Log in

View Full Version : Fascists Seize Power in Bolivia



IrisBright
24th September 2008, 22:22
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_art...ls.php?id=14169 (http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14169)



Bolivian fascists have seized power in five of the richest states in
Bolivia, forcefully ousting all national officials, murdering, injuring
and assaulting leaders, activists and voters who have backed the
national government ? with total impunity. Ever since Evo Morales was
elected President over 33 months ago, the Bolivian far-right has taken
advantage of every concession, compromise and conciliatory gesture by
the Morales regime to expand their political power, block even the
mildest social reforms and paralyze the functioning of the government,
through legal maneuvers and gangs of violent street thugs.

While the Bolivian government has used state repression against peasant
squatters and striking miners, it remained a passive, impotent spectator
to the right-wing seizure of the Constitutional Assembly, the major
airfields in Santa Cruz (forcing the President to flee back to his
palace), suspending all public transportation, federal tax collection
and public investment and projects. Worse still, paramilitary fascist
gangs have repeatedly insulted, beaten, stripped and paraded ethnic
Indian peasant supporters of President Morales through the main streets
and plazas of the capital cities of the provinces they control.

Despite winning nearly 70% of the national vote in the recall election
of August 10, 2008, Morales has not taken a single measure to counter
the fascist seizure of regional power ? continuing to plead for dialogue
and compromise, as the far right gathers strength and prepares to engage
in violent civil warfare against the poor and indigenous Bolivians. The
Bolivian government expelled the US Ambassador, Phillip Goldberg, only
after the US Embassy actively backed the far right's regional power grab
after almost 3 years of open financing and public collaboration with the
secessionists. Since the Morales regime did not break relations with
Washington, it is likely that a new Ambassadorial appointee will soon
arrive to continue Goldberg's active plotting with the far right.

The contrast between the ignominious passivity of the President and the
aggressive violent political putsch of the fascist right is striking.
The centerpiece of the violent uprising and the successful seizure of
fascist power is located in five regional departments: Santa Cruz,
Pando, Beni, Tarija and Chuquisaca, which are grouped in a regional mass
organization, the National Democratic Council (CONALDE). This includes
local prefects, mayors, business leaders and heads of landowner
organizations backed by gangs of armed right-wing street thugs in a
variety of organizations, the most important being the Cruce?o Youth
Union, which specializes in degrading, beating and even killing unarmed
Indian supporters of Morales.

Prelude to the Civil War and Seizure of Power

The civil war and the rightist seizure of power in the five departments
follows a sequence of events resulting in a gradual recovery of
political and social power and the subsequent launching of a
multiplicity of offensive moves from within the governmental
institutions and increasingly through extra-parliamentary direct action.
This has resulted in an escalation from sporadic assaults to systematic
violence against individuals, organizations, public institutions and
strategic economic resources. In this most recent phase, the opposition
has shed its 'legalistic' institutional cover and embraced the violent
seizure of state institutions and openly declared their secession from
the central government, challenging the authority of the government to
govern and to exercise its legal monopoly on police power.

>From Popular Power to Neo-Fascist Seizure of Power

1. The starting point of the secessionist-neo-fascist uprising begin in
2005 when, to all intents and purposes, a mass
worker-peasant-Indian-miner uprising overthrew the incumbent neo-liberal
regime and dominated the streets, presenting all the ingredients for a
new revolutionary government.

2. Under the leadership of Evo Morales and the former NGO organizer,
Garcia Linera and their electoral party, the Movement to Socialism
(MAS), the mass movement was turned from the streets, autonomous
activity and social revolution toward electoral politics. Evo Morales
was elected President in December 2005 and proceded to sign political
pacts with the right-wing parties to share institutional power in
pursuit of a centrist political-economic program. This involved joint
ventures with all mineral-extracting multinational corporations
(excluding expropriations and nationalization) minimalist token land
reform programs (never implemented) and tight fiscal policies (excluding
income redistribution and limiting wage and salary increases to the rate
of inflation).

3. By the middle of 2006, the far Right had recovered from its electoral
defeat and through its presence in the newly elected Constitutional
Assembly effectively maneuvered to block the passage of the new
Constitution. The government focused exclusively on its political reform
agenda, consolidated its joint ventures with all the major gas and oil
multinationals, renewed unfavorable gas contracts with Brazil (paying
Bolivia well below world market prices) and demobilized the mass
movements through the MAS party's control over urban and rural leaders
(with the exception of the miners).

4. Beginning in late 2006 and increasingly throughout 2007, the
neo-fascist right relied on its extra-parliamentary shock troops to
assault pro-government representatives in the Constitutional Assembly,
to organize road blockages and to assert their independence ('autonomy')
from the national government. The Bolivian government rejected any
resort to popular mobilization demanded by the more radicalized sectors
of the miners in Oruro and Potosi. Instead it retreated in the face of
the institutional pressure of the neo-fascist right, offering
concessions on the write-up of the Constitution. Morales made a series
of strategic concessions on the size of land-holdings exempt from land
reform, ceding judicial and fiscal powers to the fascist regional rulers
and conceded control of the roads, highways and plazas to gangs of well
armed neo-fascists.

5. Throughout 2008, the neo-fascist right continued its 'march through
the institutions' consolidating its control over local and regional
government and claims over revenues from strategic economic sectors ?
all of which are located in the contested regions. By the middle of
2008, the right openly asserted their secessionist claims and proceeded
to create parallel police, custom, fiscal and other agencies of
government. The secessionist regime gave license to the business,
landlord and urban middle class elite. Through their leadership of the
self-styled 'civic organizations' and their armed enforcers, they
proceeded to intimidate and assault thousands of government supporters,
peasants, Indian activists, officials and pro-government business
owners, street venders, school teachers, health workers and other public
employees. The neo-fascist strategy for seizing state power was based on
accumulating forces through public demonstrations of power, massive
meetings, and lockouts to shut down urban businesses. Any supporters of
the national government who did not abide by their strike calls suffered
cruel public punishment including beatings and the public humiliation of
Indian and peasant Morales supporters in the urban plazas where they
were stripped and whipped to the jeers of mostly white, European crowds.

>From Protest to Seizure of Power

Having experienced only repeated anemic and inconsequential protests
from the Morales-Garcia regime, in August 2008 the neo-fascists launched
a full-scale blitz, giving free rein and financial and political backing
to a large-scale assault on all major federal installations and agencies
and trade union and peasant association offices in the five departments
which they controlled. They seized control of the airfields denying
landing rights to any government or government-related official,
including President Morales and Vice President Garcia and any visiting
dignitaries.

The trigger event for the launch of the neo-fascist 'civil war' from the
top and the violent seizure of power was the electoral victory of
Morales-Garcia in the August 8 referendum ? where Morales got 67% of the
national vote. The result made it clear that the right could not return
to national power via elections when their only electoral majority was
to be found in the departments they ruled. But even in the 5 right-wing
controlled departments, Morales received approximately 40% of the vote,
a strong minority in the cities and a majority in many rural areas among
the peasantry.

The capitalist class, as elsewhere throughout history, when faced with
even some moderate property reforms, but especially in the face of a
cowardly, retreating and conciliatory regime, has discarded
constitutional methods of opposition. They attached themselves to the
neo-fascist local officials, 'civic' leaders and even the violent gangs
of wealthy youth in Santa Cruz. Morales refused to order the police and
military to defend public buildings in the face of arsonist and violent
assaults, which destroyed public utilities, telecommunications, customs,
accounting, land survey offices, official files and state records. On
the contrary, Morales forced them to withdraw.

In Pando and Tarifa the oil and gas pipelines were blown up, causing
extensive damage and costing millions of dollars in lost state revenues.
Finally on September 11, 2008 over a hundred pro-Morales peasants were
killed or wounded in Pando in an ambush organized by armed vigilantes
supported by the department prefect Leopoldo Fernandez and his followers
in the 'civic' organizations.

The systematic destruction of all signs and symbols of Federal
government authority and the killing and intimidation of peasant-worker
supporters of Morales ushered in the final stage of this 3-year process
of secession, ethnic-racial repression and the imposition of a new
fascist political order.

While the neo-fascist-led civil war proceeded without national
government opposition throughout the 5 provinces, Morales' ministers
adopted bizarre postures: Garcia-Linera rationalized the regime's
impotence by dismissing the seizure of power by the neo-fascist
apparatus of the 5 departments as 'acts of vandals by a gang of 500
thugs'. As Bolivia burned, the Interior Minister Alfredo Rada and the
'Defense' Minister Walker San Miguel vainly tried to minimize the
illegal neo-fascist takeover of almost half of the country with 80% of
the national income by reducing the impending civil war to acts of
'violent delinquent vandalism in different regions of the east and south
of the country'.

On September 12, 2008, Morales apparently oblivious to the massive and
sustained assault and takeover actually convoked an meeting with the
neo-fascist prefects for a 'dialogue without any pre-conditions'. In
other words, Morales absolved them of the massacre and brutalization of
over a hundred peasants and ignored the economic sabotage, which
accompanied their seizure and destruction of oil, gas and other
essential revenue-producing sectors. Needless to say the neo-fascists
met with Morales without conceding a single issue. In fact the only
reason they met at all is because Morales was finally forced to declare
a 'state of siege' in Pando ? subsequent to the killing of 30 peasants
by armed vigilantes under the control of Pando's Prefect Leopoldo Fernandez.

The troops had to clear the airfield of right-wing thugs who had
previously prevented the landing of a government transport plane. The
other 4 departments under neo-fascists control were not affected by the
declaration of a state of siege. In Pando, with the military presence
now guarding public buildings and oil and gas installations, the
government finally decided to arrest the right-wing prefect for his role
in the massacres.

A Turn Toward Good Government?

President Morales finally ordered the US Ambassador Phillip Goldberg to
leave the country after 2 years of direct intervention in the planning,
financing and backing of the organized neo-fascist class warfare and
seizure of regional power. Over $125 million in AID funds financed
almost exclusively the neo-fascist 'civic' organizations and through
them the armed racial vigilante 'Santa Cruz Union of Youth'. Morales'
long-awaited declaration of a state of siege only came about under
pressure of his restless supporters among the peasant and urban mass
movements who began to organize and arm themselves independently of the
impotent federal government. Morales also responded to pressure and from
Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and other countries to end the violence.
Brazil and Argentina were affected by the disruption of vital natural
gas shipments from Bolivia. Even constitutional right-wing regimes, like
Bachelet of Chile and Alain Garcia of Peru, backed Morales and
indirectly pressured him to act for fear of the precedent of a
successful violent right-wing secessionist seizure of regional power
might set for their own countries.

Conclusion

The state of siege and the expulsion of the US Ambassador can be seen as
much-delayed positive moves to reassert Bolivian sovereignty and to
defend the constitutional order. But what next?

The neo-fascists have seized regional governmental power. They still
control 80% of Bolivia's key economic resources. The majority of the
population who live under rightist rule are without the protection of
the central government. Only a few of the oil and natural gas pipelines
have been temporarily secured by federal troops. Morales has relied on
the military to defend his regime, sidelining, marginalizing and
demobilizing the emerging popular mass self-defense movements. The
reliability of the Bolivian Army is not guaranteed. By becoming key to
the defense of the Morales regime against the neo-fascist right, the
armed forces can assume broader powers, as arbiters of the future of the
country. Morales is relatively safe, holed up in the Andes; but his
followers in the 5 departments in the east continue to face the
repressive rule of neo-fascists and their organized vigilante gangs.
Equally important, Morales, faced with violent resistance from the far
right, shows every intention of making new concessions on revenue and
power sharing with the ruling elite. He is open to making even greater
concessions to the one hundred big landowners, media moguls, bankers and
agro-exporters who are pushing for secession.

Repeatedly, over the past 3 years, the Indians, peasants, miners, urban
slum-dwellers and public employees have organized and fought for land
reform, worker-controlled nationalization of the mines and oil fields
and decent salaries and wages. What they have gotten from Morales is a
government of fiscal austerity, economic agreements with foreign
extractive multinational corporations and huge untouchable agribusiness
complexes. Despite having a political mandate to rule, Morales has made
a succession of failed efforts to conciliate with the irreconcilable
economic and regional elites. If there is one lesson that Morales can
learn from the peasants who have been degraded and horsewhipped in the
streets of Santa Cruz, the trade unionists who have been burned out of
their headquarters and homes in Pando and the street vendors who have
been driven from the markets in Tarija, is that you cannot 'make deals'
with fascists. You don't defeat fascism through elections and
concessions to their big property-owning paymasters.

-James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University,
New York, owns a 50-year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser
to the landless and jobless in Brazil and Argentina, and is co-author of
Globalization Unmasked (Zed Books). His latest books are The Power of
Israel in the United States (Clarity Press, 2006) and Rulers and Ruled
in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists, Militants (Clarity Press, 2007). He
contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Contact him at:
[email protected]

bcbm
24th September 2008, 22:41
Bolivia’s Popular Upheaval

Social and Indigenous Movements March on Santa Cruz, Bastion of the Right Wing

September 24, 2008 By Tanya Kerssen
and Roger Burbach



Tanya Kerssen's ZSpace Page (http://www.zmag.org/zspace/tkerssen)

Join ZSpace (https://www.zcommunications.org/zsustainers/signup)

A popular upheaval is sweeping Bolivia, threatening the departmental capital of Santa Cruz, the bastion of the right wing rebellion against the government of Evo Morales. Some twenty thousand miners, peasants and coca growers are moving on the city to reclaim state institutions occupied by autonomist forces. They are also demanding the resignation of the Santa Cruz prefect (governor), Rubén Costas, and the apprehension of Branko Marinkovich, an agro-industrial magnet who heads up the Santa Cruz Civic Committee comprised of large land owning and business interests.

Five hundred kilometers away in Cochabamba in central Bolivia negotiations are taking place between the Morales government and the opposition. Thousands of demonstrators occupy the city's streets, serving notice that the country's social movements will tolerate no concessions to the right wing. The "Dialogue," facilitated by Jose Miguel Insulza, the president of the Organization of American States, is to resolve the issues that have brought the country to the precipice of civil war. "I want to sign a document that will allow for the pacification of the country ... and guarantee a new political constitution for the state," proclaims Morales.

But the opposition is raising procedural and substantive objections to the governments' proposals, even to an autonomy accord that contains concessions for the rebellious departments. According to Fidel Surco, the head of the National Coordination for Change, the coalition of Bolivia's social movements allied with MAS, the Movement Towards Socialism: "We aren't going to wait any longer...we know that the prefects are simply stalling so that no accords are reached." Morales, in a warning to those in attendance at the Dialogue, said: "I have a letter from the mobilized social movements, they also want to participate. As far as I am concerned they are welcome, we await their participation."

Almost a month ago the National Democratic Council (Conalde)-- the organization of the right wing prefects and politicians based in the rebellious departments in the "Media Luna" of eastern Bolivia--sparked this crisis by launching an offensive to seize complete control of their departments. They set up road blockades and violently took over government facilities, including customs offices, airports, the agrarian reform offices and the national hydrocarbons company.

Their protests initially focused on reversing the government's decision last year to use a portion of the revenue from the hydrocarbon gas tax to create a universal pension for citizens over sixty. Now they have expanded to include complete departmental autonomy, the end of agrarian program and a gutting of the new constitution slated to be voted on in a referendum late this year. Control over the oil and gas resources, which for the most part are located in the Media Luna, is the fundamental objective of the autonomy movement.

The conflict came to a head on September 11 in the Media Luna department of Pando when peasants from the community of El Porvenir began marching to Cobija, the departmental capital, to protest the right-wing sacking of government offices. They were ambushed by a para-military force with machine guns, resulting in 15 dead, 37 injured and 106 disappeared. Morales responded by declaring a state of siege in the department, sending in the army to retake government offices, and throwing the Pando prefect, Leopoldo Fernandez, in jail after he admited to giving orders to forcefully subdue protesters. A new prefect, Navy Admiral Landelino Rafael Banderia Arce, was appointed by Morales to impose order as many of the right wing leaders fled across the border to Brazil.

The events in El Porvenir precipitated a national mobilization of the indigenous peoples and social movements as well as a sense of outrage in neighboring countries. Chilean president Michelle Bachelet called an emergency meeting of South American countries (UNASUR) in Santiago to discuss the Bolivia crisis. The "Declaration of La Moneda", signed by the twelve UNASUR governments, denounced the atrocities committed in Pando and any attempt to undermine the central government and Bolivia's territorial integrity.

Morales, thanking UNASUR for its support, declared: "For the first time in South America's history, the countries of our region are deciding how to resolve our problems, without the presence of the United States." On September 10, the day before the massacre, Morales had expelled US ambassador Phillip Goldberg from Bolivia for meddling in the country's internal affairs and meeting with Ruben Costas and the autonomous leaders.

For his part, Morales has thus far shown tremendous restraint in cracking down on the right wing violence, almost too much in fact. He has drawn criticism from the social movements, particularly in peasant and indigenous working-class communities, such as the "Plan 3,000" community adjacent to Santa Cruz, which has been living under constant threats from right wing racist groups like the Cruceño Youth Movement.

Although after the massacre, Conalde decided to lift the road blockades and relinquish some of the government offices (albeit with hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages), the political forces it represents retain effective control of the major urban areas of the Media Luna outside of Pando. This is why the peasant and indigenous movements are marching on Santa Cruz, to assert their rights and dignity throughout the Bolivian nation, with or without the support of Morales and the government.

Branko Marinkovich, for his part, is hitting the road in a "public relations campaign" to explain the autonomist cause. According to the newspaper La Razon, he is traveling to Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Paraguay to "denounce the acts of violence that were provoked by MAS in Pando and the government threats that loom over the negotiations underway in Cochabamba." Following Marinkovich's logic, the fifteen slain peasants are not only the authors of their own fate, but are to blame for all of the violence of the past month. Presumably, their very existence, let alone their demands for a share of the country's resources, is provocation enough. By launching his South American tour, Marinkovich is also conveniently leaving the country before he can be apprehended for the damage and havoc of the past few weeks.

The marchers are isolating Santa Cruz as they set up fortified road blocks at strategic points while they continue to move on the city. Minister of Government Alfredo Rada expressed his support of the protesters, stating that they are merely reacting to the violence initiated by the Santa Cruz Civic Committee via the Cruceño Youth Movement. Likewise, Vice-President Alvaro Garcia Linera stated: "They have mobilized to defend the country and the integrity of our democracy."

President Morales, on the other hand, seemed to be experiencing a spell of cold feet as he expressed his frustration with the actions of the social movements at a press conference in Cochabamba: "It frightens me because they say they will march until the prefect [Costas] resigns. I don't agree with it, and it scares me."

Nonetheless, the marchers are proceeding with their plan to descend on Santa Cruz. According to Joel Guarachi, the head of the National Confederation of Peasant Workers, some 600,000 protesters are located throughout the fifteen Santa Cruz provinces. He declares the march and occupation of the city's plaza will be peaceful.

Throughout the crisis, Morales has been avoiding the appearance of government oppression in favor of appeals for peaceful negotiation and the rule of law. But the social movements are demanding more, a social revolution that over turns the political and economic order in the Media Luna. And Morales may be moving with the tide. The day after he said that Costas should not be forced to resign, he recalled the siege of La Paz in 1781 led by Tupac Katari, who demanded an end to Spanish oppression and the recognition of the basic rights of the Indian peoples and their communities. Now more than two centuries later the Indians and popular classes of Bolivia may finally be on the brink of realizing their aspirations.


Tanya M. Kerssen is a correspondent of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) in Bolivia, and a Masters candidate at the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. She was tear-gassed on Monday in the Yungas region as she marched in a demonstration to demand justice for those who fell in the Porvenir massacre. [email protected]

Roger Burbach is the director of CENSA who has written extensively on Latin America. His most recent book, co-authored with Jim Tarbell, is: Imperial Overstretch: George W. Bush and the Hubris of Empire. http://globalalternatives.org/news


http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18910
(http://globalalternatives.org/news)

Wanted Man
24th September 2008, 22:50
This article illustrates things really well. It's saddening to think of what's being set in motion right now.

GPDP
24th September 2008, 22:56
And yet the minute he so much as lifts a finger against these thugs, he will immediately be denounced and demonized by the US media as a two-bit dictator denying the freedom of expression of "dissenters".

Not that he's doing a good job, anyway, but it seems to me that he realizes that when the US is involved, image is everything...

mykittyhasaboner
24th September 2008, 23:15
And yet the minute he so much as lifts a finger against these thugs, he will immediately be denounced and demonized by the US media as a two-bit dictator denying the freedom of expression of "dissenters".

Not that he's doing a good job, anyway, but it seems to me that he realizes that when the US is involved, image is everything...

i dont think Morales should honestly give a shit what is said about him in the media. he should mobilize the military to counter the fascists, fuck what the US media has to say. image doesn't mean anything when fascist gangs go around murdering peasants.

Yehuda Stern
24th September 2008, 23:57
Yeah, let's wait for Morales to fight the fascists. It worked real well in Chile about 35 years ago.

Sugar Hill Kevis
25th September 2008, 00:28
Yeah, let's wait for Morales to fight the fascists. It worked real well in Chile about 35 years ago.

I take it you're about to take up arms and go Rambo on Bolivia then...:rolleyes:

Comrade B
25th September 2008, 01:13
Some organizations need to set up international brigades. We also need to unite in the defense of Bolivia. Even if you do not completely support the leadership, recognize what the alternative is.

Psy
25th September 2008, 01:16
Some organizations need to set up international brigades. We also need to unite in the defense of Bolivia. Even if you do not completely support the leadership, recognize what the alternative is.

Problem, there is no revolutionary army in Bolivia. In Spain international brigades worked with revolutionary armies and even then organization was lacking.

GPDP
25th September 2008, 02:06
i dont think Morales should honestly give a shit what is said about him in the media. he should mobilize the military to counter the fascists, fuck what the US media has to say. image doesn't mean anything when fascist gangs go around murdering peasants.

It matters much more than you seem to think. Media condemnation can go a long way towards shaping public perception against Morales, and any actions thus perceived as going "against democracy and freedom" legitimizes further intervention in the region, whether direct or indirect.

I'm not saying he shouldn't do anything. What I am saying is that Morales may know this all to be true, which is why he might be hesitant to crack down on the right wing.

Even so, I believe that at this point, he is more a burden on the working class of Bolivia than an ally, even if his intentions are benign. He is not doing as much as he could be doing to further their gains, and I fear this is a systematic problem rather than a personal one.

Kitskits
25th September 2008, 02:34
The only choise is to arm the people and make them capable of fighting the far-right. Everything else is compromise and this situation is dangerously reminding of 1973 Chile. Even if the goverment gives no help, the people should try to organize themselves.

mykittyhasaboner
25th September 2008, 02:55
It matters much more than you seem to think. Media condemnation can go a long way towards shaping public perception against Morales, and any actions thus perceived as going "against democracy and freedom" legitimizes further intervention in the region, whether direct or indirect.

I'm not saying he shouldn't do anything. What I am saying is that Morales may know this all to be true, which is why he might be hesitant to crack down on the right wing.
i understand what you are saying, but i think that the supporters of Morales will care more about how he deals with the fascists, rather than what the media says about him. i am very skeptical of Morales and how intends to govern Bolivia in the interests of the working class, now that i see he wont even combat armed gangs who are committing violent crimes against his supporters, and the rest of the population. the well being of the Bolivian population should be his primary concern rather than the media.



Even so, I believe that at this point, he is more a burden on the working class of Bolivia than an ally, even if his intentions are benign. He is not doing as much as he could be doing to further their gains, and I fear this is a systematic problem rather than a personal one.
agreed.

Psy
25th September 2008, 03:36
It matters much more than you seem to think. Media condemnation can go a long way towards shaping public perception against Morales, and any actions thus perceived as going "against democracy and freedom" legitimizes further intervention in the region, whether direct or indirect.

I'm not saying he shouldn't do anything. What I am saying is that Morales may know this all to be true, which is why he might be hesitant to crack down on the right wing.

Even so, I believe that at this point, he is more a burden on the working class of Bolivia than an ally, even if his intentions are benign. He is not doing as much as he could be doing to further their gains, and I fear this is a systematic problem rather than a personal one.
Even if Moraels does nothing the bourgeoisie media will just invent stuff.

GPDP
25th September 2008, 04:35
Obviously. Perhaps I'm merely attempting to rationalize Morales's inaction. Maybe I shouldn't even try. He's screwing up anyway.

No, the future of Bolivia will depend on the will of its people to act on their own behalf, with or without Morales.

Zurdito
25th September 2008, 08:59
http://www.lorci.org/

if Morales mobilises the masses to defeat tthe right, he risks setting in motion a reolution, which would be even worse for him than a coup from the right.

Morales is the representative of "Andean capitalism". Through a deal with the right, they might be weakened, but they keep some priveliges. if they mobilise the masses now there could very well be a civil war, and they may lose everything.

the revolutionaries in Bolivia are therefore fighting to organise vanguard workers seperately from MAS. Though of course this means defending the current government if there is a coup and if necessarry fighting alongside their troops - whilst "not giving them a single bullet", as they say.

Mindtoaster
26th September 2008, 01:11
Sorry to pull this back from the second page.

Are these reactionaries fascists in the technical meaning of the word or just extremely reactionary and racist?

and out of curiosity does anyone know what the stormfronters and neo-nazis think of this?

Sendo
26th September 2008, 01:29
I don't think anyone's openly neo-nazi or openly fascist (Pinochet an exception) anymore.

It's definitely racist in class and racial character, though.

Sendo
26th September 2008, 01:31
The only choise is to arm the people and make them capable of fighting the far-right. Everything else is compromise and this situation is dangerously reminding of 1973 Chile. Even if the goverment gives no help, the people should try to organize themselves.

I'm reminded of Jacobo ARbenz, too. We need mass mobilization and mass training of people in any leftist land.

If the majority are leftists, we have nothing to lose by having people vote with their bullets.

JorgeLobo
29th September 2008, 23:06
This is classic center left bourgeois approach - they're closer to the right than the unwashed left and would never arm the peasants.

ComradeR
30th September 2008, 10:37
Morales is walking a thin line. If he pushes to hard he will make the opposition appear to be victims. Allowing them to gain the sympathy and support of other nations (including possibly some of Bolivia's neighbors) and their citizens, far more then they do now. Also in the event of civil war the image of Morales and the government on the world stage becomes all the more vital. As Bolivia is a land locked country it will depend on the good graces of it's neighbors for vital war material as the right wing in Bolivia controls most of the country's resources.
Now I may be wrong but if Morales is genuine this is how it looks to me.

BraneMatter
30th September 2008, 14:02
And yet the minute he so much as lifts a finger against these thugs, he will immediately be denounced and demonized by the US media as a two-bit dictator denying the freedom of expression of "dissenters".



No doubt. And you just know American agents and their paid agitators and thugs are heavily involved in all this, just like they were in Chile. And, of course, the capitalist controlled corporate media have all the tools to demonize anyone and twist the truth.

We all know the history of U.S. actions in Central and South America to prevent and overthrow socialist movements and leaders. The capitalists will never surrender, but will fight on for decades to undermine and overthrow any socialist regimes and movements before they can really get on their feet, especially in Central and South America, the "near abroad" of the United States.

JimmyJazz
1st October 2008, 00:39
It matters much more than you seem to think. Media condemnation can go a long way towards shaping public perception against Morales, and any actions thus perceived as going "against democracy and freedom" legitimizes further intervention in the region, whether direct or indirect.

I'm not saying he shouldn't do anything. What I am saying is that Morales may know this all to be true, which is why he might be hesitant to crack down on the right wing.

Even so, I believe that at this point, he is more a burden on the working class of Bolivia than an ally, even if his intentions are benign. He is not doing as much as he could be doing to further their gains, and I fear this is a systematic problem rather than a personal one.

I understand what you're saying, but it fails to recognize the fact that Morales and the Bolivian people have absolutely no voice in America. So the American corporate media/corporate government don't really need anything from him in order to condemn him; they can just make up flat-out lies if they want. How many Americans are going to cross-check the "facts" on Al-Jazeera? Or they can simply undermine him through covert military action and deny the whole thing.

There's really not much a Lat Am leftist govt can do to defend itself against Yankee imperialism, but the one success story is the country that has taken a hard line from beginning to end. So, that's something to think about.

The other thing I'd consider a flaw in your approach is that you talk of American intervention as a potential future outcome. In reality, the most likely guess is that America had plenty to do with this latest development. We already know, for instance, that the American ambassador was working with Bolivian separatists before he got expelled. And we know the general history of U.S. intervention in the Latin American political process--rigging elections in Nicaragua, funding anti-leftist electoral groups in Chile, staging coups in Guatemala and in both the aforementioned countries. (There are probably plenty of other examples I haven't read about).

You know, putting it all in one post like this has actually made it more clear to me: Latin America is like a perfect test case for the comparative effectiveness of a gradual/reformist versus a radical approach to socialism. The overwhelming tendency in L.A. has been a gradual/reformist approach and it has had a 100% fail rate (not counting the handful of countries that haven't been given time to fail yet). Whereas Cuba is still going, despite having gone socialist decades earlier than any of the other examples besides Guatemala.

Prairie Fire
1st October 2008, 00:46
The coup hasn't triumphed, has it?

JimmyJazz
1st October 2008, 00:56
The coup hasn't triumphed, has it?

If that is aimed at me, I edited in some parentheses for you.

chebol
3rd October 2008, 08:24
Sendo wrote:


I don't think anyone's openly neo-nazi or openly fascist (Pinochet an exception) anymore.

It's definitely racist in class and racial character, though.

Um, actually, these people quite literally drive around with swastikas on their cars. Sounds like nazis to me.