rank and file soldier; have refused all privileges of housing, transportation, etc. associated with their ranks; will be dismantling the officer corps; and working towards the dissolution of their separate branches in favor of the integration of their enlisted ranks with workers militias, etc. Right? Just waiting for the press release detailing the progress of those changes.Don't hold your breath.

If this were really a transformation of the army into a socialist force, all the above would be happening, plus the workers would be taking control of the economy and send out calls to the workers of the world to unite and finish the job.

Like I said, don't hold your breath for these guys, Chavez, the UCPN(M), etc. They all know the slogans, the words the ideas. But the reality is far different.

RED DAVE

[S.Artesian]

Aw shucks... disillusioned again.

[RED DAVE]

Aw shucks... disillusioned again.Defication occurs, all too often.

RED DAVE