On the situation in Bolivia

Shortly before the period of grace for the Bolivian government led by the so-called ‘progressive’ Mesa has expired, Bolivia is about to live through a new wave of protests and strikes against his pursuit of the same neo-liberal policy as was practised by his predecessor, the ‘butcher’ Sánchez de Losada. The COB (Bolivian workers’ confederation) has called for a general strike, for the building of barricades and last but not least, for the closure of parliament. This appeal is supported by the CSUTCB (a federation of the indigenous workers’ and land workers’ trade unions).

That the COB calls for overthrowing the government and closing down the parliament in case these institutions don’t satisfy its demands proves that the masses of Latin America believe more and more in encountering the solution to their problems outside the limits of the democratic institutions. They take up forms of direct action; thus questioning the very survival of the bourgeois democracy of the rich and the corporations.

These democracies, supported by the USA and the EU, only serve to exploit the human and primary resources of the semi-colonies. They are only attempting to give their greed for profit a certain legitimacy by maintaining the fiction of democracy and ‘free elections’. The COB’s call to close down the parliament shows that the Bolivian workers and peasants have seen through this masquerade. Now it propagates the establishment of an ‘asamblea popular’ (popular assembly), consisting of workers, peasants and some sections of the middle classes, which should, according to its plans, take over the responsibilities of parliament.

However, to be able to really defend the interests of the masses, the workers, the peasants and the poor, it has to be a revolutionary popular assembly, one that fights for the destruction of the ‘bourgeois’ state and in which the working class exercises its hegemony over the peasants and the middle classes.

The leftist populist Evo Morales, who up to now has been considered an advocate of the rights of the poor and the indigenous, now tries to save precisely this parliament in which the masses no longer believe. In a recent interview he has sharply criticised the COB’s call for a strike, characterising this step as ‘precipitate’ and ‘rushed’. He added, ‘Those who demand the closure of parliament do not accept the principles of democracy. They want a coup d’etat, which the US embassy and Sánchez de Lozada are also favouring.’

Evo Morales here again proves himself a reformist, one who is always talking about socialism but believes in the market economy. His whole strategy is eclectic to the bone: ‘My aim is still a socialist Bolivia, naturally respecting the honest and responsible businessmen. We are just now living through a process of profound changes in which it is advisable to apply a form of "mixed economy". Anyway, my idea is socialism without doing away with private property.’

The strategy of the MAS (Movement Towards Socialism) is limited to hoping for a victory in the 2007 elections, which might bring them to power. For them, what counts is the parliamentary game and not the ongoing social processes. Obviously Evo Morales suffers from a well-known disease: parliamentary cretinism. For him, the workers, the peasants and the indigenous only serve to bring him and the MAS to power. However, should the masses now close down parliament he would at once lose his cosy seat along with his political platform.

Felipe Quispe – ‘the Mallku’ – hit the nail on the head when he explained Morales’ posture by saying: ‘Evo Morales is part of the government lead by Mesa. That is why he criticises the trade unions.’

Unlike Evo Morales and the MAS, the COB wants to fight for the reestablishment of the ‘popular assembly’ in case the members of parliament do not decide in favour of the people and punish Sánchez de Lozada. As a consequence, parliament has decided to get out off the line of fire and move to the city of Sucre, a comparatively rich and quiet community.

Class struggle or war between brothers?

Meanwhile, the bourgeoisie tries to fend off their looming downfall true to the old principle of: ‘divide et impera’ (divide and rule). Bourgeois Bolivian nationalism endeavours to explain Bolivia’s economic backwardness and dependency by putting all the blame on the loss of its access to the sea after the Pacific War of 1879. In this war Bolivia and Peru on one side fought against Chile, which, thanks to massive support from England, was victorious.

Naturally they fail to mention the fact that it was exclusively British imperialism that had any profit from this war between brothers. By blaming all Bolivia’s economic problems on its lack of access to the coast, the bourgeoisie drives a wedge between the Chilean and the Bolivian proletariat. Their aim is to make the Bolivian masses believe that it is the Chilean workers and peasants who are to blame for their economic problems and not the big international companies. It is not because of the exploitation by the national and international bourgeoisie that the Bolivian workers and peasants are poor, no, it is because the vile Chilean workers and peasants stole their chunk of the coast from them more than a hundred years ago. This tactic of the bourgeoisie aims at finding a convenient scapegoat to satisfy the angry masses. They endeavour to make the workers and peasants fight each other, thereby preventing their uniting and turning on the common enemy, the bourgeoisie. It is more than obvious that those who fight, suffer and die in such a nationalist war are mainly workers and peasants and their families. The capitalists and their children are never in the front line when it comes to fighting and dying. They are not the first who suffer hunger because of the scarceness of food produced by war; their money can always buy them something to eat. Should the nationalist adventure eventually founder, the really rich can even go abroad for some time or at least provide their families with a comfortable life in exile. From whatever point of view, it is obvious that the only one who can profit from such a war between brothers is the bourgeoisie; the proletariat, whether Chilean, Bolivian or Peruvian, can only lose.

To put it bluntly, this whole nationalist rhetoric is only a diversionary tactic employed by the bourgeoisie which serves both to disguise who really is to blame for all the poverty, and even make a profit out of it, and to give the justified, bottled-up wrath of the masses an easy and convenient outlet. Once the exploited fight each other they won’t have any energy left to turn against the bloodsuckers who are responsible for their plight. That way the position of the national and international bourgeoisie remains untouched. With this manoeuvre, the bourgeoisie attempts to kill two birds with one stone.

Even the reportedly very progressive, reformist MAS has now taken to promoting nationalist theories. Nowadays, the most important thing for them is to regain a piece of coast lost a hundred years ago; they no longer focus on fighting the outrageous sell-off of Bolivian resources (i.e. the gas etc.) to international companies. This way the MAS classifies itself not only as clearly anti-socialist but as actually pro-bourgeoisie and their big companies. He who on the one hand supports this kind of nationalist slogans and on the other hand claims to fight for ‘socialism’ proves himself a liar.

All these opportunists who attempt to lead the Bolivian masses astray and make them believe that the real enemies are the workers, the peasants and the poor that happen to be exploited by a different regime in a different state, and not the parasitic bourgeoisie which they have to fight primarily in their own state, all these liars are nothing but traitors, even if they are constantly talking about socialism. Once the masses recognise how much harm this treacherous rabble-rousing causes, their anger and disappointment will turn against these traitors, who will disappear forever.