Morales won't Nationalize LAB?

[D_Bokk]

BBC NEWS
Air strike hits Bolivian flights
Bolivia's President Evo Morales has called on airline workers to end protests which have brought air travel to a near standstill in major cities.

Employees from the country's main airline, Lloyd Aereo Boliviano (LAB), are demanding its nationalisation.

But Mr Morales has ruled out that possibility. The Bolivian state already holds a 48% stake in the firm.

Earlier this year, the government intervened to end a strike over wages and pensions.

However, that intervention was declared illegal by Bolivia's Constitutional Court, and the airline's majority shareholder, Ernesto Asbun, regained control of the company.

The latest protest at the country's airports has affected air travel in the cities of La Paz, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz.

Many of LAB's more than 2,000 workers accuse Mr Asbun of trying to bring the airline into bankruptcy as a prelude to forming a new company.

President Morales held an emergency cabinet meeting on Thursday and assigned two government ministers to deal with the crisis.

He said the protests have put passengers at risk and could cause some airports to lose their classification as international airports.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4864092.stm

Published: 2006/03/31 11:08:20 GMT

© BBC MMVI
I'm confused here. Is he refusing to nationalize the company because it's illegal or because he doesn't want too?

[bolshevik butcher]

I wouldn't put too much faith into Moralez. He has betrayed the Bolivian working class on other occasions. For instance during the rebellion in 2005.

[D_Bokk]

He's better than a Right-Wing conservative. Like Chavez, he may very well become more radical as time goes on. I'm trying to figure out why he wont nationalize the airline, BBC points toward Constitutional issues but doesn't make it clear.

[bolshevik butcher]

Moralez is trying to please two masters; the ruling class and the working class. He cannot stand inbetween them. Inevitably he wil eventually have to side with one.

[Guerrilla22]

one has to be very careful about implementation of nationalization or what the reactionaries will percieve to be a power grab.
the reactionaries are still very powerful in Bolivia and how to deal with them must be taken into consideration. In Venezuela they shut down much of the economy in 2002, causing all sorts of chaos. When chavez tried to interevene, reactionaries within the military used as an excuse to try to overthrow him.

[chebol]

I wouldn't put too much faith into Moralez. He has betrayed the Bolivian working class on other occasions. For instance during the rebellion in 2005.

Prize bullshit, repeated time and again by those who have no perspective or understanding of Bolivia. It is important to be critical and cautious of Morales- but remember, this guy has the support of millions of radicalised and organised workers and peasants. Yes, if he sells out, he will face their wrath. But will he sell out, knowing that the immediate impact will be his near-immediate overthrow?

Try keeping that in mind, before labelling him a Karensky or worse, alongside the need to develop the Bolivian economy, an economy which, if all foreign capital were driven out tomorrow, would collapse, leading to Morales' overthrow, and the bankruptcy of the revolutionary perspective in that country.

Morales' strategy, like that of Chavez, is to use the imperialists for the benefit of the country, until it is strong enough to remove them successfully. It doesn't fit some people's classic image of a red flag and a palace being stormed, but that is precisely what it is, only it's a bit more calculated- for the moment.

Alternatively, if Morales caves in- there'll be hell to pay. However, a good part of marxism is understanding economics, not just wanting to smash everything that looks like a state building.

My advice is to give critical support to Morales (which includes not decrying him as a sell-out, especially when the accusation are baseless so far), and pay close attention to some of the less obvious reforms, as these will be the ones that dictate which way it goes.

[D_Bokk]

I did some searching and found an answer to my question:

http://www.prensalatina.com.mx/article.asp...%7D&language=ES (http://www.prensalatina.com.mx/article.asp?ID=%7B9CA3581C-095D-4BA2-A848-1C1DA5DB1CC6%7D&language=ES)
(You're going to need to use a translator for that)

But it basically said that government intervention in LAB was stopped by the constitutional courts. Morales is unlikely to want the US pointing at him and yelling dictator, which is why his government backed off. However, he should really be taking a far more radical stance than what he is right now.

Instead of being radical, Morales is gassing the strikers... I don't know if I support him anymore. For some reason, every time the topic of Morales comes up, I feel like I am apologizing for his actions. Unless he nationalizes the company soon, I may very well lose my respect for him.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2006/3/31/214450/297

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I will try to stay neutral regarding Morales, for the moment. But I am very sceptical.

We should however, remember, that things can change. Even if he is not on the side of the workers and peasants, right now. Remember that the 26th of July movement protected landowners against peasants, and punished peasants because they stole from landowners. But the group developed and turned away from the petty-bourgeois ideology.

[TC]

It took not only Hugo Chavez, but Fidel Castro, years after coming to power to sufficently consolidate working class power to do what they wanted to do in the first place, and during that process both of them appeared to waver as they tried to balance the political realities of a society with divided power. Politics is more complicated then a bunch of 1st world leftists and anarchists saying that they simply ought to be able to do things that they can't.

Remember, Bolivia is still under its origional capitalist written constitution, Morales like Chavez has wanted to throw it out and get a new constitution...but while he's operating under the origional one its very likely that he doesn't have the legal authority to nationalize private companies, and he probably doesn't want to provoke a crisis so early into his administration before he can get other goals met. Morale's priority is bringing the Gringo owned energry export sector (gas and oil) back to the hands of the Bolivian people, getting a constitution which will ensure working class power, ending the oppression of natives and coca farmers and stopping US intervention.

If you read the entire BBC article it suggests that when LAB workers went on strike recently for wage increases, Morale's government intervened on their behalf and forced out the LAB president Asbun...but the constitutional court declared the move unconstitutional and overruled that and reinstated Asburn. Spinning this article as 'Morales wont nationalize airline' like he made some sort of 'betrayel or the revolution' or whatever is clearly anti-socialist provocation; he is simply trying to avoid a constitutional crisis while at the same time trying to get a new constitutional convention so in the future his hands are free to empower workers in such situations.

[bolshevik butcher]

The working class is ready to act now in Bolivia. Moraelz should be using his state power to aid their consciousness and militancy. As for castro and chavez, they are two of my principle criticizms of them. I'm glad that Chavez has started acting a lot more recently.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Bolivia takes control of airports

Bolivian military and police forces have taken control of four main airports, aiming to break an airline workers' strike in major cities.
Employees from the country's main airline, Lloyd Aereo Boliviano (LAB), are demanding its nationalisation.

But President Evo Morales has ruled out nationalisation, saying the partially private company is seriously corrupt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4864092.stm

[travisdandy2000]

:D Thanks, Tragiclown your point is right on.

[Cheung Mo]

I have little bad to say about Chavez or (as of yet) Morales, but my main criticisms of Castro are on civil libertarian grounds. That being said, some perspective is definitely in order here: While Castro's respect for civil liberties is grossly unacceptable my standards (which are higher than just about everyone's), they're still significantly better than Batista's preceding regime and there is still a far lower proportion of imprisoned Cubans than there is of imprisoned Americans, Chinese, or Iranians (Three of the worst offenders when it comes to punishing the innocent and needlessly curtailing civil liberties.).

[rouchambeau]

I support his decision. Nationalization is no solution to capitalism.

[Comrade-Z]

This is one more example of what happens to a person when one fulfills the social role of a leader--one begins to think like a leader.

Right now Morales considerations can be summed up as thus:

*He will try, at all costs, to make sure that the rank-and-file worker movement does not radicalize and spread to a point that he loses control of it. If that happens, Morales will have lost all usefulness to the ruling class and all his power to broker with the ruling class, precipitating his overthrow by the military, most likely. There is also the possibility that the rank-and-file movement could radicalize to such an extent that a revolutionary situation takes shape, spelling the end of both the priviledge of the state (and Morales) and the priviledge of the ruling class.
*This means that Morales must play a two-fold role. On the one hand, he must grant some concessions to the working class so that he maintains credibility with the working class and is able to contain the rank-and-file movement in the interest of national and international (U.S.) capital and the ruling class. On the other hand, he cannot grant too many concessions to the rank-and-file movement, as that would both anger the ruling class, give confidence to the rank-and-file movement, and jeopardize the routine exploitation of capitalism in that country and possibly elsewhere.

From the point of view of the ruling class, it is imperative that they find a way to co-opt the rank-and-file movement, as it seems that the "socialist" government of Morales has succeeded less brilliantly in this regard than the ruling class was hoping for. The ruling class may choose to stick with Morales, or they may look to other institutions capable of "effective" (exploitative) mediation and containment of the rank-and-file movement. The Church is one possible alternative. Reformist trade unions are another. If none of these solutions work, the ruling class is left with calling in the military as a last resort.

From the point of view of the working class in Bolivia, the best way forward is to fight against all efforts at co-opting the rank-and-file movement by the government, the Church, trade unions, and other such institutions. All efforts at "leading" their stuggle should be outright rejected and striven against. Direct action against capital is the key. It is telling that Morales would be calling on strikers and protesters to settle down and relinquish their class warfare. The rank-and-file movement should interpret this as a sign of weakness and push even harder with strikes and protests. From this point forward they are to regard the Morales government as nothing other than a lackey of the ruling class and a force that will seek to co-opt the rank-and-file movement and confine it to less radical channels.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:54 AM
It took not only Hugo Chavez, but Fidel Castro, years after coming to power to sufficently consolidate working class power to do what they wanted to do in the first place, and during that process both of them appeared to waver as they tried to balance the political realities of a society with divided power. Politics is more complicated then a bunch of 1st world leftists and anarchists saying that they simply ought to be able to do things that they can't.

Remember, Bolivia is still under its origional capitalist written constitution, Morales like Chavez has wanted to throw it out and get a new constitution...but while he's operating under the origional one its very likely that he doesn't have the legal authority to nationalize private companies, and he probably doesn't want to provoke a crisis so early into his administration before he can get other goals met. Morale's priority is bringing the Gringo owned energry export sector (gas and oil) back to the hands of the Bolivian people, getting a constitution which will ensure working class power, ending the oppression of natives and coca farmers and stopping US intervention.

If you read the entire BBC article it suggests that when LAB workers went on strike recently for wage increases, Morale's government intervened on their behalf and forced out the LAB president Asbun...but the constitutional court declared the move unconstitutional and overruled that and reinstated Asburn. Spinning this article as 'Morales wont nationalize airline' like he made some sort of 'betrayel or the revolution' or whatever is clearly anti-socialist provocation; he is simply trying to avoid a constitutional crisis while at the same time trying to get a new constitutional convention so in the future his hands are free to empower workers in such situations.
Thanks, that was what I was trying to get at, but you summed it up much better.

[state's fiend]

Morales is a coward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TC]

He's a coward? Wtf have you done thats so brave?

[bolshevik butcher]

I wouldnt say a coward I would say he has made a mistake. He is compromising with the ruling class. As someone who supports the struggle of the international working class I would say this was wrong. Cowardly has entirley different conitations however.