[Marxism] Evo or Bush (was: RE: Sh*flying in upcoming Bolivianelections)

[S. Artesian]

From: "Walter Lippmann"

> First, the trouble with such rules is that if applied to all situations
> outside of historically-specific time and place, they can mislead those
> who apply them mechanically.
>
> Look at the five names cited by Louis:
>
> Neither Allende, Manley, Arbenz, Peron nor Bosch, if my memory is good,
> came into office following a military confrontation and the collapse of
> the capitalist army and police apparatuses. Manuel Urrutia and others
> of his ilk were capitalist minded politicians, and the capitalist form
> of social organization - private property - continued to exist at that
> time, but they had no armed forces, no military power, not cops and no
> gangsters to carry out their efforts to defeat the Revolution as the
> Revolution proceeded from one radical step to another, continuously.
>
> Allende, Manley and Bosch came to office after the Cuban Revolution.
> All five came into office, but not into power, through elections.
> Of course Chavez, who tried a military coup, failed and went to jail,
> but Chavez, also was elected through a parliamentary democratic process.
> Same about Goulart and Bolivia in 1964, where the capitalist armed
> forces remained basically intact.
> _____________________

And your point is?    What?  Clearly, from your perspective, revolutions can 
never triumph when the bourgeoisie maintain a military, a police force, a 
government.  In fact the point is, a social revolution cannot achieve 
victory, cannot even make progress without confronting and defeating that 
military, that police force, and those forms of government.  That takes a 
whole lot more than programs for "national salvation," "regional 
integration."

Let's look at how Bolivia got to where it is right now-- with many on the 
left uncritically supporting MAS and Morales, throwing their weight behind 
the government ..

You get Beni and Santa Cruz, two regions most advanced agriculturally, with 
the most capitalistically advanced agriculture, among othe resources, due to 
subsidies and aid of previous governments stretching all the way back to 
Banzer, agitating for autonomy and holding "elections" to legitimize their 
demand for autonomy.

Does Morales outlaw those elections, declare them null and void, demanding 
the resignation of all those government officials supporting such 
"elections" as enemies of the Bolivian nation?  Does he deploy the military? 
Does he, does MAS, organize itself and the population to, in essence, seize 
those provinces?

No--.  For better or worse, the answer is no.

Impasse develops.  What does Morales and MAS propose?  A recall election 
where he, and the VP and the regional governors must get a greater number of 
absolute votes, and a greater percentage of total votes, or stand down and 
stand for election, if they desire such office again.

Now since some are enamored of analogies with Abraham Lincoln and his 
conduct of the Civil War against the US equivalent of the "oligarchy,"  I 
offer this:  Suppose Lincoln when confronted by the Confederacy had, instead 
of doing everything to mobilize the people, to create a military that could 
actually wage the civil war, had offered a recall election?

Suppose Lincoln had said, "those governors of those states in rebellion, and 
myself, and good old Jeff Davis, we're going to stand for reelection, and if 
I don't get more votes, and a bigger percentage than I did in 1860, well, 
I'll stand down.  And Jeff Davis, if he doesn't, he stands down."?  What if 
he had said that?  Clearly, the Union would never have survived long enough 
to even experience the defeat of its single, and only, great moment--  
radical Reconstruction.