roger rosewall
New Member
Udo Erasmus said:For example Candy outlined how when the movement called for nationalisation of the oil and gas, Morales only called for a tax on oil and exposed how Morales only made the demand for a constituent assembly as an alternative to a popular revolutionary assembly that was being called for by the mass movement, and discussed how Morales orientation towards elections and not wanting to jepordise support from the Bolivian middle classes had led him astray.
Or as Chris Harman puts it:
<snip> Evo Morales and his MAS party were the other channel for indigenous bitterness, calling for a constituent assembly to remould the country's political institutions so as to reflect its ethnic make-up. But dazzled by Morales's vote in 2002, they followed a strategy of keeping Mesa in power so that Morales would have an eventual chance of succeeding him by 'constitutional means' in 2007 and urged a 'yes' vote in Mesa's gas referendum."
Or as Chris Bambery summed up the situation: <snip> In the clash between the two, all the forces of common sense — from the media through to trade union officials — have an established hold. To overcome this, networks of activists, rooted in their workplaces and communities, need to win the argument for good sense.
OK Udo that's two points out of three taken up. I guess there's no chance of your being able to answer my points without doing a cut'n'paste job?
Candy Udwins coments are interesting in displaying her confusion between the roles of a Constituent Assembly and Workers Councils (Soviets). You have her talking of the need in Bolivia for a popular revolutionary assembly but what would be the tasks of such an assembly? If its central task is to seize state power then it will be faced with the task of writing a new constitution in other words it will function as a Constituent Assembly! In other words this phrase is nothing but a more radical sounding synonym for the Constituent Assembly and as a popular assembly the tasks appropriate to it would be bourgeois tasks. This is the same trap the Bolivian Trotskyists fell into in 1971.
The quote from Harman senior is good I agree but it is a general warning against relying on parliamentary struggle and does not touch upon the real danger in Bolivia today which is populism. At most Harman wishes for different goals for the exisiting movement he does not see the need to split the movement on class lines. That is to counterpose a revolutionary socialist orgram to the populist program of Morales and to break the working class from the former. As for bambery's remarks they are nothing so much as radical sounding padding having no concrete meaning and are not t be taken seriously from a man who has directed his own organisation away from the task of building networks in the workplaces for over thirty years.
Finally dear Udo your quote from Gramsci is excellent but you should be wary indeed of such quotes. Wary as it is all too easy to substitute the development of your own arguments by the scriptural quotation of such sacred texts. For example are you aware that at the time Gramsci wrote the article from which your quote is extracted he believed that the task of the day was to construct a Communist party that would reject any collaboration with the Socialists and Anarchists then mass forces in Italy? Do you endorse this stance? Of course not but in rejecting it what is left of your brave quote from gramsci? very little but the abstract call for a revolutionary party and that is true of the SWP today is it not? On the ground it tails Galloway and builds his populist party while reserving its abstract calls to build a revolutionary party to the faithful. How sad.
.

