Latin America:
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.
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.
