Closing Discussion of the „First meeting of Peoples and States for the Liberation of the Great Homeland“

Home

Montag, 06 November 2006 23:47

Closing Discussion of the „First meeting of Peoples and States for the Liberation of the Great Homeland“

Written by Martin Groß

font size decrease font size increase font size
Print
Email
Media
Image Gallery

Rate this item

(0 votes)

Closing Discussion of the „First meeting of Peoples and States for the Liberation of the Great Homeland“:

This is the historic speech, the Bolivian Vice-President gave at our meeting in Sucre, Bolivia.

(“Primer Encuentro de Pueblos y Estados por la Liberación de la Patria Grande”, organized by the Bloque Regional de Poder Popular (Regional Popular Power Block, BRPP) and the Bolivian government; transcript by Agencia Boliviana de Información, ABI; sub-titles Heinz Dieterich; translation from the Spanish original, John Manning)

The Greetings of Evo Morales

Comrades,

Permit me to bring you the warmest and most fraternal greetings of our President, Evo Morales who has followed this Continental Meeting step by step, who has responded with you to each one of the debates, and who for reasons of very complicated work which is still pending of negotiations and themes which have to do with petroleum and mining, cannot come here.
So he has sent you a fraternal greeting, affectionately and thankfully, to all of you.

Three themes for reflection

Permit me to reflect on three points with you: 1. the theme of how to get out of neoliberalism; 2. the theme of the State and social movements and, 3. the theme of socialism.

1. The four pillars of neoliberalism

Recently on the continent, since some five to seven years ago, the people, the worthy people, the working people, the humble people have begun slowly to raise processes of struggle and confrontation against what we call neoliberalism. There is no doubt that the Latin American component is the vanguard of the struggle against the neoliberal regime which has consolidated itself and has been implanted in the entire world in the last twenty-five years.

Paraphrasing Marx, it can be said that the specter of anti-neoliberalism and of postneoliberalism covers the continent, from Oaxaca in Mexico, to Tierra del Fuego in Chile, passing through Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, etcetera. It is the continent also which is in the vanguard of the planetary reflection and mobilization: How shall we get out of neoliberalism? What comes after neoliberalism?

And to examine what comes after neoliberalism, why we are struggling, it is important to remember the three or four main points of what neoliberalism is and of what it continues to be.

In the first place, neoliberalism means a process of fragmentation, of disintegration of the structures, of the networks of support, of solidarity and of mobilization of the peoples. In the entire world–Europe, Latin America, Asia–neoliberalism has consolidated itself in the measure that it has been pulverizing, tearing apart, fragmenting the old labor movement, the old peasant movement, the old community movement which was formed in the years of the fifties, in the years of the 1980s.

The fragmentation of society, its internal division, the destruction of its networks of solidarity, of its fabric of association is what has permitted the consolidation of the neoliberal regime.

In the second place, neoliberalism has consolidated itself, or advanced, imposing itself on the world, through privatization, through the private appropriation of the collective wealth, of the public goods–be they State enterprises, be they public savings, be it land, be they pension funds, be they woods, be they minerals -. Neoliberalism consolidated itself by privatizing these resources.

In the third place, neoliberalism implanted itself twisting and distorting the State, belittling the State. In the measure that the State is–for better or worse–a certain idea of that which is in common, of the collective, neoliberalism has to destroy this idea of the State as a collective, as in common, to implant a type of corporatism of the State which was appropriating and making use of the collective wealth often accumulated for two, three, four or five generations.

In the fourth place, neoliberalism implanted itself by expropriating the participation of the public, reducing democracy to the ritual act of casting a vote every four ears, but where the decisions were no longer based on the citizen, the voter, but on little circles, little elites of politicians who arrogated to themselves the representation of the peoples.

There were four, then, there are four pillars of neoliberalism; fragmentation of the labor and workers‘ sectors, of their organizations, privatization of public resources, belittling of the State, and exportation or annulment of the true participation of the people in the taking of decisions.

How do we dismantle the four pillars of neoliberalism and what do we substitute for them?

If those are the four points, the four pillars of neoliberalism which have created so much poverty, marginalization and so much unhappiness in the country, then clearly we have to dismantle these four pillars and substitute for them other structures, for other mechanisms which will return to society, which will return to the countries, which will return to the common, simple and working people the right to decide their destiny.

As to what refers to the social fragmentation, Bolivia is the example; but also we can look at Ecuador, we can look at Mexico, we can look at Argentina. The best way to have struggled and to be struggling against neoliberalism is through the consolidation of social movements, of popular networks, of autonomous organizations, of men and women, of youth and of workers, of peasants and of indigenous peoples, of professionals and of students.

The organization, the re-establishment of civil society, popular, indigenous, peasant, is the first pillar for the dismantling of the neoliberal regime. In particular, the sectors which were hardest hit in these last twenty-five years: working class, employees, indigenous sectors, peasants and youth, fragmented, weakened, marginalized, abused in their rights. Today the task of reconstructing new forms of worker organization which correspond to the fragmented type of production work which no longer is concentrated in big production centers, the organization of peasant and indigenous structures for defense of their rights of reappropriation of the land, the mobilization of the youth around the right to real citizenship, so that they no longer convert themselves into economic exiles from the continent in Europe or the United States. This type of construction, (the reconstruction from below, from the base) is the first big task, the first great labor which we have to undertake to begin dismantling the neoliberal regime.

Here, in Bolivia, we have taken steps in this sense and we feel very content, and we look at the world in a simple manner, in a humble manner to offer a set of experiences in this process of rearticulation of the social fabric; perhaps no longer for the center of work but for a territorial base around very specific themes, like water, land, hydrocarbons. They are the vital necessities, basics, the keys of unification which have to be punched to construct new networks of worker, peasant, indigenous and popular groups which have been dismanteled in the last twenty-five years.

In the second place, to struggle against neoliberalism is to return to socializing the collective wealth, it is to go back to handing over to the true owners what always belonged to all and which in the last twenty-five years was privatized by little family circles. And that means to recover natural resources, hydrocarbons, water, land, forests. Only through a process of social recovery of the wealth which is common to all can we proceed with dismanteling the nucleus of neoliberalism. The experiences which spread through the continent and in particular, through our Bolivia, show that this is the road which the people, the people who are standing up, the basic people, have been thinking and reflecting in a direct and autonomous manner.

Here in Bolivia, the great mechanisms of mobilization were the defense of the coca leaf, the defense of water, the defense of the land and the defense of the hydrocarbons. Around these axes, the society regained confidence; around these axes society regained the ability to mobilize, constructed leaderships, constructed networks which unified city and country. And it has been thanks to that, that we can now say that in Bolivia we have a government of social movements.

The third mechanism of struggle against neoliberalism has to come by an empowering of the State. Why the State? Why at this moment is a strengthening of the State important? Because through the State one can better take possession, in an adverse international context of transnational political regimes or of foreign enterprises which have more economic power, more political power, than two, three or four States put together. The consolidation of a State, which is economically strong, politically strong and culturally strong, gives the social movements a shield of protection, an international armor which has to permit the expansion of the social struggles. Reinforce the State, but not in the sense of the old State capitalism, which also was a form of privatization of public resources. There has to be an empowering of the State, subordinated, permanently controlled and penetrated by the insurgents, by the rebellion, by the activity of the social movements, which are the only manner through which that State would not be taken over by new entrepreneurs or new privatizations.

And a fourth point of that struggle against neoliberalism is the unfolding, is the innovation of multiple manners of democracy; that is, to assume in one´s own hands the control of his destiny. Democracy is not only casting a vote every four years. Democracy is having the capacity to participate in whatever happens in the country: from what happens with the investment of a municipality to defining whether or not a petroleum contract should be signed. And in Latin America we have multiple experiences of democracy from below. In our indigenous communities, in our popular communities, in the workers zones, among the unemployed, there are many germs of real democracy, of direct democracy, of community democracy, of participatory democracy.

And these have to be the scenarios of development, of initiative, of proposals, of conquests of rights. Because only with the people struggling for their rights, can the legality and legitimacy be obtained of the rights then consecrated in the States and in the laws.

Four, then, are the pillars to be unfolded incessantly in this struggle against neoliberalism; multiple forms of democracy, (community, direct, participative, territorially articulated, which would be the nucleus, the base of the democracy of our societies); recovery of our collective wealth for a new control by society; empowering of a State subordinated to the society which permits it to situate itself better in the international context, and growing processes of unification of social movements, of country-city, of indigenous and peasants, of young workers and old workers, of unemployed and of homeless, of landless and of employed..

Latin America, the vanguard of the construction, of the debate and the organization of the postneoliberal societies

If we proceed to the gradual unfolding of these four pillars, I have not the slightest doubt that the so called postneoliberalism or the society which is beyond neoliberalism will have to consolidate itself initially in the continent, and from here, if we have sufficient force and ability, to irradiate to the other continents. Latin America is in the vanguard of the construction, of the debate and of the organization of the postneoliberal societies.

2. The dialectics between State and social movements

But here emerges a question which is implicit in the name of this meeting: how to manage the relation between State and social movement? Because there seems to be something contradictory. State, by definition, is concentration of decisions, State is monopoly of decisions. And social movement, by definition, is expansion of decisions, socialization of decisions. This is a tension which we will have to confront, and only practice will resolve how we advance with it. State as concentration, movement as socialization, they are a permanent tension.

And I speak to you of the experience of our government. Permanent tension between decisions of social movements–from the selection of a person for the state burocracy, to the elaboration of a law -. But, on the other hand, the necessity to take decisions which can be executed and imposed on the resistent part of society. This is an old debate which came up in the Paris Commune, which was retaken by the soviets of Lenin, which was retaken by the Hungarian councils in Europe, and which here in Bolivia has a long experience, from Catavi, from 1952, and which now is repeating itself: how to construct a State directed and led by social movements, this seems to be contradictory. But no. It is perhaps this tension
between socialization and concentration, concentration, monopoly of decisions and democratization of decisions by which the revolutions of the XXI century will have to advance in the coming decades.

The social movements here have a great responsibility; because by resolving this tension, from Latin America we could postulate and propose to other social movements in the world.

Up to the year 2003, the debate was: the social movements do not enter into the State. Or it was the debate of the old Left: the State has to be controlled by only one Party at the margin of the social movements. The 21st century would seem to mark, beginning with our experience as Latin Americans, another road: permanent tension, permanent dialectic between State and social movements, between socialization and concentration.

And here the social movements have the following challenge: how to achieve social leadership? Because it is not enough to enter the State and make decisions. So that these decisions would be legitimized, they have to count with the support of other social sectors, which are not social movements or which are not workers or are not indigenous. And in Bolivia, for our indigenous movement there is this challenge: how to succeed in seducing, how to manage to conquer, how to manage to attract the middle classes which are not organized, how to manage to attract the professional sectors which are not mobilized, how to attract the ninety percent of society.

If we achieve this–comrade Silvia (1)–if we achieve this, success is guaranteed; because not only will it be a government of social movements but it will have been a State of social movements with the capacity to articulate, to unite the Homeland in its organization, society in its organization.

3. Postneoliberalism and Socialism of the 21st Century

There remains the theme: What does a struggle against neoliberalism have to do, or what does postneoliberalism have to do with socialism? Is postneoliberalism already a socialism to begin with? That is another debate between social movements, between intellectuals, between leaders. It is a debate also in the interior of our government.

It is clear that socialism, understood as a society of happiness where the people regain control of their economic, cultural and political decisions in a communal manner, is not something which you build in a year, or ten nor in fifty, nor is it something which you define by decree. That socialism is imbedded in the struggles against neoliberalism. And we revolutionaries, what we have to do is empower these tendencies which are present, not in theory, but in the practical facts. In the case of our society, we have to empower the ability to organize of the indigenous communities, abused, beaten, fragmented by colonialism, but which internally have a potential of communitarization of the wealth, of production, of use of the land, of water, of technology and of materials. It is the duty of the revolutionaries to empower this tendency towards a socialist society in the struggle against neoliberalism, which at the bottom is collective, social reappropriation of our wealth. In our indigenous communities, which exist in Mexico, in Ecuador, in Guatemala, which are in Chile, in Bolivia, which are in Peru, this potential is latent. And we have to wake it up, to stimulate it, to expand it as a proposal, which goes beyond simple postneoliberalism.

The indigenous and peasant movement and the new workers movement could generate the real social potential of a socialism of the XXIst century in the continent

But also two other things are necessary. The old labor movement of trade unions of big enterprises has disappeared, but the working class has not disappeared. There are more workers than before. The majority are women, youth without trade unions, without associations, without rights, fragmented in little dispersed shops.

This process of rearticulation of a new labor movement, with a new discourse, composed of women and youth who have another type of perspectives, is the duty of revolutionaries. It is necessary to group them by neighborhoods, by profession or function, and no longer by enterprise. Because today, five work here, ten there, twenty over there, thirty further on; they don‘t form a compact community. It is necessary to invent mechanisms for re-empowering of a strong continental labor movement because it would seem to be that in the Latin American continent, the virtuous union of the indigenous peasant movement plus a new labor movement could generate the real social potential of a socialism of the XXIst century in the continent.

The socialism of the XXIst century as a planetary structure

There remain then, women and men comrades, many tasks. And these tasks one begins in his country, in his neighborhood, in his trade union, in his university. But the struggle of one is insufficient. The struggle of one person or of one neighborhood, or of one region or of one province or of one department or of one country is not sufficient. Because neoliberalism, and even more capitalism, is a planetary structure; and the only way to overcome a planetary structure is through another planetary structure, through planetary struggles which expand the demands for rights, for necessities.

Everyone knows that your struggle is also our struggle

Your presence here rejoices us, we are not alone. And we thank you for coming here to our Homeland, to tell us: "Bolivians, you are not alone!" Many thanks for coming here.

Everyone knows that your struggle is also our struggle. We know that we won‘t triumph if you don‘t triumph (pointing at somebody) or if you don‘t triumph, or if you don‘t triumph. Either we all win or we all lose. It is the design of the XXIst century. And–as the comrade (Silvia Lazarte) says–we are obliged, to be able to win where we are, to globalize the struggles. And here there has to be an articulation of social movements which permits continuing to expand the ties of solidarity.

It is very important, comrades, that we understand your struggles: it is very important that you should be here and should teach us what you are doing: what is happening in Ecuador, what goes on in Argentina, what happens in Mexico, what happens in France. We need to learn. And not only some few intellectuals who could share it with us. Today it is a necessity for every peasant, every indigenous person, every worker anxious to learn from you and anxious also to collaborate in the things you are doing.

Comrades, women and men, in the name of our President of the republic, in our name, we thank you for your presence here.

We ask you not to abandon us: and you may have the security that we will not abandon you either in any one of your initiatives, in any one of your struggles or in any one of your victories.

Many thanks.