[Marxism] Against or for Morales?

Joaquín Bustelo jbustelo at bellsouth.net
Sun Feb 19 11:03:16 MST 2006

I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

Here I was trying to suggest that all this  bunk about a fundamental
analysis on the basis of class forces and so on was bunk, and did a
little thing around Hitler as a parody so as not to overly inflame
things. And here comes Rod, and apparently takes it for good coin.

So now let me try to make amends by stating what I think in plain,
declarative sentences.

Both sociologically and politically, the character of the Bolivian
government is petty-bourgeois. What the government actually represents,
with whatever imperfections, including essentially stray and alien
elements in one or another position --something absolutely inevitable at
this stage-- is the national movement of the Bolivians as a people, and
in particular, the project to reconstitute and refound the Bolivian
nation around its indigenous core as the only possible way forward.

The fundamental reason for this manifesting in this way right now is
that, thus far, the proletariat has been unwilling or unable to
constitute itself as the leading class of *the nation,*  and quite
specifically of the *new* Bolivia, not the old one.

So that failure of the national movement to acquire a distinctly and
openly proclaimed proletarian character is not *in any sense whatsoever*
due to the weakness of Morales or the MAS, but to the *immaturity* of
class relations, above all in the political sphere, and which is
characteristic of colonial and semicolonial countries. 

The fundamentally antagonistic character of the projects represented by
the capitalist class on one side and the working class on the other have
not yet become clear to the Bolivian masses. It is only in the struggle
over what a new Bolivia will be like that there is a *possibility* of
this fundamental divide becoming evident for the masses and for them to
weigh in decisively through anticapitalist action.

The position of RR and the other comrades who think like him is one of
simply liquidating the national question. It is an absurdly idealist,
almost religious position which denies the national character and forms
of the struggle underway, reducing his own position to a bad caricature
of economism (see the various hypothetical scenarios RR presents about
workers in a factory with their armed committees overthrowing the
government because the boss won't give them another 25 cents an hour).

But --and it pains me to have to say this, but it needs to be said,
there's simply no way to avoid it-- this is not simple economism but
imperialist economism, the economism of imperial privilege. Of people in
the imperialist country telling the masses in the semicolonial country
to abandon the struggle against imperialist domination --the imperialist
domination of RR's very "own" bourgeoisie and its state. 


More information about the Marxism mailing list