rss

joined 1 month ago
MODERATOR OF
 
 
 
 
 

Bolivia’s left lost big in Sunday’s election, and a lot of the analysis in progressive circles has focused solely on the feud between former president Evo Morales and sitting president, Luis Arce. Morales was barred from running in the elections by Arce’s government and subsequently called for a null or blank vote in the contest. On Sunday, August 17, two right-wing candidates, Rodrigo Paz and Jorge Quiroga, emerged victorious, and they will proceed to the second round in October.

The feud between the two former comrades definitely played a factor in the demise of the once-vibrant and electorally successful party, MAS (Movement Towards Socialism). But the real story and the bigger lesson for the Latin American left is about more than just political rivalries, the roots of this defeat are deeper.

Beyond winning elections, winning a base

Bolivia’s left didn’t just lose an election. The loss exposed deeper issues that had been simmering for the last decade. When Evo Morales took office on January 22, 2006, Bolivia was the poorest country in South America. During his first year in office, he nationalized oil and gas production, redistributed revenues from natural gas exploitation, and implemented major projects to socialize healthcare, housing, and other public services. In 13 years, the Bolivian government managed to reduce poverty by almost half, from 60% in 2006 to 34% by 2019, according to World Bank estimates. Furthermore, extreme poverty fell from 37.7% to 15.2% during the same period. In 2009, Evo Morales promulgated a new Constitution that brought autonomy to 36 Indigenous peoples, who were represented for the first time, and guaranteed rights to minority and marginalized groups in this country of 12.41 million people.

These and many other massive reforms during the MAS party’s rule under President Evo Morales lifted millions out of poverty and expanded the middle class. Historic new rights were secured for the working class and Indigenous majority, but the class character of the state was not transformed. The basic institutions of capitalist rule – the military high command, the state bureaucracy, legislative bodies, and the federal structure of the state that afforded a significant power base for the counter-revolution in the country’s east remained essentially intact. They failed to fully dismantle the old state inherited from centuries of colonialism and elite rule.

“But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes,” Karl Marx, “The Civil War in France”.

The MAS party’s efforts to lead political and economic reforms in Bolivia from the beginning faced significant opposition in the US. For instance, between 2013 and 2018, the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID allocated a combined USD 70 million to right-wing organizations in Bolivia. This funding was directed towards civil society initiatives that mobilized opposition against the MAS government. This funding directly contributed to the political instability that culminated in the 2019 Coup against Evo Morales. Ultimately, the biggest winners in Sunday’s election, which saw major abstention, are US economic interests in the region. Taking advantage of the internal factionalism, the barring of Evo Morales from the ballot, and the effective destruction of the MAS party, the US will likely regain control of Bolivia’s lithium reserves and other natural resources, thereby opening the country to a neoliberal takeover.

These challenge is not unique to Bolivia; it’s a challenge every country with a progressive government faces. How can you address the contradictions created by capitalism – namely, unemployment, inequality, and underdevelopment – while fighting off the local bourgeoisie and powerful, right-wing elements of society that seek to overthrow you, empowering the movements that brought you to power, and radically transforming the state and its institutions? It is an intricate dance. And in Bolivia, it remained a constant struggle. Mass movements and trade unions, which didn’t cease their activity, were demobilized during Morales’s time in office from playing an active role in the socialist transformation of the state. Despite MAS cadres and movement leaders taking up roles within the state, the political direction of the state was increasingly in the hands of technocrats like Arce, who administered it with an emphasis on the people but whose aspirations were not transformative, reducing the MAS party to merely an electoral instrument instead of a revolutionary party of the people.

One manifestation of this was in 2019. In the aftermath of the October 20 elections, the right-wing mobilized thousands on the streets across the country under the banner of “electoral fraud.” In some regions, such as Santa Cruz, mobs of armed men targeted state institutions, community centers, and local government figures. The mass organizations, trade unions, and movements that had fought for the process of change and, in some way, seen their demands reflected in it were paralyzed. As the coup was unfolding, fear and defeat took over.

Mobilizations would only re-emerge in November when Jeanine Áñez, in a provocative act, swore herself in as president on the bible, members of the security forces ripped the wiphala (the Indigenous flag) from their uniforms, and the right-wing mobs, more emboldened than ever, intensified their attacks. Security forces were given a free license to shoot and kill protestors by Áñez. Over 40 people were killed during the anti-coup protests. The impressive mobilizations and international condemnation of the coup regime would indeed put enough pressure on the Áñez government to force it to call for elections.

The return to mobilization by the mass movement on the streets was able to force elections to be held and turned out in impressive numbers for the MAS candidate, Luis Arce, who scored 55% and a first-round victory. Yet, the same mass movement alongside the progressive government was unable to engage in a meaningful process to address the social, economic, and political crisis after the election.

The economic crisis and its origins

Luis Arce, despite his role in presiding over the Andean country’s slow but steady economic growth during Evo Morales’s governments, proved unable to offer an effective response to the economic crisis during his term. The economic decline of the last several years is a direct consequence of the coup against Evo Morales and the COVID-19 pandemic, both of which disrupted the state’s ability to carry forward its economic planning, especially as Áñez focused on reversing some of the major achievements of the MAS government and dismantling nationalized industries. A report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) found that the de facto government slashed public spending by 7% of quarterly GDP in the fourth quarter of 2019 alone.

When Arce defeated the right at the polls, he was faced with a deteriorating economy. Instead of robustly bolstering national industries, especially energy like gas and lithium, he was timid, allowing a decrease in national exports and lithium and gas production and processing, leading to an overall economic decline. The far-right exploited the economic challenges and attacked the government, which seemed to offer no political and economic solutions to the crisis.

The infighting between President Luis Arce, a technocrat and economist by training, and former President Evo Morales, a charismatic and revolutionary leader steeled in the struggles of the mass movements, at a time of economic crisis, accelerated the collapse of MAS and its government of change. This division paralyzed the legislature, with Arce unable to pass economic policies, and the Bolivian working class paid the ultimate cost. Inflation soared, reaching its highest level in 38 years, and the national currency, the boliviano, saw a parallel market emerge where its value was nearly half the official rate.

The pink tide faces its limits: a warning for the region

The deeper issue is that the Latin American electoral left has reached its limits. Despite redistributing wealth and lifting over 70 million people out of poverty, it has been incapable of mobilizing the masses of people to make structural changes towards socialism. Instead, a growing number of left leaders like Arce have shifted to the right in an attempt to appeal to a new middle class. Other left governments in the region focused on wealth redistribution without a political project towards building a new state along lines that seek real regional integration, and working-class power will face the same catastrophe as the Bolivian left.

The Bolivian experience offers a sobering lesson. The defeat in Bolivia was not a simple loss at the ballot box. It was a failure to transform the state and to fully empower the very masses who built the MAS party and brought it to power. A genuine socialist project cannot be implemented by a small group of technocrats from above. It requires the active and permanent participation of a mobilized working class and its political organizations, who must take full power to dismantle the old colonial state and build a new one in its place. Ultimately, the defeat in Bolivia will not be a permanent one: Bolivia’s mass movements, rooted in the struggles of the Indigenous and campesino majority that have made history by ousting neoliberal governments in the past, will surely rise again to fight in the streets, in the factories, and the fields for the socialist project.

The post Beyond defeat in Bolivia: the limits of left electoral strategy in Latin America appeared first on Peoples Dispatch.


From Peoples Dispatch via this RSS feed

 

Each August marks the annual commemoration of a month honoring the legacy of Black prisoners kept behind bars for political activism. Black August is a month to honor the history of struggles for Black liberation, in defiance of racial, colonial, and imperialist oppression, both inside and outside prison walls.

The 1971 Attica prison revolt, in which incarcerated people rose up in a struggle against oppression and inhumane conditions, and subsequently repressed by state forces with horrifying brutality, is honored each year during Black August. 

On September 9, 1971, Attica prisoners took over a part of the prison in an event notable in its mass participation.Out of roughly 2,200 men imprisoned at Attica, 1,281 seized control of the facility. 

“​​We are men! We are not beasts and we do not intend to be beaten or driven as such. The entire prison populace, that means every one of us here, has set forth to change forever the ruthless brutalization and disregard for the lives of the prisoners here and throughout the United States,” said 21-year old prisoner Elliott James “L.D.” Barkley in a statement to the press. Barkley would later be killed when state forces recaptured the prison, days before he was scheduled to be released.

Prisoners held control for four days, during which officials conceded to 28 of the prisoners’ demands but rejected calls for the warden’s removal and full amnesty for those incarcerated.

On September 13, 1971, Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller sent state troopers armed with rifles and pistols to retake Attica from the prisoners. The four-day uprising ended in a hail of blood and gunfire that left 39 dead, among them 10 prison staff. Four more had already died earlier during the uprising.

With 43 men dead, the vast majority from the violence of state repression, the Attica prison uprising is still the deadliest prison uprising in US history. 

Reform and revolution

For some involved in the Attica revolt, their motivations extended beyond simply struggling for better conditions. The year following the Attica uprising, prisoner Joseph Little told a government panel, “I’m not for no penitentiary reform. I’m for abolishing the whole concept of penitentiary reform.”

The conditions in New York State prisons were also reflected in the very demands of the prisoners, presented to New York State officials amid the revolt on September 11, 1971. They included “a change in medical staff and medical policy and procedure,” with prisoners claiming that medical personnel were making “mistakes” affecting their patients. Prisoners also called for an end to the “escalating practice of physical brutality”  and more food and more access to drinking water during meals. 

Prisoners also called for radical changes to the power structure within the prisons, making a bold argument for the self-determination and dignity of each prisoner. The very first demand was “the constitutional rights of legal representation at the time of all parole board hearings.” Prisoners also highlighted the political and free speech repression taking place within the prison, calling for “an end to the segregation of prisoners from the mainline population because of their political beliefs,” claiming that “Some of the men in segregation units are confined there solely for political reasons and their segregation from other inmates is indefinite.”

Revolt amid worldwide struggle

What other factors drove more than 1,000 prisoners to risk their very lives in open rebellion? The Attica revolt took place during a time of heightened struggle and consciousness in the United States, as well as globally. The influence of the Black Panther Party (BPP) was reaching its all time high. The Black liberation movement more broadly was a formidable political force, led by organizations like the BPP, the Republic of New Afrika, and numerous local groups, the movement was not only demanding civil rights but also self-determination and community control.

The late 1960s and early 1970s saw an uptick in radical organizing across diverse sectors of society, with white and multiracial students, antiwar, feminist, and countercultural movements. Mass opposition to the Vietnam War was at its height, with groups like Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the broader student antiwar movement challenging US militarism. Some groups, like the Weather Underground, turned to underground actions against the state. Others focused on solidarity with Black liberation and Third World movements. Women’s liberation groups, and Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Indigenous activists expanded the terrain of struggle beyond campuses.

Globally, the late 1960s and early 1970s saw the collapse of Western colonial empire, especially on the African continent. In Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, armed liberation wars against Portuguese colonial rule were at their height, led by movements like the MPLA (Angola), FRELIMO (Mozambique), and PAIGC (Guinea-Bissau). Anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa intensified, with the ANC and Pan Africanist Congress continuing underground organizing. Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) also saw guerilla activity against white settler rule. Countries like Congo, which became independent in 1960, were navigating neocolonial intervention, often by the US and former European colonizers.

The political context of the time had imbued the people of the US with heightened mass consciousness, a phenomenon which did not exclude those behind prison walls. By the time of the Attica uprising, numerous smaller prison revolts had already occurred. In 1970 alone, multiple uprisings shook the New York City jail system, including at the Manhattan House of Detention, the Brooklyn House of Detention, the Queens facilities at Kew Gardens and Long Island City, and the Adolescent Remand Shelter on Rikers Island. 

At the Manhattan House of Detention, prisoners held five guards hostage for eight hours until state officials pledged to hear their grievances and assured them there would be no retaliation. Yet despite those assurances, authorities singled out leaders, transferring them to state prisons where they were beaten, confined for months in solitary, and charged with new crimes. Meanwhile, at Auburn Correctional Facility in upstate New York, incarcerated people waged sustained confrontations with officials between November 2, 1970, and June 9, 1971. Prisoners who took part in the Auburn riot were later dispersed to various New York facilities, including Attica.

50 years later

During negotiations at the height of the Attica revolt, then Corrections Commissioner Russell Oswald accepted most of the prisoner demands. But over 50 years later, many of the same injustices and inhumane conditions persist in New York State prisons and US prisons more broadly. 

Some of the demands agreed to during the heat of struggle never materialized, including paying prison workers a minimum wage, providing fresh produce to prisoners daily, and permitting access to outside dentists and doctors. 

Notably, the brutality in New York’s prison system persists. Earlier this year, NYS prison guards went on an unauthorized strike, following some of their own ranks being charged for the brutal beating of Black prisoner Robert Brooks by white officers.  

Shocking body camera footage of Brooks’ death showed multiple guards at Marcy Correctional Facility in upstate New York participating in the beating while the prisoner was handcuffed and bleeding. The video captures a chilling disregard for Brooks’ life. One officer shoved an object into his mouth as another gripped his throat, before several guards launched a brutal assault. At one point, two officers tried to lift Brooks by his shirt and throw him out of a window.

At the heart of their strike was the anger of prisons guards at the HALT (Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement) Act, which limited the right of prison authorities to torture inmates with impunity by reducing the use of solitary confinement. The strike ended in March, after which the state fired over 2,000 prison guards after failing to return to work after a deal was reached between the guards and the state of New York.

The post Attica: when prisoners revolted appeared first on Peoples Dispatch.


From Peoples Dispatch via this RSS feed

1
Links 8/22/2025 (www.nakedcapitalism.com)
view more: ‹ prev next ›