[Marxism] fronting for Morales

Stuart Munckton stuartmunckton at gmail.com
Wed Jun 18 19:12:45 MDT 2008


2008/6/19 <dave.walters at comcast.net>:

> I think Fred's response to Andy is sort of  a 'cheap shot'. Obviously there
> were no
> "soviets". But what WAS happening in October of 2003? Fred knows full well
> the
> kinds of mass mobilizations that were taking place including the coming
> together
> of mass organizations that could of easily lead to the *Bolivian*
> expression of
> "soviets", the Popular Assemblies.
>

I think there is a type of fantasising that goes on, whereby any expression
of institutions that could potentially form the basis of a counter-power and
pontetial new state become the equivelent of soviets in 1917. Yes, there
were in some areas popular assemblies. Was it anywhere near widespread
enough to form a counter-state power that could have replaced the existing
one? And if not, would such things have come into existence if only the
leadership around Evo Morales had urged them to? Also, what was the
consciousness of those organised in popular assemblies? To what degree did
where they seen as counter-institutions that could replace the existing
state?

It can be dangerous to take the examples of the most organised and conscious
sectors in one part of the country, and extrapolate from that the potential
for the revolutionary overthrow of the existing political structures. There
is an assumption among the far left or sections of it that the masses are
always on the verge of rising up to smash the state, only to be held back by
reformist misleaders.

No doubt there are times when this applies, but it is the default setting
that whenever there is an upsurge in mass struggle and it doesn't lead to
the revolutionary overturn of the old power, that the reason is
mis-leadership and betrayal, not actually the existing relationship of
forces based on degree of consciousness and organisation of the living mass
movement.

It is also possible that what Morales and the MAS did in that situation was
correct, that it was the best way to advance the mass movement that was not
in a position to win "all power to the soviets/popular assemblies". These
things are notoriously difficult to judge from afar.

What is clear is that, regardless of what could have been achieved in
October 2003, Morales has lead the mass movement to winning government,
though still a long way from winning power in the real sense. Nonetheless,
liberating the government from imperialism and the oligarchy is an important
victory and one the counterrevolutionary forces are currently working
overtime to overturn.

Whatever weaknesses and limitations, it is quite clear that Morales has at
least done something right to led the movement this far.


>
> Ultimately, something is going to 'give' and the revolution as it's lead by
> Morales is
> going to have to do more to confront capitalism or capitalism will do his
> gov't, and
> Bolivia, in.


Of course, that is called real-time struggle.

Stuart


>
> <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/stuartmunckton%40gmail.com>
>



-- 
"The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of
dummy?" - Jarvis Cocker



More information about the Marxism mailing list