Views on Bolivia's Evo Morales

[9]

I can't recall ever seeing Morales or Bolivia discussed on Revleft, and I must admit to knowing next to nothing on the topic. Which brings me to my question....
What do Revlefters think of Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, and his party, Movimiento al Socialismo?

[REDSOX]

Evo morales is a former coca farmer from chapare an area of bolivia dominated by quechua and aymara indigenous people in the west of the country. He was elected president in 2005 with 54% of the popular vote and his party the MAS (Movement towards socialism) won most seats in the lower house of congress but not a majority in the upper house senate. Since his term of office started he has done some very progressive things. He has renationalised oil and gas YPFB(though like Hugo chavez he allows foreign oil companies in bolivia on a joint venture basis with the state oil and gas company having the majority share and has forced the foreign companies to pay high royalties to the extent that the state takes 82% of the wealth from any joint venture with the foreign companies taking only 18%). He has completely renationalised the tin smelters without compensation!, (owned by swiss multinational Glencore) some of the tin mines themselves, water, the telephone company ENTEL(previously owned by telecom italia) forest concessions, and i believe at the moment he is planning to renationalise rail and electricity and the airports all owned by chile usa, uk france, and spanish multinationals respectively. He has also created a number of state owned companies such as steel, cement, paper and pulp and a new national airline called BEA(Bolivia airways). He has introduced many welfarist measures such as house building, public works, introduction of state benefits for the poor like a state pension and child benefits etc. He has introduced a land reform law which redistributes state land and private unused land to the poor although the law is not retropective. He has joined ALBA the non neoliberal trading bloc The bolivarian alternative for the americas. They have created a progressive new constitution which has many benefits for the indigenous population, the working class in general. In short Evo has done many good things in bolivia and they have gone under the radar of leftists a bit because their attention has been on Hugo chavez whose reforms have been even more radical than evo's. Plus of course Hugo is a charasmatic figure who shall we say shoots his mouth of a bit while evo is far more quieter and just quietly gets on with things (different horses for diferent courses). However i would not catergorise Evo as a marxist He is a progressive Left wing socialist?social democrat?. He is definately not neo liberal. There remain many problems in bolivia with poverty still very high and the country remains industrially undeveloped so not a large proletariat exists there at the moment although the trade union COB is militant, but instead a large indigenous and peasentry who are very militant and left wing dominate. A lot has been done but Bolivia is far far away from socialism let alone communism and like Venezuela there are divisions in the movement between social democrats/stalinists who think that building socialism will take 50 years to build because of the lack of a large industrial working class so therefore capitalism cannot yet be abolished, and marxists?communists?trotskyists and agrarian communists who feel the changes have not gone fast and far enough and must be accelerated through increaed industrial development by the state accompanied by workers, peasents, and indigenous peoples control. I do agree that leftists should pay more attention to Bolivia though and not just focus on Venezuela, Cuba.

For more info check out the bolivia solidarity campaign by google as i dont know the exact email.

[punisa]

I watched a documentary and some interviews of Evo, he seems like a really good option for the current time in Bolivia.
regarding the reforms he did, I'd like to ask a rather newbish economic question - how do you get in position to nationalize all these companies? Especially while still largely operating inside the capitalist model?
For example, Telecom of Italy probably invested millions of their dirty money there. How do they "let" someone like Evo just take it away? Does he have to compensate for it in away? Pay something back?
How did the process of nationalization go in Bolivia?

I'm verey interested in learning about this, I live in a country where 95% of industry is owned by foreign corporations.

[REDSOX]

Evo,s party the MAS has a programe of renationalising all those companies which were sold cheaply to multinational companies during previous neo liberal administrations. This includes: Railways, electricity, water, oil and gas, forests, tin mines(though not all of the mines were privatised) tin smelters, airports, dairy companies, telephones, pension funds.

The process of Renationalisation has been generally one of negotiating compensation with foreign companies though there have been cases of confiscation and expropriation. For example:

Termination of water concessions in La paz and Cochabamba run by BETCHTEL AND SUEZ were done without paying these theiving corporations one penny.

Renationalisation of ENTEL (98% the other 2% being workers shares) the telephone company owned by Telecom italia was done on an expropriation basis when the government could not agree to a deal with telecom italia. To this date they have not paid telecom italia one penny in compensation because no agreement has been made post nationalisation for these assets and telecom italia are sueing the bolivian government in some world body or other for what they say is adequate compensation based on market forces. If i were the bolivians i would tell them to fuck off!!! and just consider the company confiscated

Renationalisation of oil and gas was done on a compensation basis ie.

The two oil/gas refineries 100% owned by Brazil State owned oil company Petrobras were renationalised 100% by State oil and gas company YPFB which had been reformed in the process of renationalisation, by paying compensation to Brazilian State owned Petrobras. These refineries were called Gualberto Villaroel located in Cochabamba, and Guillermo Elder Bell located in Santa Cruz.

The gas and oil pipeline network owned by Ashmore international and Anglo Dutch Shell was also renationalised 100% by way of compensation.

The gas fields owned on a concession basis by Repsol, British Gas, Petrobras were revoked and instead joint ventures were set up with YPFB having 51% of the shares and the foreign companies 49%. The royalties were set at 50% and income tax at 32% meaning that the state takes 82% of all revenues from the joint ventures with the foreign partner getting 18%.

The Forest concessions were revokes i believe by way of compensation

I suspect that electricity rail and the airports will be nationalised by compensation.

The tin smelters called VINTO owned by Swiss multinational Glencore were confiscated because the Bolivians said VINTO was purchased illegally, Glencore are suing and the Bolivians have rightly told them in so many words to fuck off!!

The tin mines renationalised were done with compensation paid

The pension funds were also nationalised through compensation.

So in Bolivia nationalisation is done mainly through compensation, but if an agreement cannot be reached then the Bolivians expropriate without paying upfront compensation and then the multinational either excepts Bolivia's offer of compensation or they get nothing as seems to be the case with Telecom Italia. If the bolivians suspect illegality in former privatiations as with the Vinto smelters then they just simply confiscate.

[punisa]

Thank you very much, that was very detailed.

[REDSOX]

No problem my friend. By the way i once went to the old yugoslavia last year for a holiday at trogir in croatia. There were still some level of public ownership even there for example the Electric company of split and trogir, Split airport, bus services, and the trogir shipyards. But i agree the dissolution of Yugoslavia was a tragedy for the working class there with all the wars and privatisations, and what Marshal Tito did in Yugoslavia post second world war was largely very progressive though he had his faults.

[punisa]

No problem my friend. By the way i once went to the old yugoslavia last year for a holiday at trogir in croatia. There were still some level of public ownership even there for example the Electric company of split and trogir, Split airport, bus services, and the trogir shipyards. But i agree the dissolution of Yugoslavia was a tragedy for the working class there with all the wars and privatisations, and what Marshal Tito did in Yugoslavia post second world war was largely very progressive though he had his faults.

I don't want people to think that we are off-topicing, but this could be actually very related to Evo and Bolivia, especially from economic standpoint.
Because nationalization can have its very bad side, especially while running in greedy corporate model.
What you saw in Croatia is true - we still have couple of industries that are under national control : railroads, electrics etc.
These were running smoothly while still in socialism, worker's self management proved to be a very productive model for many companies.

After the 1990's war and invasion of capitalism, the term "national" company acquired a whole different meaning. This became a haven of largest corruptions. Croatia is shaken by scandal after scandal, and majority of corruption comes from the businesses owned by the state.
Every high managerial position is fixed - that is, if you happen to have a close (or even a distant) relative in government you're all set for a life of pleasure. Doing virtually nothing and having a Manhattan style paycheck.
Today this comes back with vengeance, country is in a serious financial crisis and future looks rather crappy.

Millions and perhaps billions of dollars (that's a lot for a country of only 4 million people) were taken by these national companies. For example, latest affair - the railroads. They order hundreds of electronic ticket devices and GPS systems through some shady middle man company and paid millions for these.
In the end they never used them ! These devices just rot away in their un-opened boxes for years now.

This is because the intention was never to actually modernize the railroads, but to lounder money.
Only in recent years have things started to be somewhat discovered, in the 90s the country was ruled by strong right wingers, so freedom of press was a joke.

All the largest industries are firmly held by the state. They just acquire huge losses which are covered by aneven larger international debt. A yummy cookie for IMF and World Bank this country is.
The most important thing is that we - the proletariat - have to pay it all off ! And still manage to survive !
According to the latest research conducted by KPMG - Croatia has the highest taxes on the planet !

This is not a topic about Croatia, but I could go on for days.

Important thing is that this shit doesn't happen to Bolivia and their re-nationalized economy. I'm a strong supporter of nationalizing them but NOT in capitalism !
I don't think that Croats are crooks by default, but Croatia is a very good example for other countries.

Being a socialist I'm very sad to say this - but foreign capitalist corporations treat us better then our own people.

I'm very fond of Evo and Bolivia and I hope he can pull the right strings. Coincidentally, Evo's biggest enemies in Bolivia are exactly Croats ! They even tried to assassinate him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/wo...ivia.html?_r=1
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...extremism.html
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English...3.0.3239993223
http://www.ww4report.com/node/7212

[REDSOX]

Important points you have made and in no way do i imply that nationalisation automatically means socialism and no corruption from state officials because it does not. I am sure nationalised enterprises in croatia today have a lot of corruption just like private ones do. What i found when i spoke to people in trogir is that there was still a lot of fondness for Marshal tito and the old Yugoslavia as it reminded them of better times before the wars, privatisations and rampant corruption that has happened especially in the last 20 years. It is important though that Bolivia in its nationalisation programme does not replace private corruption with state corruption in these renationalised enterprises which is why workers and peasents control much like the self management model in Tito's day at some point is necessary to prevent this. Bolivia ultimately needs a democratic planned economy not a bureaucratic soviet union type economy which only fosters corruption, absenteeism and eventually economic failure.

[Yehuda Stern]

Morales is one of those Latin American leaders who heads a bourgeois populist party. Reformists and pseudo-Trots are all too glad to present as a very progressive, left wing leader; in reality, despite his rhetoric, he has consistently betrayed struggles - like the one for nationalization of gas reserves - and sent out his forces to suppress miners and other workers fighting for pension reform in 2008. But middle class leftists really don't care about what happens to workers way out in the third world, as long as they have an example of 'safe' socialism that isn't too threatening to the bourgeoisie or the labor aristocracy.

[FreeFocus]

He's a reformist, no doubt (and has betrayed workers a few times), but his election and many of his policies represent a definite, clear, and welcome break from the past 500 years of complete white racist rule in Bolivia..now that racist rule is trying to cling to power by their secessionist movements (so-called autonomy).

Frankly Morales is preferable to the dictators Bolivia has suffered under since the 1970s. Bolivia has taken steps to escape American imperialism and its Aymara and Quechua populations in particular have taken important steps to reclaiming their culture, land, and gaining basic rights and human dignity.

I critically support Evo, there's the good and the bad. I especially support the grassroots stuff, the indigenous empowerment that is quite separate from Morales himself. As one of the poorest countries in the world, it's important that the resources Bolivia possesses are used for Bolivians, not sold out to foreign companies (imperialism). See the Water and Gas disputes, and the 2000 Cochabamba protests. This even gets into the concept of water as a human right, which imperialist states are trying to prevent from even entering the discussion.

[Yehuda Stern]

He's a reformist, no doubt (and has betrayed workers a few times), but his election and many of his policies represent a definite, clear, and welcome break from the past 500 years of complete white racist rule in Bolivia.

In what way is that true, other than for the mere fact that he isn't white? That could just easily have been a rationale for voting for Obama.

Actually, Morales has shown his willingness to prevent any break from racism, most of all in his attitude to the racist secessionist movement in Santa Cruz.

Frankly Morales is preferable to the dictators Bolivia has suffered under since the 1970s.

The lamest and most common excuse for supporting "left" bourgeois politicians. Practically anything is better than a fascist dictator! Too bad that we are not in the 1970s, but in the 2000s, where Morales wasn't running against a fascist dictator (and even if he were, it would be class betrayal to vote for him - but nevermind that for now), but against another bourgeois candidate.

[cb9's_unity]

I'm tired of the holier than thou attitude many here have concerning movements in Latin America. There are clearly strong and weak points to the reformists like Chavez and Morales. They are bourgeois politicians but they are bourgeois politicians who are moving the centers of their countries to the left. I would love to have a strong social-democratic or reformist party in the United States instead of the two party system we have now. Socialism is a dirty word in the U.S, in Latin America it increasingly is viewed in a positive light. I call for a more revolutionary approach but I can still recognize the steps forward these reformists are taking.

Lets take a clearly look at the situation in Latin America instead of always looking down our noses and only seeing half of the picture.

[jake williams]

Morales is one of those Latin American leaders who heads a bourgeois populist party. Reformists and pseudo-Trots are all too glad to present as a very progressive, left wing leader; in reality, despite his rhetoric, he has consistently betrayed struggles - like the one for nationalization of gas reserves - and sent out his forces to suppress miners and other workers fighting for pension reform in 2008. But middle class leftists really don't care about what happens to workers way out in the third world, as long as they have an example of 'safe' socialism that isn't too threatening to the bourgeoisie or the labor aristocracy.

The middle class leftists who really don't care about what happens to workers are the ones who dismiss any attempt at any progress as not theoretically or practically perfect.

[REDSOX]

What some comrades have to understand about Bolivia is that the movement running the country the MAS movement towards socialism, is an eclectic movement comprising of social democrats and socialists, marxists, trots stalinists and peasent/indigenous communists. This movemnt is not some bolshevik party aka 1917 russia though there are marxists in it. As for Evo well i am sure he is not a reformist let alone bourgeois and i base this on interviews that he has done plus his radical background. However i do think like his vice president Garcia linera that he is influenced by the so called 2 stages theory of achieving socialism where you have the national democratic revolution and then the socialist revolution later on in some unspecified time. I suspect they take this view because they would argue with some force that Bolivia is not ready for socialism because it has a weak working class and a largely peasent/artisan economy. He certainly does not subscribe to the trotskyist doctrine of permanent revolution or the guerillaism of guevara though he has in the past been influenced by both unlike linera. What matters as far as i am concerned is Bolivia like Venezuela and ecuador have elected progressive leaders who have taken certain radical measures to strengthen popular power of the poor, the working class, peasents indigenous etc by opening up space for these forces to mobilise to demand their interests which is why all marxists, communists even anarchists should take advantage of the situation of the opening of this political space and progressive reformis policies to agitate and spread the message of marx, engels, gramsci, lenin, trotsky, guevara etc and demand real revoluitionary change, and not just dismiss this whole process as just bourgeois reformism or populism from above as some seem to be doing which will only isolate you from the masses in Bolivia. Sometimes people are going to have to get their hands dirty and engage with movements like this in order to influence their direction. The idea that a perfect political and pure marxist movement is going to come along anytime is fantasy to paraphrase Lenin.

[Yehuda Stern]

I'm tired of the holier than thou attitude many here have concerning movements in Latin America. There are clearly strong and weak points to the reformists like Chavez and Morales. They are bourgeois politicians but they are bourgeois politicians who are moving the centers of their countries to the left.

I'm tired of lame excuse for supporting reformist politicians. Reformism is not a step forward for the working class, but an obstacle for the development of revolutionary consciousness. I'm actually glad there's no strong reformist party that could take advantage of and diffuse working class uprisings to save capitalism. To quote Trotsky,

3. A long period of confusion in the Comintern led many people to forget a very simple but absolutely irrevocable principle that a Marxist, a proletarian revolutionist, cannot present himself before the working class with two banners. He cannot say at a workers meeting: I have tickets for a first class party and other tickets cheaper for the stupid ones. If I am a Communist I must fight for the Communist Party.

4. One can affirm that under the American conditions a “Labor Party” in the British sense would be a progressive step and by recognizing this and stating so, we ourselves, even though indirectly, help to establish such a party. But that is precisely the reason I will never assume the responsibility to affirm abstractly and dogmatically that the creation of a “Labor Party” would be a “progressive step” even in the United States because I do not know under what circumstances, under what guidance, and for what purposes that party would be created. It seems to me more probable that especially in America, which does not possess any important tradition of independent political action by the working class (as Chartism in England, for example) and where the trade union bureaucracy is more reactionary and corrupt than it was in the height of the British Empire. The creation of a “Labor Party” in America could be provoked only by a mighty revolutionary pressure of the working masses and by the growing threat of Communism. It is absolutely clear that under these conditions the Labor Party would signify not a progressive step but a hindrance to the progressive evolution of the working class.

At any rate, given that Morales has already betrayed struggles and suppressed striking workers, and no one has even tried to deny that, I find it ridiculous and frankly idiotic that people can seriously claim that those opposing them are the middle class leftists.

[REDSOX]

A few questions Yehuda stern

1. What should the attitudes of socialists marxists and communists be towards developments in latin america? Should we take advantage of the political space that has opened and intervene within it, or should we just posture and talk to each other in meetings and in internet chatrooms extoling ultra leftist slogans and bemoaning the lack of purity of movements in latin america and therefore becoming irrelevant.

2. How is Morales Bourgeois ? Please elaborate

[Eat the Rich]

Evo Morales is not a communist and not a revolutionary. This should be clear to everyone, despite Morales calling himself a "Marxist Leninist".

I believe despite his good intentions, just like other politicians in Latin America, he is a coward when it comes to fighting back against the sabotage of the right wing. He does not have a lot of confidence to the masses. For example in the fascist attacks, instigated by the oligarchy in Santa Cruz, he could have easily mobilized the peasants and workers against them, which could put the masses in motion and after defeating the fascists (who killed dozens of peasants), the revolutionary movement could advance. But Morales, as a classical petit-bourgeois populist did not do that. Was it out of fear of the revolutionary potential of the people? I don't really know.

Other than that he has been slow to advance reforms that could benefit the masses. He has done some nationalizations of oil and gas, which have weakened the imperialist domination of Bolivia and have given money for social programs. But he did not advance any land reform that could solve the problem of the majority of the peasants. He did not redistribute the land and he did not expropriate the huge estates of the landlords.

About the elimination white domination and racism against the majority of the population which is aboriginal, Morales can't do that with empty phraseology. He needs to aleviate them from 500 years of opression, by cutting up the big landlord estates and giving them land, so they can come out of this absolute poverty they live in. Sweettalk is really good, but giving them land is a lot better.

[REDSOX]

It is true that his reforms so far have only slightly loosened the chains of capitalism around the bolivia masses not removed them, but dont forget he is following the stalinist 2 stages theory of capitalism (or trying to as the social democrats in his government dont even want that) so democratic revolution first, then socialism later. This can be summed up by Garcia linera who talks about 50 years of andean non neo liberal capitalism followed by socialism. I doubt the masses will wait that long and i believe it is up to revolutionaries in Bolivia to agitate amongst the masses to persuade them that a revolutionary seizure of power is necessary preferably with evo leading it otherwise its down to others to do it.

As for being a coward when comfronting the right wing scum in Santa cruz well it could be argued that Evo wanted to avoid provacation which could have led to a civil war and many many dead. Not a nice prospect.

[Eat the Rich]

It is true that his reforms so far have only slightly loosened the chains of capitalism around the bolivia masses not removed them, but dont forget he is following the stalinist 2 stages theory of capitalism (or trying to as the social democrats in his government dont even want that) so democratic revolution first, then socialism later. This can be summed up by Garcia linera who talks about 50 years of andean non neo liberal capitalism followed by socialism. I doubt the masses will wait that long and i believe it is up to revolutionaries in Bolivia to agitate amongst the masses to persuade them that a revolutionary seizure of power is necessary preferably with evo leading it otherwise its down to others to do it.

The Stalinist two stage theory is reformist. The reformists put the minimum programme onthe agenda and postpone the maximum programme (revolution) to the indefinite future. So does the two stage theory. Stalinists using this theory had betrayed movements in Spain, Greece etc. This theory has been proved by history to be a disaster, which has led to the massacre of the working class.

To build a "non-neoliberal" capitalism, means nothing. Capitalism cannot be shaped in the form you want. It "shapes itself" through the state it controls, given its needs at any given period (keynensianism, neo-liberalism etc.). Also the working class movement cannot be molded the way you want. A peasant who is starving to death will not wait 50 years for socialism to come. He will probably get demoralized, stop giving support to Morales, or support a populist right winger who will crush the revolution in blood. Build socialism now!

As for being a coward when comfronting the right wing scum in Santa cruz well it could be argued that Evo wanted to avoid provacation which could have led to a civil war and many many dead. Not a nice prospect.

Actualy a civil war, when 67% of the population is an ardent supporter of the revolutionary movement and when Morales controls the army, means the destruction of the right wing. If Morales keeps letting the right wing do whatever they want, including killing peasants, it will end up overthrowing him and crushing the workers and peasants in a river of blood. We have seen this before with Allente, why is the left so fucking stupid that it can't learn from its mistakes?

[Yehuda Stern]

1. What should the attitudes of socialists marxists and communists be towards developments in latin america? Should we take advantage of the political space that has opened and intervene within it, or should we just posture and talk to each other in meetings and in internet chatrooms extoling ultra leftist slogans and bemoaning the lack of purity of movements in latin america and therefore becoming irrelevant.

That's a pretty false way of putting it. I never suggested abstaining from the movement, when one exists (which certainly doesn't seem to be the case in Bolivia at the moment) - but intervening and taking advantage of the opportunities it suggests doesn't mean to blindly follow Morales, but to effectively put forward one's politics.

We can probably have a whole discussion on how to effectively apply principles of propaganda and agitation to Bolivia, but that's not really the issue here. The debate is between two approaches to socialism; the first is that of all sorts of middle class leftists, who know that Morales will betray the movement, know that he is incapable of overthrowing the bourgeoisie, but lie to the workers on that because they don't want to challenge their backwards consciousness, because they have no faith in them, because they treat them like mindless children who must be goaded into becoming Marxists; since you're clearly somewhat unenthusiastic about Morales himself, I unfortunately have to speculate that, consciously or not, you subscribe to that idea. The other is the one that we hold, of always telling the workers the truth, always telling them what is, because we trust that they can become Marxists without and actually only if they know and understand the truth.

2. How is Morales Bourgeois ? Please elaborate

I don't think I said he's bourgeois (though that is also true); his party is. How? Maybe because it was created by coca growers and is led by one.

EDIT: By the way, Eat the Rich, I think your posts in this thread were good. But since I see you're an IMT supporter, I must ask - doesn't most of what you have written apply just as easily to Chavez?