Latin America:
BOLIVIA
Morales'
presidential victory
- a new phase in
the class struggle
With Bolivia's Evo Morales and Venezuela's
Hugo Chávez declaring an "anti-imperialist front" does this signify
a genuine movement toward socialism or will both presidents seek to
compromise with capitalism? Tony Saunois examines the prospects for
real change in the continent.
This article is taken from the website of the
socialist which is the weekly paper of the Socialist Party.
See
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/. Tony
Saunois is a member of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI).
The Socialist Party in England and Wales is an affiliate of the CWI.
For more info see http://www.socialistworld.net/
EVO MORALES of the Movement
towards Socialism (MAS) was swept to power in Bolivia's Presidential
elections held in December 2005. With more than 53% of the vote he
won a higher share of the vote than any President in the last 30
years. His election represents a new phase of the struggle of the
masses in Bolivia and has already had significant international
repercussions.
To the irritation of Bush
and US imperialism the first international visits made by Morales
were to Havana and Caracas. While on this leg of his tour he
announced that Bolivia was now joining a struggle against
neo-liberalism and forming an "anti-imperialist front" together with
Venezuela and Cuba.
Morales' overwhelming
election victory is a consequence of the massive revolutionary
uprising of the miners, peasants, public-sector workers and others
against the former President Carlos Mesa.
This tremendous mass
movement drove Mesa from office in May-June 2005. During this
movement, which included insurrectionary features, tens of thousands
took to the streets demanding nationalisation of the rich gas
reserves of Bolivia.
Mesa was the second
President in two years to be overthrown by a mass movement. His
predecessor, Sanchez Lozada was forced from office in October 2003.
These mass movements in
Bolivia formed part of a continental revolt against neo-liberalism
and privatisation which has swept Latin America during the last five
years resulting in the election of Lula, the candidate of the PT
(Workers' Party) in Brazil and Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay.
However, these
governments have continued to introduce neo-liberal, pro-imperialist
policies. The same has been true in Chile under the coalition
government of Ricardo Lagos and will be continued under the recently
elected President, Michelle Bachelet of the Socialist Party [no
relation to the Socialist Party in England and Wales - ed]. See
Chile: First woman president elected
The coming to power of Hugo
Chávez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia has been different
and opened a new chapter in these countries with important
international repercussions and lessons.
In Bolivia, the mass
struggles against the privatisations and neo-liberalism began in
2001 in Cochabamba. A popular uprising in the city prevented the
privatisation of the water industry in what became known as the
"water war".
The landslide victory of Evo
Morales is a consequence of these mass protests by the workers,
peasants and urban poor.
Indigenous
people
A central aspect of these
movements is the struggle of the indigenous people who constitute
60% of the population. Morales comes from this majority. Throughout
Latin America the emergence of the struggles of the indigenous
peoples in Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico and Chile has been an
important feature of the movement against neo-liberalism in recent
years.
In Bolivia, a form of
'apartheid' has existed. The majority indigenous population has been
left in virtual destitution in the cities - ruled over by an elite
ruling class of European descent. In El Alto, which has been at the
forefront of recent struggles 75% of the population barely survive
on less than US$2 per day. Boasting the most unequal distribution in
wealth in Latin America, the richest 20% of Bolivia's population
have an income 41 times greater than the poorest 20%.
Those who voted for Morales
did so supporting the nationalisation of the rich gas and oil
reserves and their use for the benefit of the mass of the
population.
The Bolivian people are
sickened by these resources being creamed off by the multinational
giants - Exxon (USA), Repsol (Spain), British Gas (UK) and Petrobas
(Brazil) - who have systematically economically raped the country.
These companies' tax rates were slashed from 50% to a mere 18%
during the 1990s. This 'looting' went side by side with the
privatisation of the former state oil company.
Reform
or
revolution?
However, significant
sections of the Bolivian workers' movement are wary of what Morales
will actually do now he is in office. The main trade union
confederation, COB, issued a statement after his election giving the
new government three months to nationalise gas and energy or they
would again take to the streets. The teachers' confederation has
given the new government two months to introduce better wages for
the teachers or it has warned strikes will start.
These doubts about Morales'
determination to challenge capitalism and his willingness to
compromise with it exist because of his role in the mass movements
which erupted in 2003, 2004 and 2005. During the 2003 movement
Morales was in Europe and played no role until he returned. After
Lozada was overthrown he helped prop up Mesa's government.
When a referendum was called
with rigged questions on the issue of ownership of the oil industry,
the mass organisations called for a boycott. Morales and the MAS
leadership urged participation. As a consequence of this policy he
was expelled from the COB at the time.
In the 2005 mass movement he
vacillated over support for nationalisation counter-posing to it
support for a 50% tax on the profits of the private companies.
Will Morales take decisive
measures to break with capitalism or try and reach an accommodation
with the capitalist class and imperialism?
One of his first
announcements was to reduce the Presidential and ministerial
salaries by 50% which has been very popular. He has also announced
he will not wear a tie at the official swearing-in ceremony because
it is a symbol of the ruling elite but will wear traditional clothes
of the indigenous peoples.
Yet, since winning the
election, he has sought to reassure sections of the ruling class.
Apart from Venezuela and Cuba he also visited Spain and other
European countries. The Spanish oil company Repsol has US$800
million invested in Bolivia - the second largest foreign investor.
Morales went out of his way
to reassure these Spanish companies that his government would
collaborate with them. The new Bolivian government is "going to
nationalise but it will not confiscate or expropriate". A "symbolic
nationalisation" was what he promised in Madrid. What Morales seems
to be suggesting is that the gas and oil itself would be
"nationalised" but the assets of the companies would be left in
private hands and contracts renegotiated with the links of Repsol
and Exxon.
For Morales it is a question
of building a more progressive, social capitalist economy -
capitalism with a more human face. This was the same idea that
Chavez initially defended when he first came to power in 1998.
In an interview with Journal
of Bolivian Business Morales's running mate for the vice-Presidency,
Álvaro Garc’a Linera clearly spelt out the programme of the MAS and
the new government. When asked if the MAS wanted a socialist
government he replied: "No, no way, because - it's not viable. It's
not viable because socialism can only be built on the base of a
strong proletarian presence... you don't build socialism on the base
of a family economy; you build it on the bases of industry, which
there is none in Bolivia"
These ideas are not new.
They amount to a modern application of the "two stages theory"
supported in the past by the Stalinists and Communist Parties and in
Russia by the Mensheviks before the 1917 October Revolution.
The development of industry,
introduction of land reform, establishment of a stable parliamentary
democracy and the unifying of a nation and national independence
have been the historic 'democratic' tasks of the capitalist class.
However, in the modern
historical epoch in the colonial and ex-colonial countries the
domination of imperialism, the weakness of the capitalist class tied
to the coat tails of imperialism - has meant that the national
capitalist class has been incapable of resolving the capitalist
democratic revolution.
The Bolshevik
revolutionaries Trotsky and then Lenin, explained that the weakness
of semi-feudal Russian capitalism before 1917 meant that the
carrying through of the 'democratic revolution' fell onto the
shoulders of the working class, despite being a minority in society.
Only the working class,
together with the poor peasants, by taking over the running of
society and through the introduction of a democratic state planned
economy, and by spreading such a revolution to other more developed
countries can complete these tasks.
In other words, the
democratic revolution could only be completed through the socialist
revolution. This is what Trotsky meant by 'permanent revolution'.
In the context of Latin
America today, it means the establishment of a workers' and
peasants' government in Bolivia and the introduction of a democratic
socialist plan of production and a perspective of spreading such a
revolution to the rest of the continent and establishing a voluntary
democratic socialist federation of Latin America
Yet a 'democratic
revolution' disconnected to the socialist revolution seems to be
what Morales is now advocating in Bolivia, along with Chávez in
Venezuela.
Radicalisation
Morales in Bolivia, Chávez
in Venezuela and to a degree Kirchner in Argentina, represent a
break with the dominant neo-liberalism of the 1990s. All have been
swept to power by the masses as part of a mass rejection of
neo-liberalism and privatisation. All to varying degrees have
adopted radical nationalist policies which have included greater
state intervention in the economy, including some nationalisations,
price controls and other similar measures.
Under pressure from the mass
of workers and the economic and social crisis which exists in these
countries they may also be compelled to introduce even more such
radical measures.
In the front line of these
developments are events in Venezuela headed by the radical populist
Hugo Chávez. The government he heads has come into conflict with and
been a constant source of irritation to US imperialism since it came
to power in 1998.
His radical government has
introduced significant reforms in health, education and food
distribution. These and other reforms won enthusiastic support from
the masses in Venezuela which the CWI and all socialists support.
Internationally, Hugo Chávez
in Venezuela, Fidel Castro in Cuba and now Evo Morales in Bolivia
are seen by many youth as the only radical left regimes that are
challenging US imperialism and representing an alternative to
neo-liberalism.
However, the failure to
overthrow capitalism and establish a genuine regime of workers'
democracy in Venezuela means that the threat of counter-revolution
still remains along with a threat to those reforms that have been
introduced.
The continuation of
capitalism in Venezuela and the failure to resolve the pressing
social problems, together with frustration and anger at growing
bureaucracy and waste, now threatens to undermine the revolutionary
process.
The recent parliamentary
elections, (December 2005) in which 75% of electors abstained, were
a warning of the danger facing the Venezuelan revolution. The
dangers now facing the Venezuelan revolution are also a warning to
the Bolivian masses if capitalism is not overthrown.
The level of abstention, the
highest in any Venezuelan parliamentary election, (despite an appeal
by Chávez for the masses to vote to demonstrate support for the
revolution) is not simply the result of the right-wing boycotting
the elections. It also reflected the frustration and anger felt by
workers, the urban poor and those sections of the middle class who
have supported Chávez, because of the failure of the government to
resolve the mass unemployment, poverty and housing shortages which
exist.
As a result the government
is left in worst of all possible worlds. On the one side it has
aroused the furious opposition of the Venezuelan ruling class and US
imperialism. On the other hand it has not taken decisive measures to
take over control and planning of the economy.
It is now subjected to
economic sabotage by sections of the capitalist class. There are
food shortages in Caracas and supermarkets lack coffee, chicken,
rice and other basic supplies. Poverty remains endemic. Over 80% of
the population lives below the poverty line.
When Chávez came to power in
1998 there were 3.2 million working in the informal sector. By 2005
this had increased to 5.7 million - out of a workforce of 12
million. Added to these are one million children who survive as
street sellers in Caracas and other large cities.
There is also a massive
crisis in housing in which there is a deficit of 1.6 million
dwellings. Chávez promised to build 200,000 dwellings by 2006. Yet
the budget for 2006 only includes sufficient funds for 18,490
dwellings.
Government propaganda about
building "Socialism in the 21st century" on state TV channels and
billboards is not being matched by deeds because of the failure to
overthrow capitalism.
Although capitalist
counter-revolution has been defeated on three occasions this threat
remains. It seems that a section of the anti-Chávez ruling class has
reverted to "extra parliamentary" attempts at sabotage.
Hoarding by producers, in
action reminiscent of the campaigns by the counter-revolution in
Chile in the early 1970s, has led to shortages in the super markets
and provoked Chávez to threaten nationalisation of the coffee
producers.
The emergence of the ideas
of socialism in Venezuela is an important and positive development
internationally. This, together with the demand for nationalisation
in Bolivia and the general electoral swing to the 'left' in Latin
America are an answer to those supporters of capitalism who thought
they had buried even the idea of socialism under the rubble of the
Berlin Wall.
However, the crucial
question for the Venezuelan masses is; what programme and
organisations are necessary to begin to build socialism?
Unfortunately, although Chávez poses the question of "socialism in
the 21st century" no clear programme is offered by him or his
government of how to achieve this.
21st century
socialism?
What Chávez is attempting is
to use the state, with revenue from oil production, to try and force
the ruling class to invest and develop the economy rather than
overthrow capitalism. This has included the introduction of price
controls on basic goods and some limited nationalisations - four
factories. The government has increased state intervention in the
economy but without overthrowing capitalism and portrayed this as
"socialism in the 21st century".
During 2005 a series of
infrastructure projects were announced by the government and then
given out to private contracts.
Fedecamaras, the employers
organisation, has agreed a policy of forming an "alliance with the
government to reactivate investment". Fedecamaras also organised a
conference for its members - "The role of private enterprise in
socialism in the 21st century".
The recent crisis over
coffee distribution has illustrated the impossibility of resolving
the problems facing the masses under capitalism. The price controls
on coffee reduced the profits of the employers who in turn then
provoked shortages by hoarding supplies. Although the government
threatened them with nationalisation it backed down and agreed a 60%
increase in the price of coffee.
In Venezuela, amongst the
working class and the masses, there is widespread bitterness and
opposition to the growth of bureaucratic methods - some of which
seem to have been borrowed from Castro's regime in Cuba. There,
capitalism was overthrown and a centrally planned economy introduced
but it exists together with a repressive bureaucratic state, without
a genuine workers' democracy.
In Venezuela the reforms and
increased state intervention, including some nationalisations,
although initially very popular have been carried through from above
without the conscious involvement, organisation and control of the
working class.
Even in the "recuperated
factories" - bankrupt workplaces which the government has re-opened
- they are run by government appointed officials which sometimes
include union representatives in the administration.
In some, trade unions are
not allowed to organise. Even in the government Misiones (which have
organised the education, health and literacy programmes) the workers
in them are not allowed to belong to trade unions.
The new trade union
federation, UNT, which now claims a membership of one million, was
initiated by Chávez and other leaders from above. Despite its
formation more than two years ago no national leadership elections
have been held. A crucial task facing the Venezuelan working class
is to democratise the trade unions and check and control the
bureaucratised leadership.
In Caracas, the police have
been used by the local Mayor against homeless people who have taken
over empty buildings justified by opposition to taking over "private
property".
There is not a genuine
system of workers' control whereby elected committees in the
workplaces have day-to-day control of the factories including the
organisation of production, hiring and firing, etc. The government
sponsored Misiones for food, education and health, although often
administered by activists are not democratically elected committees.
The working class, with a
collective social consciousness, with the support of other classes
exploited by capitalism and imperialism, is the decisive force to
overthrow capitalism and begin the task of building socialism.
To carry through a socialist
revolution and begin to lay the basis to develop the economy and
society the independent, conscious and active participation of the
working class and the masses is needed. Unfortunately, this has been
lacking in an organised way in Venezuela. The need for the working
class and masses to be organised independently to take the
leadership of the revolution is now urgent.
The threats facing the
revolutionary process in Venezuela need to be confronted and
overcome through the independent organisation of the working class,
urban poor, peasants and middle classes.
Democratic committees need
to be elected in the workplaces to introduce a system of democratic
workers control. Popular assemblies in the neighbourhoods to elect
committees to run and manage the Misiones need to be organised. A
programme to democratise the UNT and for it to be independent of the
government must be worked as a matter of urgency.
These bodies then need to be
linked together on a district, city-wide, regional and national
level, together with elected committees of rank and file soldiers.
Through the formation of
such democratic committees the basis could be laid for the formation
of a workers' and peasants' government with a revolutionary
socialist programme. This would include the nationalisation of all
the major companies and multinationals on the basis of democratic
workers' control and management and the introduction of a
democratically planned economy. This could then introduce an
emergency national reconstruction programme.
Only such a programme to
overthrow capitalism can defeat the threats now facing the
Venezuelan revolution. If such a programme was also enacted in
Bolivia it would allow the formation of a democratic socialist
federation of the two countries.
And on the basis of the
establishment of a genuine workers' democracy in Cuba, a socialist
federation of all three countries would allow economic integration
and planning to begin. Such a development would win the support of
the working class through Latin and central America.
Such a federation could
appeal for support from the working classes in USA and Canada and
thereby undercut threats by imperialism to challenge such a
revolutionary movement.
|
Email:
anticapitalism@hotmail.co.uk
| Tel: (020) 8558 7947 | Postal address: ISR, PO Box 858, London, E11 1YG
