[Marxism] fronting for Morales

Stuart Munckton stuartmunckton at gmail.com
Wed Jun 18 21:28:31 MDT 2008


Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but in order not to get bogged down in false
debates and counter-positions I agree with Saint Just and, as I assume is a
reasonable starting point for people on a Marxist mailing list, think that
in Bolivia there is a need for the capitalist state to be dismantled,smashed
whatever and replaced with a revolutionary state based on the
self-organisation of the oppressed.

Not only do I not think that Morales has liberated the state (I said
government, but even that was probably not made explicit enough that I was
referring to the formal winning of positions, which, as I did say is "very
different from winning power in the real sense") from imperialism and its
local allies, I don't think he can. This can only be carried out by the
great mass the oppressed themselves.

If such a thing had occurred in October 2003 or in the 2005 uprising that
would have been great.

But sometimes victories are partial, for many reasons and not always because
of either mistakes of the leadership or because leadership is in the hands
of those in who don't wish to carry out a successful revolution. No one can
deny that the gains in Bolivia is anything more than partial. However, while
very partial, it is a gain that formal positions have been taken from the
hands of imperialism's agents. To say "liberated" is probably to imply more
than what has been won, because the actual operation of the government is
tied to the political and economic framework of the country.

However, in the struggle to overturn that framework, it is a step forward to
take those positions although it requires those position to be used in a
useful way. Here there seems a real difference, because you think it was a
step back, which is based, I guess, on the argument that something further
could have been won in 2003 or 2005, or already existed on the ground.

Leaving that aside, the gains associated with the MAS government (which I
assume we can agree there have been some) are a product of and reflection of
the social struggle, as are the gains associated with nationalisations,
social programs etc - as partial as these things are.

This is understood by imperialism — it wants the government back. Of course,
it is not the individuals it is worried about, but the mass movement behind
it, however two are linked. It is in the interest of the mass movement to
prevent the fascist-minded oligarchy from getting rid of the MAS government.
The danger is immense, I think we all agree.

When you have only won a partial victory, there is no room to stand still.
Things will either go forwards or go back. Insert Saint Just quote here.

However, simply recongising that doesn't end the question. The question is
how Morales, and the strategy he promotes,  fits into this struggle, about
which different opinions are being expressed, particularly on the state of
that struggle at different points.

Stuart



More information about the Marxism mailing list