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."
"Deja salir sus gritos de guerra y asalta los cielos, las sombras y la noche. Comienza a derribar las viejas y podridas paredes reaccionarias, comienza a traquetear y crujir como hojas secas ante llamas nuevas y tiernas, antes de hogueras jóvenes pero crepitantes. Presidente Gonzalo
ResponderLa primera COLUMNA DE HIERRO COMUNISTA del marxismo maoísmo pensamiento Gonzalo, después de la revolución China 1949, surge en el Perú mayo 1980 la ILA. Una guerra popular maoísta que ruge en los Andes, no se detiene avanza a pesar del recodo, la poderosa filosofía del Presidente Gonzalo los guía y el poderoso partido Comunista maoísta militarizado pensamiento Gonzalo dirige la revolución Comunista poderosa guerra popular.
Las salvas de la revolución Comunista maoístas principalmente maoísta del Perú, llegan a los hermanos combatientes ecuatorianos y colombianos y a todo éste continente y se extiende por el mundo proletario.
El proletariado ha estado ávido de armarse y combatir, pero no irá a ciegas ni de manera emotiva, sin ningún arrebato como lo registra la historia de LA LUCHA DE CLASES, la luchas de los pueblos prueba de como se viene haciendo, ahora esa masa proletaria tiene guía, tiene dirección, está organizada y dirigida por la ciencia del proletariado el marxismo leninismo maoísmo principalmente maoísmo pensamiento Gonzalo. No hay otra conquista que la toma del poder que se hará con la organización el constituido partido Comunista maoísta militarizado Pensamiento Gonzalo.
Se posee una masa con una rica experiencia bélica de cientos de años de combate y resistencia, los ecuatorianos son guerreros rojos sin miedo, tienen sed de destruir el capitalismo, la experiencia les ha dado la estrategia defensiva que los avanza hasta llegar al equilibrio estratégico para el asalto del poder “SALVO EL PODER LO DEMÁS ES ILUSIÓN” Lenin. Y a esa victoria de la toma del poder llegarán y llegarán con el partido Comunista maoísta principalmente Gonzalo y el ejército popular, sin Partido y sin ejército popular no hay nada, nada obtendremos y los carniceros fascistas burgueses seguirán sometiendo a las masas a sangre y fuego.
Nada es continuo todo es alterno hasta llegar, en el desarrollo de la encarnizada lucha, a la línea o reta final o sea al tope, allí en la cima de la victoria, empieza la verdadera lucha que desata la contrarevolución, los fascistas carniceros que no son eliminados provocarán una y otra vez el derrocamiento de la revolución Comunista, es aquí donde el partido ejercerá el poder de hierro, la dictadura del proletariado ejecutando a los contrarrevolucionarios.