Bolivia

[Reds]

A week or so ago I was hearing all sort of things about the revolutionary situation in bolivia and now i`m not hearing anything so what happened?

[Amusing Scrotum]

A week or so ago I was hearing all sort of things about the revolutionary situation in bolivia and now i`m not hearing anything so what happened?

Was it perhaps Venezuelas' Bolivar revoluton you were hearing about.

By the way does "Bolivar", refer to the man who liberated Latin America from colonial rule?

[Nachie]

The "Gas Wars" are kinda between battles right now, and the huge mobilizations in past months have been channelled into the emergency presidential election that should have been taking place by the end of this year, but now the courts are saying it can't go forward until some seats in parliament are redistributed, specifically in a way that might harm the campaign of the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) candidate, Evo Morales. The fun part is that Bolivia's workers, peasants, and indigenous have proven to be some of the most militant in the world and it's unlikely that they'll allow this stalling to go on for much longer. The whole reason they need emergency presidential elections in the first place is that mass mobilizations pretty much brought the government down a few months ago until Morales stepped in and called off his loyalists so that a "constitutional" path could be followed.

But don't worry, Bolivia is stuck between the demands of the capitalists (continued exploitation, particularly of hydrocarbon resources) and the workers (some sort of decent society) and it's not going to get resolved even if this reformist Evo Morales becomes president. Nevertheless if he does it would be a huge victory for Chavez and Castro and to some degree even Lula, since they are all buddy buddy.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Interesting, thanks Nachie.


Nevertheless if he does it would be a huge victory for Chavez and Castro and to some degree even Lula, since they are all buddy buddy.

The more left wing Governments in Latin America, even if some are reformist. Is ultimately very good for the far Left. With the natural resources in these countries etc. there is a good possiblity that South America may become Socialist. Therefore for now, all comrades outside Latin America, need to be fully commited to informing people about the situation and demonstrating against Governments that try to subvert the Latin American countries politics.

By the way who is Lula? and where can I find out more about him?

[fernando]

Lula is the president of Brazil...he isnt as "radical" as Chavez, and there are some problems within his government right now if I recall correctly

[Nachie]

Lula is the Worker's Party (PT) President of Brazil, elected back in 2002. I saw him speak at the WSF that same year and he made a decent (positive) stir by saying that his victory was not just an important chance for the Left in Brazil, but for the Left of the entire world. He was perceived as very radical, having been a union organizer against the dictatorship throughout the early 80s and beyond. The problem is that he's had to go to a very "suit and tie" leftism in order to get the presidency, including making someone from the (right wing) Liberal Party his running mate. He's been a total dissapointment so far, and it's created a lot of anger and disillusionment in the political Left. He's more worried about stepping on the toes of investors and the IMF than about reforming the country.

His government is currently in big trouble because it's come to light that several PT lawmakers offered bribes to members of other parties in return for favorable votes. This is all the more scandalous because the PT was famous for being free of the type of corruption that defines Brazilian/LatAmerican politics. Thus far Lula has been somewhat unaffected because there's no proof he knew about it, but it's been a convenient issue for radicals to demand that he either DO something for the country or step the fuck down.

Anyone interested in revolutionary politics in Brazil should check out the Landless Worker's Movement (MST). I think Chomsky once said they were the most inspiring social movement in the world right now (or something like that). My experiences with them have all been positive. They supported Lula in 2001 but have withdrawn now that he's failed to really move on the land question.

[bolshevik butcher]

It's likely that lula will be pushed further left due to chavez' popularity. He is the msot popular man in the continent and what is happening in venezuela is inspiring ordinary people in latin america

[Amusing Scrotum]

It's likely that lula will be pushed further left due to chavez' popularity. He is the msot popular man in the continent and what is happening in venezuela is inspiring ordinary people in latin america

It is definetely better to have a left leaning Government, that could be influenced by Chavez and Castro, than a right wing puppet of America.

Also, thanks Nachie for answering my questions.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:55 PM
The more left wing Governments in Latin America, even if some are reformist. Is ultimately very good for the far Left.
Not necessarily. Reformist is usually a way for the ruling class to neuter the far left. If the government talks a left-wing talk but walks a right-wing walk it can be worse than if the government talks & walks right because some percentage of the population will be fooled by the left-wing talk and think the government is better than it really is. If the government goes further and implements some mild left-wing reforms it can hurt the far left by making the government seem benevolent and legitimate. It's a lot harder to persuade people that the government should be overthrown in favor of a far left revolution when they think of the government as benevolent than when they think of it as corrupt and dictatorial. Moderate leftist governments can also create the illusion that our problems can be solved just by having the government continue its reforms and that a far left revolution isn't necessary.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Read: Bolivia: A Revolution Betrayed, Again (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fp13e.html)


By the way does "Bolivar", refer to the man who liberated Latin America from colonial rule?

Not all of Latin America. Simon Bolivar was a leader of liberation movements in several countries: Venezuela, Colombia, and Peru. He was also president of a short lived federation of much of what is now Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, and Ecuador

[JC1]

What was that federation called ? The Dominion of Granda or somthing. BTW, Did you go to DC for sept. 24 CDL ? If so, It would be cool if you could upload Pic's/report of the IWPA delegation.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No I didn't go, wouldn't have been possible. Some other comrades from the FPM went though as a part of the IWPA contingent, I haven't heard from them yet.

The federation was called "Gran Colombia"

[chebol]

The name given to Venezuela's revolution is "bolivarian", not "bolivar". It IS, however, named after Simon Bolivar, who helped liberate Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia (then called Alto Peru, but renamed after it's liberator) from Spanish rule.
The liberation of Peru was undertaken jointly with the forces of San Martin, the liberator of Argentina and Chile.
Gran Colombia comprised present-day Venezuela (including the disputed territory of Guyana), Colombia, Ecuador and Panama, but disintegrated after Bolivar's death.

Re. Bolivia and Morales. It is unfair to say, as some do, that the 'revolution' was 'betrayed' by Morales. While he appears to be primarily reformist, he was forced to respond to the mass mobilisations of the workers in El Alto and Cochabamba who were demanding nationalisation. The fact that he is regarded as such a leader to have these demands made of is of some importance, although it doesn't mean that he will follow through, or be able to, in the immediate term.
His project seems t be one of trying to create a bolivian replica (of sorts) of Venezuela, by bringing about change, and an invigoration of the workers' movement, by making the taking of state power the first step, even if it's only electorally.

This may or may not work. It certainly hasn't in Brazil, but Venezuela has proved the opposite. The main warning that can be made to Morales is that there are no "models" to copy.

There is, however, another complication that informs Morales' behaviour. The left in Bolivia is riven with sectarianism, especially in the unions, many of whom are lead by people who hold personal (rather than even political) enmity towards Morales. During the most recent crisis, when president Mesa was forced to resign, leaders of the "left-wing" COB (peak union body) were in negotiations with the military to plan a 'left-nationalist' coup if Morales seemed about to take power from the streets.

This behaviour is nothing new in Bolivia, and the left needs to overcome many of it's long-standing problems if it can take and hold power. People like Quispe have to realise that they are NOT the magnanimous leaders of a continental indigenous movement that will take power by itself, the COB needs to overcome it's antipathy towrds Morales and the MAS, and start putting more pressure on them to turn left, and Morales ahs got to, well, stop thinking that he's Chavez...

The other risk that is still quite real is that of military intervention, both domestic and international- there IS a reason the US are playing war games in Paraguay and setting up a permanent base there. It's important that when the left do come to power in Bolivia, and they WILL, almost certainly, that they do it well, and in a reasonably united fashion. It remains a keystone to the continent. And Bolivian history suggests that if a mass movement takes power in a revolutionary manner, as it has many times before, it will be crushed by the military or sold out before the year is out- unless it is united.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's not unfair at all, read the article I posted.

He sold out the people that were in the streets. They were demanding much more than he was comfortable with, he turned a popular uprising into a campaign platform. He (and a few others) prevented the workers, peasants, and indians from taking power so he could become president.

[chebol]

I've read and re-read the article, companero.
My point is that by trying to take power then, Morales would have been endangering the revolution, not fulfilling it.
Significant sections of the working class were NOT willing to follow MAS to power, in fact, the leaders of some of them were, and I repeat, plotting with the army to overthrow Morales if he came to power.

Whether this was the only reason Morales didn't try to take power, I can't say, but he was aware that the COB and COR leaderships (namely the likes of Solares and De La Cruz) were negotiating with the army for strategies of removing him from power, should he take it.

A successful election would carry significantly more security for Morales (which may also be a danger, I admit), unless the sectarians leading large elements of the working class unite. They made noises like this a few moths ago, then went and turned on each other again.
Such is the history of Bolivia over the past 55 years. It's happened time and again.

"The Revolution Betrayed"? Yes, about half a dozen times already, maybe twice that. It's high time the leaders of the bolivian masses got over themselves, and got it right. (Said with all due respect to those engaged in the life-threatening struggle in the country).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think you missed my point, and the point of the article.

The workers, peasants, and Indians THEMSELVES need to take power.

[chebol]

No, I got it Companero.

But just HOW do you suggest they get it? And which parts of the workers and peasants, particularly when they are being misled by those people that they trust in to lead them?

Fine, let the workers and peasants take power- but separate to the objective realities of Bolivia, that's just empty rhetoric. What I'm trying to relate are the limitations faced by the people, some of which are indeed manifest in the leadership, which are holding them back. Some of the reasons for this caution may be justified, given the lack of revolutionary strategy.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But just HOW do you suggest they get it?

Have you heard of socialism? You should check it out. :)


And which parts of the workers and peasants, particularly when they are being misled by those people that they trust in to lead them?

Morales hijacked the movement for the most part. They need to throw these leaders out and do the liberating themselves. The liberation of working people must be done by the workers themselves, you know?


Fine, let the workers and peasants take power- but separate to the objective realities of Bolivia, that's just empty rhetoric.

How so? What's "empty" about it?


What I'm trying to relate are the limitations faced by the people, some of which are indeed manifest in the leadership, which are holding them back. Some of the reasons for this caution may be justified, given the lack of revolutionary strategy.

What limitations? The "leaders" cut deals and told the workers and peasants to go back to their shacks. "Everything&#39;s okay now, Morales is going to run for president." <_<

[chebol]

Have you heard of socialism? You should check it out.

I&#39;ll assume that was meant in jest, companero.
Have you ever thought about how EXACTLY you might GET to socialism, other than simply "the workers taking power"? That is, the concrete steps necessary in any given circumstances, like, for example, Bolivia?


They need to throw these leaders out and do the liberating themselves. The liberation of working people must be done by the workers themselves, you know?

No, I didn&#39;t know..... <_<
This is exactly what I mean by empty rhetoric. It&#39;s technically correct but is devoid of content and meaning. WHICH leaders? Why? When? By whom in particular?
In what context to they take power? How do you mobilise all the workers, and convince them to forsake their leaders and turn to power themselves?

That&#39;s what I mean by empty.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

An Open Letter To The Working People of the World (http://iwpa-aigt.org/open-letter.html)

[musa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:58 AM
No, I got it Companero.

But just HOW do you suggest they get it? And which parts of the workers and peasants, particularly when they are being misled by those people that they trust in to lead them?

Fine, let the workers and peasants take power- but separate to the objective realities of Bolivia, that&#39;s just empty rhetoric. What I&#39;m trying to relate are the limitations faced by the people, some of which are indeed manifest in the leadership, which are holding them back. Some of the reasons for this caution may be justified, given the lack of revolutionary strategy.

Have you ever thought about how EXACTLY you might GET to socialism, other than simply "the workers taking power"? That is, the concrete steps necessary in any given circumstances, like, for example, Bolivia?

There exists only one path to socialism: a workers revolution backed by the oppressed minorities and where applicable, the poorer sections of the peasantry. Such a revolution would require a leadership with a clearly stated programme for socialist revolution. Such a programme would be the basis around which a vanguard party of the most class-conscious elements of the working class would be organized. This is how the Bolsheviks under Lenin and Trotsky led the workers to the taking of state power through their own organs of power, the soviets.




In what context to they take power? How do you mobilise all the workers, and convince them to forsake their leaders and turn to power themselves?

You mobilise the workers to &#39;forsake their leaders&#39; by exposing their leaders (ie reformist MAS leader Evo Morales) and putting forth the case for socialist revolution. This is what the League for the Fourth International (http://www.internationalist.org) has done repeated through our literature and on the scene in Bolivia. Bolivia: Class Battles in the Andes (http://www.internationalist.org/boliviatoc.html) is a series of recent articles on Bolivia written in large part by a comrade who has been in La Paz in almost every major upheaval during the last few decades. We have exposed the Morales and the MAS, as well as the COB leadership which during crises is in the habit of striking a left revolutionary pose only to better betray the most advanced workers. We have and will continue to expose these misleaders until they are no longer obstacles to the Bolivian workers, peasants, and Indians taking power.

Incidentally, the IG/LFI has also been at the forefront of exposing Chavez and his misuse of revolutionary language. I was one of a team of LFI members (a team including members and sympathizers from the U.S., Mexico, and Ecuador) in Caracas, Venezuela during the World Festival of Youth and Students this past August who distributed a statement spanning some eight or more pages that among other things pointed out that as the elected president of a capitalist state, Chavez has talked of socialism in the abstract, but has never talked of socialist revolution. And the reason is that a socialist revolution runs counter to the presidential ambitous of many of these left-leaning populist leaders who pose no fundamental threat to the capitalist society they come to administer..

I will end by saying that anyone who proclaims themselves a socialist revolutionary yet backs politically an organization that doesn&#39;t have a programme for socialist revolution is deluding themselves and their followers.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I will end by saying that anyone who proclaims themselves a socialist revolutionary yet backs politically an organization that doesn&#39;t have a programme for socialist revolution is deluding themselves and their followers.

Trotskyist non-sense. What this means is: "If you don&#39;t have a Trotskyist program, you&#39;re not a revolutionary." We all know this is bullshit, other wise one denies the revolutionary makeup of groups like the 26th of July Movement, Sandanistas, FMLN, etc. etc.

"An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory." - Friedrich Engels