I
ON THE CLASS NATURE OF THE CHANGE OF AUTHORITIES IN THE OLD BOLIVIAN
On October 20, 2025, in the early hours of the morning, according to information from the reactionary media, it was learned that:
“Centrist Rodrigo Paz won the Bolivian elections this Sunday and will be the president of the change starting November 8. According to the preliminary results announced by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), Paz won with 54% of the votes over Jorge "Tuto" Quiroga's 45% in this Sunday's runoff, and the "trend is irreversible," according to the acting president of the TSE, Óscar Hassenteufel.
The above information has been disseminated by all the major media outlets, based on material provided by the major press agencies, which follow the well-known scheme of dividing the reactionary parties participating in the electoral farce in different countries into right-wing, center-wing, and left-wing parties. This is following the scheme of bourgeois political scientists. Thus, the true class character of these parties and their governments is hidden. All of them are in favor of defending the old order of oppression and exploitation (Chairman Gonzalo, People's War yes, elections no!).
As we have already reported, on the occasion of the results of the first round of this new electoral farce, after nearly two decades in which the MAS, representing the bureaucratic faction of the big bourgeoisie, has run the old Bolivian state, the discontent of the masses was expressed in the rejection of the MAS, which presented itself divided under different electoral banners, and the spontaneous rejection of the reactionary parties, the elections, and the institutions of the old state has grown.
These general elections, which ended on the 19th of this month, have been particularly important for the old Bolivian state due to the context of great mass discontent and the deep despair caused by the cyclical economic crisis, which has been occurring in increasingly shorter periods, particularly since 2014, when the fossil fuel export boom ended. This has also made energy costs more expensive for households and caused a shortage of dollars in an economy dependent on this currency, with the resulting increased debt to subsidize them. What we have just said allows us to better understand the information provided by the reactionary mainstream press and imperialism, which is trying to hide the true nature of the contradictions in the current situation in Bolivia.
Thus, continuing with the BBC report, which reports on the results of the contest between the two candidates representing the comprador faction of the big bourgeoisie (the so-called conservatives, in this case, by the mainstream press, a term that is repeated by lesser media such as, for example, La Jornada of Mexico or Página 12 of Argentina, etc.), it says:
“Support for the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) practically collapsed in the first round of the elections. This is partly explained by inflation reaching 23% so far this year and a shortage of fuel and dollars that has paralyzed consumer demand. Natural gas exports, once Bolivia's economic engine, have plummeted, putting pressure on the boliviano and limiting fuel imports. Disenchantment led to a need for change among voters, which translated into a dispute between two candidates who resemble those of the conservative governments of the 1990s, who championed privatization and close relations with the United States.
Quiroga, the loser this Sunday, promised a "radical change" with deep cuts in public spending and the closure or privatization of loss-making state-owned companies. But Paz, who had already received the most votes in the first round, favors a more gradual approach, maintaining social programs for the poor and while promoting the growth of the private sector. "Since the victory, we have extended our hand to govern with all those who care for the country,"
Paz said in his first speech as president-elect, in which he called for overcoming ideologies after 20 years of MAS rule. "Ideology does not feed us; what feeds us is the right to work, legal security, respect for private property, and certainty in our future," he added.”
What the BBC reports, like all major media outlets, are merely a few expressions of the widespread crisis affecting the old society of oppression and exploitation and the old state that maintains and defends it. The basis of the recurring and worsening political crisis that the country has been experiencing since approximately 2014 is the country's economic performance since the end of the so-called "commodity price boom." The economic crises of bureaucratic capitalism have followed increasingly shorter periods of recovery and increasingly lower declines. The crisis is worsening, stemming from this rigid determination of national production by factors of the imperialist world market. The Bolivian economy is now experiencing a severe economic recession. The above is an expression of the nature of its economy: semi-colonial and semi-feudal, underpinned by bureaucratic capitalism at the service of imperialism, primarily Yankee imperialism.
On the basis mentioned above, the political and other crises have worsened with the failure of the reactionary government headed by Arce of the MAS to fulfill its reactionary objectives. This has led to greater collusion and struggle between factions of the big bourgeoisie, which rules the old Bolivian state, a joint dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie and landowners, at the service of imperialism, primarily Yankee, to replace reactionary authorities through its electoral farce. A major crisis and a need to change positions from a bureaucratic government to a comprador one. This is the class nature of the change taking place at the "top."
The previous paragraphs, although they may seem repetitive, are very necessary:
First, because when the mainstream media refer to the "change" in the situation with the change of reactionary government, which returns to a government similar to "the conservatives of the 1990s," suggesting that this is a shift from "left" to "right," they are trying to sow confusion about the nature of the contradictions at the "top" and reactionary elections. They thus want to give the idea that social changes can be resolved through elections. Even more so in countries like ours, where changes in government are not only carried out through elections but also, very often, through coups d'état. This deliberate confusion is intended to "fuel their mills," equating electoral farce with bourgeois "democracy," which, in turn, encourages the "defense of democracy against fascism." In a nutshell, to the defense of bourgeois democracy. History shows in our countries that not all governments created by coup d'état have been fascist governments, nor have all governments resulting from elections been bourgeois-democratic. However, all have been reactionary governments of the lackey big bourgeoisie that rules these states.
Second, because the mainstream media equates the programs of reactionary governments with "privatization" and "pro-market" policies as "conservative or right-wing," and characterize government programs with "public investment" and "nationalization" policies as "left-wing and nationalist." But, specifically, for the last twenty years, Bolivia has had a government whose economic policy primarily focuses on state investment and so-called public or mixed-venture companies, without this meaning a government of either left-wing or socialist origins. The old society and the old State remain in place despite their further decomposition. The government at the head of this State could only represent the interests of the big bourgeoisie, serving imperialism, of one or another of its factions. As we have already said, until November, it was represented by the bureaucratic faction (led by the MAS), and from November onward, as a result of the farce, by a representative of the comprador faction (Christian Democrats).
As for the two candidates running in the second round, they are divided on economic issues based on investment and private enterprise, and on policy, on "close relations with the United States." Their differences are secondary: one advocated a shock policy without painkillers, and the other, a similar policy, but, as they say, "a slow, anesthetized death." In short: Quiroga ran for office as the standard-bearer of "radical change" with an economic policy based on investment and enterprise. Paz, the winner, advocated for "a more gradual approach," "maintaining social programs for the poor while promoting private sector growth." That's why he's called a centrist.
But both are in favor of closer relations with the United States. First, the exploitative economic relations between Yankee imperialism and Bolivia were never broken. Bolivia maintained its status as a semi-colonial country, dependent on imperialism, primarily Yankee imperialism, a status that not only persisted but worsened. At the government level, some problems arose, but, as we wrote in October 2017: "Demagogy based on reactionary theories (...) that seek to deny the existence of capitalism in its final phase or imperialism, reducing it to the political category of 'empire,' is why Morales can launch furious 'attacks' against the 'empire' and, at the same time, go to New York to meet with representatives of Yankee financial capital and demand their investments."
The economic policy of the Morales and Arce governments was subject to the rigid dictates of the World Bank, the IMF, and the IDB; Financial constraints increased: "sovereign debt" issued through Yankee banks grew; Bolivia's international reserves in dollars reached a historic record, allowing it to guarantee payment in dollars for its imports, such as derivatives from its own exported oil and gas; Also, manage its economy without resorting to IMF loans and project an image of independent politics. But now, with the crisis, its reserve dollars have dried up, and it has to resort to IMF loans, as Paz himself announced during the runoff campaign:
"Paz will have to confront the severe economic problems plaguing the country. At the end of September, Paz announced plans for a US$1.5 billion economic cooperation agreement with the United States to secure fuel supplies. And to achieve this, he hopes to count on international support, especially from the United States.
US
Secretary of State Marco Rubio had stated this week that both
presidential candidates wanted "stronger and better relations
with the United States" after decades of anti-US leadership.
"These elections are an opportunity for transformation," he
said on Wednesday.”
The development of bureaucratic capitalism promoted by the MAS government for the benefit of imperialism, the big bourgeoisie, and the landowners. Violating their own Constitution, "superimposing the rights of the Bolivian people enshrined in the constitutional text," they grant all kinds of privileges to large imperialist corporations, the big native bourgeoisie, and the landowners for the hegemonic control of these resources and the ever-increasing concentration of large land ownership, driving dispossession and affecting the rights of the people, peasants, and Indigenous peoples. The result: the MAS government's failure in its reactionary tasks, a worsening of the country's situation, and a change in the "altitudes."
The situation will not be any better for the new reactionary government, which will have to navigate amidst greater collusion and struggle at the top, while the masses are mobilized against the ever-worsening situation. The struggles and protests of the masses threaten to be far greater than those seen so far. As summarized by the aforementioned imperialist news agency:
"Economic Challenges. Economists warn that the incoming government faces immediate challenges, including ensuring fuel supplies and forming coalitions in a fragmented legislature.
Outgoing Hydrocarbons Minister Alejandro Gallardo said last week that the state-owned energy company was having difficulty obtaining foreign currency to import fuel.
Paz said he was already addressing the problem through deferred payment agreements with fuel suppliers to ensure diesel and gasoline arrive within days of his inauguration. He also said he would begin phasing out universal fuel subsidies. Targeted support would go to vulnerable groups, while larger industries, such as agribusiness, would pay market rates for fuel. "The market will have to adjust prices, but there are sectors that will have our support until the economy is reactivated," he said.
Bolivia's main union, the Bolivian Workers' Central (COB) had warned that it would oppose any threat to the social and economic gains it has made, and stressed that the incoming government will need political skill to avoid the specter of street protests. (These opportunists, as always, are giving their bosses advice on how to better oppress the working class, our note)
Paz will not have a majority in Congress, so he will need to reach agreements, especially with the deputies who support Quiroga, who was defeated this Sunday.”
Of all the above, for us, the most important thing is that the objective situation favorable to the revolution has continued to develop throughout this century, and this does not stop.
The country's situation, as a consequence of its condition, will continue to deteriorate, each time leading to greater crises of every kind, and the struggle of the masses will intensify. This fulfills the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Gonzalo Thought: that bureaucratic capitalism matures the conditions for revolution.
The problem is not that the masses do not want it, but that the Maoists must assume their role and reconstitute their party. Otherwise, all kinds of opportunists and revisionists in the service of imperialism and reaction will continue to ride roughshod over the struggle of the masses and their generously shed blood.
II
Development of the revolutionary situation in Bolivia
- Crisis of bureaucratic capitalism and rise of the mass struggle -
To document what we say, we transcribe below our post or article published on this same blog on October 13, 2017, in Bolivia: With the policy of the "new model of nationalizations," the Morales-García government serves the greatest imperialist plunder while trying to lull the consciousness of the masses.
“October 13, 2017
Bolivia: With the “new model of nationalization” policy, the Morales-García government serves the greatest imperialist plunder while trying to lull the conscience of the masses
In the following days, we will publish some critical notes from the review: “The Russian Revolution, according to García Linera” by Emir Sader, in the Opinion section of the Argentine newspaper Página 12, June 22, 2017, a newspaper that represents the positions of one of the groups in the Argentine bureaucratic faction. In his review, Emir Sader, an intellectual in the pay of Lula and Dilma's PT, is full of praise from beginning to end for this García Linera, an opportunistic and cunning individual who serves as vice president of Bolivia in the MAS government headed by E. Morales, presenting him as a great revolutionary in theory and practice and as one of the greatest intellectuals Latin Americans. From what we've just said, it's necessary to examine what the Morales-García government is doing in Bolivia. Therefore, before getting into the subject, we'll take a long look at the facts that reveal the true nature of the government and its figures.
Well,
there's this Sader who acts as a courtier of the pen. We're
interested here in contrasting the quotes or references from the
sycophant Garcia Linera—that is, his opportunist vision, which
corresponds to the ruling class faction governing the old Bolivian
state—with the historical significance, lessons, and development of
the Great October Bolshevik Revolution established by those who led
it during the long period of its preparation, triumph, and
continuation until Khrushchev's revisionist counterrevolutionary coup
and the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. That is, in the words
of the great Lenin and Stalin. Likewise, we want to point out the
lessons and tasks that Maoists draw from this great historical
experience.
Some history:
The development of the revolutionary situation, the deepening crisis of bureaucratic capitalism in Bolivia, and the mass struggle that has been on the rise since the beginning of the 21st century. A consequence of this objective situation is the succession of comprador faction governments.
The Bolivian reaction seeks a way out of the crisis through successive elections and changes of government (in a bitter struggle between the factions of the big bourgeoisie). A new government was appointed through elections in 2005, which took office in 2006. It was one of the bureaucratic factions of the big bourgeoisie. This new reactionary government, led by opportunism (the MAS government, with Morales and García Linera as president and vice president).
Constitutional solution to the crisis (temporary and relative): "Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia"
Elections and a constituent assembly are key elements of the classic reactionary solution to the political crisis and the averting of revolution (a counterrevolutionary solution). This change of government, from one faction of the big bourgeoisie (the comprador faction) to another (the bureaucratic faction), and a "new" Constitution, are the rotten merchandise that the opportunists in Bolivia's reactionary government want to sell as a revolution.
Grand speeches by opportunists, filled with "anti-imperialist," "nationalist," "revolutionary," "Indianist," "good living" and "Pacha Mama" demagoguery, which are poured into the constitutional text, contradictory to other contents of the same text, expressing the class essence of the Constitution, which is what the MAS government (superimposing on the "symbolic" rights and demands of indigenous peoples) imposes on the country and the Bolivian people, as we will see below.
Demagoguery based on reactionary and outdated theories of "postmodernism"
Demagoguery based on reactionary and outdated theories of "postmodernism," "post-developmentalism," and "post-Marxism." These theories seek to deny the existence of capitalism in its final phase, or imperialism, reducing it to the political category of "empire." This is why Morales can launch furious "attacks" against the "empire" and, at the same time, meet in New York with representatives of Yankee financial capital and demand their investments.
Demagoguery that seeks to deny the semi-feudal and semi-colonial nature of society, where bureaucratic capitalism thrives, reducing it to a problem of identity, that is, the symbolic recovery of the "Indian" from the domination imposed by the colony, denying the class division and class struggle in Bolivia.
They deny the need for the new democratic revolution, lumping it together with so-called "developmentalist" theories, declaring them superseded by the "conception of the good life" of indigenous peoples, according to their ancestral representations and customs.
They deny the economic basis of social phenomena, development subject to objective laws, objective truth. They seek support from the theorists of postmodernism, who maintain that there is always a truth beyond what is perceived by the subject, the "phenomenological access to what makes a thesis a thesis." These opportunists seek their ideological justification in the representatives of this movement, according to whom, "the subjective world and the objective world inhabit the same sphere of discourse." This, for example, they say: "does not negate the difference between art and other discourses, such as the anthropological treatise, for example," different experiences of "how meaning has been naturalized in the world, how our horizon of language, our supposedly objective world, has been constituted."
Subjective idealism that denies that social being determines social consciousness, and the importance of the latter, of the dominance of the superstructure, where—according to Marxism—political change precedes economic change (the revolution).
Reactionary rehashes of a supposed "Indianist" "revolution," which is the counterrevolution, fascism with its paraphernalia, the vernacular disguise, to contrast the need for the revolution of new democracy and socialism to communism.
Remember that the "postmodern" "discourse" denies objective truth, they say, that this is "rationalism," which "has led to all totalitarianisms." Truth, for them, is how the subject perceives reality, as follows: “Lacan argues that truth decompletes the totality of knowledge, that it obliterates accepted knowledge. And this not because it formulates a more exact version of the objective world, but because it touches the real that is occluded by the knowledge that constitutes the objectivity of the world (…) Or, to put it in formalist jargon, truth is what defamiliarizes knowledge, what, by touching the real, makes a corridor so often traveled be perceived differently” (all quotations about postmodernism have been taken from: Lacan's On Knowledge and Truth, 1981: chapter 7, cited by Ubilluz, in “New Subaltern Subjects,” Ibero Americana, No. 37, March 2010, Berlin, p. 135 et seq.).
This interpretation of truth as something belonging to "discourse," this idealistic "anti-totalitarian" subjectivism, paradoxes of objective history, has found its maximum reactionary expression in the arch-reactionary demagoguery of Trump's imperialist nationalism with his "post-truth" and "fake news."
Development
of bureaucratic capitalism driven by the government for the benefit
of imperialism, the lackey big bourgeoisie, and the landowners Speech
after speech by these opportunists. Meanwhile, like the previous
governments of the comprador faction (the "neoliberal
governments"), they open the doors wide open for imperialist and
lackey big bourgeoisie investment; for the exploitation of the
natural resources of the soil and subsoil, for export; that is, to
satisfy the needs of the imperialist world market.
Development of bureaucratic capitalism driven by the government for the benefit of imperialism, the big bourgeoisie, and the landowners. Violating their own Constitution, "overriding the rights of the Bolivian people enshrined in the constitutional text," they grant all kinds of privileges to large imperialist corporations, the indigenous bourgeoisie, and landowners for the hegemonic control of these resources and the ever-increasing concentration of large land ownership, driving dispossession and violating the rights of the people, peasants, and Indigenous peoples. Vice President García Linera occupies a prominent place in this reactionary task of handing over the country's wealth to imperialism. Those who cunningly act to satisfy imperialism's greed for raw materials, resorting to all the techniques of occultism and political prestidigitation to deceive the people:
"In 2013, Vice President Álvaro García Linera announced the opening of protected areas to oil extraction activities; the authority's announcement came too late because the protected areas had already been inadvertently incorporated into the new oil frontier, which by then had grown from nearly 3 million hectares to more than 24 million hectares. In 2014, the new mining law defined a regulatory framework exceptionally favorable to private and foreign miners, who received preferential rights over those of the rest of the population. The new law ended up legalizing countless illegal ventures under the guise of per-established rights. Mining actors were given preferential rights over water resources, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, and protected areas and forests were left at the mercy of expansion." mining.” (Report: Geography of Extractivism in Bolivia, Georgina Jiménez, CEDIB researcher)
This government is promoting the further penetration of bureaucratic capitalism into agriculture, evolving the semi-feudal base and increasing the concentration of land in the hands of landowners:
In 2015, an Agricultural Summit held by the government, the agro-export sector, and organizations co-opted by the government (a "summit" or corporate agricultural council, as we see it) resulted in the subsequent approval of several decrees that, among other things, favored agro-export activity by legalizing illegal deforestation, allowing the destruction of new forest areas to expand the agricultural frontier, and postponing verification of compliance with the Social Economic Function of agrarian property (...) under the pretext of guaranteeing food security for the population.
The regulatory development in favor of extractive activities has not ceased and ended in the last half of 2015, further increasing the extension of the hydrocarbon frontier, which already encompasses an area greater than 30 million hectares and includes a large and sensitive region of the Bolivian Amazon.” (Report cited)
Another report, revealing the latifundist nature and the impulse of bureaucratic capitalism in agriculture promoted by the government, states the following:
"Between 2010 and 2014, Bolivia increased the volume of imported food by 39%. In monetary terms, this increase was 48%. (...) In this scenario of a dual land tenure model (large and small properties) coupled with the rhetoric about "Mother Earth," the country's agrarian regulations suffer from a bipolarity in their use. They serve to disguise a policy in favor of communities, but in reality, the use of the imposed regulation strengthens the agribusiness agricultural model.
In this context, new forms of subordination and subjugation of small peasant and indigenous landowners by large landowners are emerging. This is the case with the advance of the agricultural frontier in Guaraní areas. One form is the expansion of monocultures (soy, sorghum, chia, etc.) to peasant and indigenous crops. Another form is the recruitment of peasant and indigenous labor into agricultural enterprises and large ranches, leaving the community depopulated by young people and adults and becoming a residence for the elderly and children. Yet another form is the disruption of the unity and territorial continuity of the TCOs through land leasing to third parties; islands of cattle ranches or monocultures are introduced within them, where in some cases community members are employed as day laborers.
The result of these relations of subordination is food dependency among community members. They have slightly more access to cash, but with it they buy processed foods. They lose their status as producers of foods rich in nutritional, cultural, and food sovereignty value; in exchange, they become consumers of junk food, pawns of agribusiness" (Summary of the Seminar "Agrarian Reconfiguration and the Indigenous and Peasant Movement in Bolivia," July 28, 2016).
The
regulatory development in favor of extractive activities has not
ceased and ended in the last half of 2015, further increasing the
extension of the hydrocarbon frontier, which already encompasses an
area greater than 30 million hectares and includes a large and
sensitive region of the Bolivian Amazon. (Report: Geography of
Extractivism, cited above)
Violent dispossession of peasants and Amazonian peoples: under the state definition of the strategic nature of the extractive activities of "multinationals"
"Violent dispossession of peasants, all under the state definition of the strategic nature of these extractive activities, has generated latent conflict that periodically erupts in violent situations between actors disputing interests over the same territory. Indigenous peoples have been significantly affected by this expansion of the extractive frontier into their territories, and it deprives them of the right to territorial management granted to them by the Constitution, but they are not the only ones affected.
In fact, the new frontier Extractive activity overlaps with the territorial and/or property rights of indigenous peoples, but also of peasant communities, rural and peri-urban populations, and also overlaps with the properties and rights of private individuals (...) the extractive frontier advances without encountering any limits." (Report already cited)
The government of the old landowning-bureaucratic State, at the service of imperialism, primarily Yankee, "superimposes" (that is, imposes) the "rights" of the powerful companies of imperialist capital and the native big bourgeoisie over the rights ("symbolically" protected in the Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia) of the weakest and most unprotected by the old State:
"The outlook is bleak (...) overlapping rights and (...) the impact extends to the country's rich natural heritage and to the national protected areas essential to maintaining the country's biodiversity and fragile ecological balance. (Subjected) to the voracious exploitation of natural resources at the hands of private individuals and/or companies. "Foreign investment threatens social and environmental impacts of a magnitude previously unknown."
What is the difference between this government and previous ones, that is, those from the early 1990s until 2005?
Let us ask ourselves, then, what is the difference between this government and previous ones, that is, those from the early 1990s until 2005, in terms of the surrender of natural resources to the Yankee, Spanish, Dutch, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc. imperialists (called "extractivism")?
We have established that the difference lies in the faction of the big bourgeoisie that governs the country, whether comprador or bureaucratic. Others, although not Maoists, reach a similar conclusion, as can be read in the following quote:
"Among the aspects that distinguish progressive governments (for us, reactionary governments of the bureaucratic faction of the big bourgeoisie with the participation of opportunists) from neoliberal ones on the issue of extractivism are greater control by the State rather than the market, a growing percentage of profits, income, and taxes, and increased social spending on the population. The imposition of projects, their impacts, and the nuanced repression are similar in both systems."
And they ask once again: "Are there distinct extractivisms between the left and the right? What is the panorama in the region?" In their response, they denounce these "progressive" governments as follows:
"After the rise of progressive governments in Latin America with greater state participation or 'post-neoliberal' governments, the term neo-extractivism, of a progressive type, began to be coined, as suggested by Gudynas (2009). But what is new or progressive about this extractivism?2
THE CASE OF ECUADOR, VERY SIMILAR TO THAT OF BOLIVIA
"Let's look at an example: with the coming to power of President Rafael Correa (2007), a new political constitution was established (2008), which included the concepts of a pluricultural state and the rights of nature, among others. This generated the expectation of a change in extractivism. But this was not the case; instead, extractivism, as the prevailing form of accumulation since colonial times, deepened.
Furthermore, President Correa's position is that to move away from extractivism, more extractivism is needed. This is partly explained by the fact that the profits from extractivism finance social programs (welfare) to carry out a "citizen revolution," ignoring their significant socio-environmental impact.
To increase these resources, the oil frontier was expanded into underexplored areas such as the Amazon, opening the door to large-scale metal mining. (…)
This model applied in Ecuador is serving as a model for the rest of South America (…)
According to Dávalos (2013), the Correa government has been the political regime that has invested the most in health and education, but "this spending plays a specific political role within the extractive dynamic by legitimizing it and enabling its expansion and consolidation" (n/a). In this vicious cycle of extracting for social investment provoked by extractivism, sovereignty and nationalism are reduced to seeking state profits through taxes and greater state participation in the economy. (…)
The profits are taken by the rich economies (imperialist, our note); Nothing comparable to the income from taxes and environmental and social liabilities.
Thus, key elements of extractivism with colonial roots are maintained and reproduced (...) If we look at the cases of other right-wing governments, we find something similar to "progressive extractivism" (...) Peru and Colombia export, in tons, much more than they import, and they cannot even pay for their imports."
The quotes are from: Neo-extractivism... or the same plunder? Mauricio Álvarez-Mora, Temas de nuestra América, http://dx.doi.org/10.15359/tdna.32-59.7
The country's further surrender to the imperialist plunder of the "progressive governments" (of the bureaucratic faction) is the continuation of the old bureaucratic path
Thus, the country's surrender to imperialist plunder, now under the postmodern name of "neo-extractivism" by the "progressive governments" and the bureaucratic faction, is a continuation of the old bureaucratic path in mining, hydrocarbons, agriculture, etc., of surrendering our natural resources to imperialist greed.
Let's now move on to the MAS government and continue quoting the study:
"Since Evo Morales took office as president, and amidst a context of high mineral prices, mining activity in the country has intensified, with an exponential increase in the volumes of mineral extraction and exports. This increase, presented as a reactivation of mining and an overcoming of the adverse conditions of the neoliberal era, is, however, nothing more than the deepening of extractive activity: we have increased extraction rates, but the focus of mining activity has not changed at all. We exploit our resources to export them as raw materials, moving further and further away from the goal of adding value to our resources and promoting a firm industrialization policy (see Figure 6). Moreover, between 2005 and 2013, the export of minerals as concentrates (raw minerals) has been consolidated, and there has been a decline in the percentage of minerals exported as metallic minerals (minerals that undergo smelting). falling from 5.52% in 2005 to just 2.76% in 2013 (Figure 7).
The new mining law approved in 2014 has granted preferential rights to private mining actors (small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, transnational corporations, and leadership groups of former state-owned mining company workers who, through agreements with the current government, have been declared cooperatives without actually being so) and has consolidated their role as a mere appendage of the State in mining activity. The new law does not resolve the sector's problems, nor does it regulate the activity to guarantee the best interests of the Bolivian people; on the contrary, it encourages the expansion of mining areas (formerly concessions) throughout the national territory, including their expansion into eastern Bolivia, the Amazon, and protected areas, which were prohibited before the law was passed.
The consultation, as has become a constant feature of all legislation under Evo Morales's government, has been reduced to a mere formality, and indigenous peoples have been stripped of many of their rights enshrined in treaties and the Constitution.
The rest of the Bolivian people have lost any possibility of protest, advocacy, or resistance to mining activity, as the law criminalizes citizen protest and establishes immediate protection mechanisms for mining actors. Any action by society that creates an unwelcome environment is immediately protected by the State, which uses public force. Foreign companies control the markets for zinc, silver, and lead, the minerals with the largest volumes of exploitation and export, and the strategic role of this activity has been left in the hands of transnational corporations such as Coeur d'Alene (USA), Glencore Xstrata (Switzerland), and the giant Sumitomo (Japan), which owns the largest open-pit mine in the country through its San Cristóbal company. The Bolivian state has few mining operations, of which only the Huanuni tin deposit, Colquiri, the Vinto smelter, and the lithium project in the Uyuni salt flats stand out. However, despite all this, it barely intervenes, with 3.71%, in the exploitation of minerals that are significant today due to their volume and export value" (Cited Report).
"The consultation is a mere formality... Indigenous peoples have been stripped of many of their rights enshrined in treaties and the Constitution."
The ineffectiveness of the Constitution and the laws is clear. They are ineffective against the voracity of imperialist capital and the big bourgeoisie and landowners protected by their old state. Further plundering of the country is encouraged and facilitated by the government, led by opportunists, with its "indigenous" rhetoric, trying to hide the objective reality of oppression and exploitation and its own servility, as the facts reveal. Specific, as we read in the Report we have been citing:
“(...) The country's rich biodiversity is part of the natural heritage of the Bolivian people, a heritage that enjoys protections contemplated in laws and in the Constitution itself; nearly 60 protected areas have been created to safeguard it, 22 of which are national in nature and have regulations that prohibit and/or restrict the development of extractive activities within them. Many of the territories of indigenous peoples overlap with protected areas (...) (which) have always been coveted by national and foreign private capital (...) the objective of this capital has not been achieved until now (due to) the regulatory context (...) Today, this scenario is becoming increasingly favorable due to state policies and the government's decision to promote a development model based on the commodification (of natural resources) (...) Pablo Villegas N (says in this regard): "This model not only directs and distorts the national economy but also the country's political life and its relationship with the environment." Deforestation and expansion of the agricultural frontier for the benefit of the agro-export sector" (Cited Report)
Expansion of the agricultural frontier to benefit the "agro-export sector," that is, the greater penetration of bureaucratic capitalism into agriculture based on large estates and new forms of serfdom (evolution of semi-feudalism), the report states:
"However, the expansion of the agricultural frontier is not equivalent to increased food production for domestic consumption, (...) its falsity is demonstrated by the data that record who causes the most deforestation and for what purpose, and the data on the growing import of basic foodstuffs consumed by the Bolivian people (Figures 2 and 3, see above)."
In the case of agricultural exports (...) the benefit of exports is almost exclusively for the agro-export sector since they not only receive subsidies for the consumption of diesel necessary for their activity, they are reimbursed the taxes they must pay for their activity and receive other benefits such as the relaxation of legal regulations and even pardon for crimes committed (such as illegal deforestation). As if that were not enough, soybean production (...) is an activity that primarily benefits foreign actors in the country (Figures 4 and 5)" (Report cited). Regarding food imports, see the quote from the Agricultural Reconfiguration Seminar above...)
The "cooperative sector" at the service of the corporate reorganization of Bolivian society promoted by the fascist MAS regime
But some will say that all this is not the same, because the government has promoted mining cooperatives, etc. Therefore, to reveal the economic and political nature of these organizations, we quote the following:
"The cooperative sector, made up primarily of private individuals entrenched in the leadership of former unions, has achieved a favorable and specific regime that allows them, under the false guise of cooperatives, control over a large part of the national territory through concessions obtained for important deposits, particularly gold, even though these deposits are almost always superimposed on property and/or territorial rights of other sectors. Today, these so-called cooperatives have nearly 130,000 workers, many of whom are poorly paid laborers employed by an employer under illegal contracts and exploitative conditions.
The cooperative leaders have seized 16% of the entire surface area that constitutes the mining exploitation frontier, a larger percentage of concessions than the state-owned mining company has. Having become strategic political allies of the current government, the cooperative members wield significant influence in the political and economic context: they enjoy significant parliamentary representation, a quota in the executive branch that allows them to control several positions within sectoral authorities, and, through the new law, have obtained special privileges such as tax exemption, the ability to evade labor and social security laws, environmental regulations, and investment obligations. (Report cited above)
These cooperatives and the "cooperativists," who come from the "labor aristocracy," are the operators of the corporate system and intermediaries of big capital in the mining sector. This is the political and economic nature of these cooperatives and their operators, serving the corporate reorganization of Bolivian society promoted by the fascist MAS regime (Morales-García).
Unequal contracts that undermine the country's interests are more subservient than in previous eras:
“(...) the tax and royalty conditions of the neoliberal era have not been modified, and the profits the activity generates for the State are so insignificant (around 9 to 10%) that they do not even reach the 13.50% that the Tin Barons guaranteed for the State and are far from the 56% that the State obtained after the nationalization of the Tin Barons' mines, which was obtained even during the government of dictator Hugo Banzer (Figure 10).
There is not a single step forward in the country's development; rather, it is going backward:
“Mining exports consist mainly of concentrates and, to a lesser extent, metallic minerals (minerals that undergo smelting). Between 2005 and 2013, concentrate production more than doubled, while metallic mineral production remains insignificant. So far we have not managed to change our status as a primary exporting country. Production volumes in FMT of concentrates and metals (Administration 2005 to 2013) Source: Data from the presidential report Gestión 2013. (Report cited)
After the “nationalizations” of 2006, in the hydrocarbon sector, the exploitation of these non-renewable resources and the profits of large imperialist companies have increased exponentially: “After the “New Type of Nationalization” decreed in 2006 by the government of Evo Morales7 and after the signing of new contracts that turned transnational corporations into strategic partners of the State, oil companies had to comply with the provisions of the 2005 Hydrocarbon Law, which requires the State to withhold 50% of the commercial value of hydrocarbons under the guise of a 32% Direct Tax (IDH) and 18% as royalties for the exploitation of a resource that is not "renewable"
Figure 12 In short, simple percentage changes that companies have more than offset:
“(...) by transnational corporations with the increase in hydrocarbon extraction and export volumes in a favorable context of rising prices from 2004 to 2012. The value of exports, which in 1999 was $63 million, increased more than 91 times by 2012 when the reported value reached $5.742 billion. (Figure 11) Both conditions (increasing prices and higher export volumes) have allowed transnational corporations, now partners of the State in the oil business, to obtain even greater profits than those they achieved in the neoliberal era when they appropriated 82% of the value of exports. The relationship between what oil companies have lost and what they have gained can be graphed with the following data: in 2004, the value of hydrocarbon exports reached $815 million; of that amount, the companies they appropriated 82% of the value, equivalent to US$668.3 million. In 2011, with the new contracts in place, the value of oil exports reached US$3,862.02 million. Of this total, the companies received a compensation equivalent to 34.93% of the export value, consisting of reimbursement of incurred costs plus a share of the profits. The State, on the other hand, retained 64.27% of the total export value: 50% from IDH and royalties, and 14.27% from profits for YPFB. Although the percentages of the export value they managed to retain were significantly reduced, rising prices and increased export volumes reduced this percentage to US$1,348.95 million, or just over 100% of the amount that in 2004 represented 82% of the total export value. Exports. It is worth noting that while the retention of transnational corporations has decreased in percentage terms, in terms of gross monetary income, with nationalization and new contracts, they have more than doubled the profits they obtained before "(Figure 12, Cited Report).
With its "new nationalization model," the MAS government is trying to lull the anti-imperialist consciousness of the masses.
With the "nationalization" policy of the lackey governments of oppressed countries, they assume the political risks and try to lull the anti-imperialist consciousness of the masses with false nationalist discourses and the great benefits of the new "model," and, where appropriate, by bloodily repressing the protests of the peasantry and the broad masses against this new, more subservient and dispossessing "model."
The country assumes the economic costs of resource plunder, and the country goes into debt and mortgages its revenues from these same resources, for example, for the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure necessary for this exploitation.
In the case of Bolivia, these are "Chinese" loans for infrastructure on account of future oil sales to China; these revenues are used to pay off the foreign debt, and by maintaining reserves in the Central Bank (at a loss for the country), the repayment of these loans and the return on investments are guaranteed. After a few years of intensive and extensive exploitation, the resources are depleted, and the companies leave with their huge profits. The losses and damage are left to the country, which bears the economic, social, and environmental costs (SEE DEPENDENCE ON CHINESE CAPITAL IN LATIN AMERICA AND BOLIVIA, Gorge Campanini, CEDIB).
In this way, the propaganda of the government and imperialist companies, about the benefits obtained for the State as compensation for the increased plundering of the country's natural resources and its justification with the "social programs" promoted by the World Bank, is not only misleading, but demagogic and a betrayal of the country itself, which is increasingly thrown into the hands of imperialist greed:
"However, the figures in favor of state revenues generated by the oil business are often dangerously misleading.
These benefits have a greater cost to the country than the amount recorded as compensation to the associated companies.
The The impact on the environment, the social fabric, and the local economy of the communities whose territories are ceded as exploitation areas is an immense cost that is not recorded in official reports nor acknowledged.
The loss of oil reserves due to overexploitation and the reluctance of foreign companies to invest in their replenishment forces the government to repeatedly relax environmental regulations and the contractual obligations of companies in an attempt to entice them and attract new foreign capital."
The numbers:
Before the “new nationalization model:
” In 2004, the total value of hydrocarbon exports reached $815 million. Of that value, 82%, equivalent to US$668.30 million, was appropriated by transnational corporations, and only 18%, equivalent to US$146.70 million, was retained by the Bolivian State.”
With the “new nationalization model”:
In 2011, hydrocarbons worth US$3,862.02 million were exported. Of that amount, oil companies retained only 34.93%, equivalent to US$1,348.95 million (more than double the 82% retained in 2004). The Bolivian State retained 64.27% of the total value, equivalent to US$2,513.07 million.
And where do these state revenues go? Answer: to the same “transnational corporations” (imperialist companies) that sell fuels derived from the same oil to Bolivia. Let's see:
"By 2012, an amount equal to 75% of all IDH revenue had been used to purchase petroleum-derived fuels, which we do not sufficiently produce and on which the national energy matrix depends. In that same year, 2012, US$37.44 million was given as an incentive to companies in an attempt to convince them to support oil production, either by increasing development investments in existing fields to exploit new reservoirs or by initiating urgent exploration activities (Table 1). In the last two months of 2015, the Plurinational Assembly is discussing and has already approved in detail in the Chamber of Deputies a new law that defines extraordinary incentives for the exploitation not only of oil but also of condensates, the extraction of which does not entail any additional cost or investment for companies, since they come to the surface associated with the gas extracted from gas fields."