The articles on bolivia from the left have apparently not gotten the situation straight, at least according to the atlantic (gasp!#). I fear that the left suffers from its own disinformation, and the question of what is really going on in bolivia is up in the air. We might take this article at face value, factual, for the sake of discussion ( a previous post today discussed the issue of revolutions in another article, with a lot on the revolution in Bolivia; Revolutions in Action). As far as I can make out, neither venezuela nor bolivia has had a revolution, in the sense of socialism/communism. It is well to review ‘revolutions’ in bolivia via, say, wikipedia, to put the immense amounts of attempted change (revolution?) in perspective throughout the twentieth century. Imperialism has been a terrible foe, but at the same time, the current bolivian situation looks to be still another lost opportunity for…what, revolution?! The atlantic article brings in fukuyama, usefully, and we examine the issue of democracy betrayed, evidently, and defended and the whole question of the left…etc…We will adjourn to our basic viewpoint at once:
noone in all these slogan-revolutions had any plan of action, and in bolivia the pseudo-revolution ends without democratic frames, or at least some ambiguities. As we have said many times: the revolution must remorph liberalism into communism with democracy, and communism into liberalism, with democracy.
In any case, this is going to be a lost opportunity. Bolivia should have had a completed revolution by this time, and ten successors at the ready.
Let’s just promote our DMNC: democratic market neo-communism: that’s more than just socialist glee club: it must be a socialism but still make fukuyama happy. I must have socialist planning, but we insist it have socialist markets: it is neo-communist in that its first step is expropriation and the creation of a commons which has legal aspects that preempted state socialism or state ownership of production. But many of the liberal entities remain, no doubt remorphed.
In the cases of bolivia, and venezuela the so-called revolutionaries have indulged in socialist appetizers, but leaving the ‘bourgeoisie’ intact, the phase of expropriation has never occurred. Leftists are being polite here then, and/or showing kneejerk solidarity, and/or the atlantic is a capitalist stooge but (and/or) more or less correct about the incoherence of multiple global revolts. We must grant the temptation to indulge in socialist appetizers (look at Venezuela’s communes, etc…) to put off confronting the global bourgeoisie of capitalists, but in the end the simply regain control, with venezuela still outstanding…
We have the same suggestion in all cases, our DMNC, which is democracy, socialism at the same time. There is a difference from pseudo-democracy of the liberal type: the system of markets can remain, but the issue of property is resolved (for capital) by expropriation.
Now that may be impossible to achieve in many cases. but the reality does not change that socialist appetizers don’t constitute socialism. There was no real revolution in bolivia or venezuela.
Our argument applies just as well to china/hong kong: it is a flipped version: hong kong wants democracy which will be capitalist, and china wants ‘communism’ which is fake in their case because it is not democracy or communism. Our DMNC model instantly reconcile this and all other cases at a stroke (not denying the facts of many possible difficulties).
The issue here is that the left has no coherent platform and the opportunities in venezuela/bolivia/etc are slipping away in a useless left jargon chatter that can’t offer anything because the whole game is incoherent…
Evo Morales has been attacking Bolivia’s democracy for many years. Since coming to office in 2006, the socialist president has concentrated ever more authority in his own hands, denounced the opposition in aggressive terms, and placed loyalists in key institutions, from the country’s public broadcaster to its highest court.Like many populists on both the left and the right, Morales claimed to wield power in the name of the people. But after weeks of mass protests in La Paz and other Bolivian cities, and the rapid crumbling of his support both within law enforcement and his own political party, it was his loss of legitimacy among the majority of his own countrymen that forced Morales to resign yesterday.