Forthcoming Book: Dancing with Dynamite

My next book is almost out from AK Press. For a description of the book, table of contents, advance praise, review and book tour information, visit DancingwithDynamite.com

Grassroots Lessons From Latin America: An Interview with Michael Fox

Conducted by Benjamin Dangl

Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Michael Fox is a Brazil-based independent journalist and co-producer of the new documentary Beyond Elections: Redefining Democracy in the Americas (PM Press). He is also the co-author of an upcoming book called Venezuela Speaks: Voices From the Grassroots, also available through PM Press and set to be released this fall. Throughout his research for this film and book, and as a radio and print reporter who has covered political and social issues across Latin America, Fox has come to know to hopes and struggles of the region’s social movements, and what US activists might learn from the experiences of these movements.

In this interview, he talks about what lessons US activists might consider from social movements throughout Latin America, and the challenges of applying Latin American activist strategies in the US under an Obama administration.

Benjamin Dangl: Taking into account the challenges posed by an Obama administration and the current economic crisis in the US, what lessons do you think US activists could learn from social movements in Brazil and Venezuela, as far as methods and strategies to radicalize and pressure politicians and combat economic strife?

Michael Fox: First off, folks in the states need to remember that just because Obama is in office doesn’t mean that US activists should sit back on their heels and consider their “mission accomplished”.  For Obama to be able to push for changes, he needs to be pushed. That’s just the reality.  It can be difficult for activists in any country to maneuver the subtle balance of demanding their rights from a friendly elected official, while not playing in to the game the opposition (in this case the Republicans). Nevertheless, this must be done.  In Brazil - as I wrote in an article for Toward Freedom – shortly after Lula was elected in to office, Brazil’s progressives “gave Lula time”.  They were willing to work with him and humored his embracing of international economic norms as shrewd.  A year and a half later, they had had enough, and they formed a dissident party called the Party for Socialism and Freedom (PSOL).  The MST held off on land occupations for a period, until they realized that despite Lula’s commitments to agrarian reform, the Brazilian president had befriended the international agro-industry, and he wasn’t looking back.  In hindsight, perhaps they should have pushed harder from the beginning of the Lula government, supporting his administration and at the same time demanding their rights.  This is what you see often in Venezuela, although you wouldn’t know it by reading the mainstream press.

Autonomous Venezuelan social movements like the Ezequiel Zamora National Campesino Front (FNCEZ) and the National Association of Free and Alternative Community Media (ANMCLA) are very clear that they support the Chavez government, but that they are autonomous social movements and that they have their own demands which they expect to be met.  It may at first appear contradictory when you see hundreds of Venezuelan campesinos and community media activists come marching through Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, to block a major intersection for hours, and at the same time they say they support the President, but that is the reality.  They understand – as activists in the United States need to learn quickly – that they have an agenda rooted in the community and in the grassroots, and the President (albeit friendly) is going to have another.  There are many interests at the top.  And often a President – even Chavez or Obama – isn’t going to be able to do what he or she would like, without really hearing it from the people on the streets.

US activists need to be aware of these dualities, and not be afraid of what may appear contradictory. As one of Venezuela’s founding fathers Simon Rodriguez once said, “o inventamos o erramos”, That’s the motto of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Movement: “Either we invent or we fail”, meaning that we need to be free to take chances, leaps and bounds, try things that seem crazy and if those things don’t work, get up and try something else.

Especially in this time of global economic crisis people need to come together and look to develop their solutions in their local community.  Last fall, my partner and I traveled all across the United Status showing our movie, Beyond Elections, about these new democratic experiences all across Latin America.  At the same we interviewed communities and individuals from California to Virginia about their alternatives and solutions, about their thoughts, hopes and opinions of this ridiculous bank bailout. Nearly everyone – from urban progressives to salt-of-the earth Midwestern farmers – said the same thing, “Get all the politicians out of Washington” and turn the government back over to “we the people”.  We now have a new president, elected to do just that with his platform of change, but that is just the beginning.

Latin Americans know this story well, and over the last three decades a number of experiences have been developed across the region, from which activists in the United States can learn. For me they are all based around democracy and place-based organizing, two ideas which may seem irrelevant, but they can be transformative.

You ask your average North American for his or her definition of democracy, and the answer is usually free and fair elections.  But as I said above, that is just the beginning, it’s not the end.

Latin Americans, especially in Venezuela and Brazil, have been developing these concepts and working with these themes in transformative ways.

Since President Hugo Chavez came to office in 1998, Venezuelans have been working to shift the hierarchical organizing to horizontal in local community-based committees – first the Bolivarian circles and then local water, electricity, land committees, etc…   In 2006, Venezuelans all across the country have been organizing themselves in to tiny local “communal councils” which are made up of 100-200 families which elected spokesperson for the local community in order to carry out local projects.  The concept is powerful, because it is the community which decides on local issues and projects.  If the community needs to fix a road, it develops the project, brings it to the pertinent institutions and they can receive funding.  The concept is radically different from the past, when the community would have to fight with the local government for public works projects, and radically different from the former community associations in which a select group of people decided for everyone.  In Venezuela, right now these communal councils are trying to put decision-making power directly in the hands of citizens, and there is talk of expanding the power of these communal councils out, so they would also have decision-making power in the municipal, region, state and national level also.  Optimally they make decision by consensus, sometimes by voting.  The spokespersons of the council are the spokespersons- that elaborate the project and the communal council, but not representatives, which means that the entire community must be consulted on important decisions. There are now tens of thousands of communal councils all across the country, being funded by more than a billion dollars from the Venezuelan government.

Participatory Budgeting (PB) began in Porto Alegre, Brazil and has now spread throughout the world. It is a process in which everyday citizens participate in the allocation of a chunk of city funds.  Each year community residents vote on their priorities and demands for the next year, and throughout the year representatives hold weekly or biweekly meetings to ensure that the community’s will is carried out.  The idea is giving communities a democratic say in the direction of government.  While Porto Alegre’s participatory budgeting now has its problems, and some of the PB delegates and council-members have turned in to more bureaucratic positions, the program has become a necessary element of the local government and citizens have learned to see themselves as part of a larger picture, to see their needs together with the needs of those around them.

As I mentioned, PB is now in cities and local governments all across the planet, and is promoted as a way in order to ensure transparency in the local government.  What if participatory budgeting were implemented in local governments, organizations, and groups across the US?  What if the $700 billion bank bailout had an incorporated a component of participatory budgeting in which US citizens could have participated in where they wanted the bailout funds to be allocated?  A sector would have had to have followed up with the implementation to ensure that the funds actually went to where they were supposed to go, rather than the US government handing over billions to the same people that got us in to this mess, without any checks and balances.  Is that democratic?

In terms of social movements, Brazil’s Landless Worker’s Movement (MST) recently turned 25 and while there has been little said about the MST for quite some time in the US press, it is as alive as ever. As a local organizer in Brazil’s Southernmost state, Rio Grande do Sul, João Amaral confirmed last July, this is largely due to the fact that in the MST, decision-making is rooted in the community, in the everyday MST members and in local grassroots groups of 10-20 families that make up the base nuclei of the movement in MST encampments and settlements.  A spokesperson from each of these groups then joins with the spokespersons from each of the other “base nuclei”, where they also work with consensus to make decisions or return to the local groups to debate further. Only with this process they are: 1. Able to truly reflect the will of the movement overall and 2. Ensure that everyone feels like their voice is heard and is, and 3. Willing to continue with the decision of the group, even when it perhaps was not their first choice.

This is the heart of the MST, truly one of the most radical social movements. You feel the sense of community as you walk in to an encampment or settlement and spend some time with those around you.  It is astounding: one group cooks for everyone else, another group is taking care of the children, another is planting- and that’s how they live their life.  There is a sense of oneness with those around them, and their form of decision-making – rooted in these local groups. They decide by consensus, and the added focus on gender neutrality ensures that everyone’s voice is heard and that everyone feels a part of the process.   From its humble beginnings in 1984, the MST has won millions of acres of land and says it now has 370,000 families settled across the country and 100,000 camped.

BD: What are some of the challenges posed by transferring such strategies to the US to be applied there?

MF: The sense of community in the above Latin American examples cannot be highlighted enough.  Oftentimes in the United States it is easy to feel separate from one another.  Many times you don’t live near those with whom you are used to organizing, and especially in the suburbs, our lives are created to keep us isolated from one-another.  There are many forms of poverty across the globe, but truly that which most affects the United States is a poverty of community, a sickness of community, in which individuals feel isolated and separated from one another, basing their decisions not on communication, collaboration, deliberation, but on the fear they feel from the negative news that is spun at American citizens through one of the most highly consolidated media in the world.

This is why I mentioned place-based organizing.  All of the above experiences are “place-based”, not issue-based.  They are rooted in solving the issues of the local community, and can then move in to the larger issues from there.  Some activists in New Orleans are starting to develop this, such as Khalil Shahyd of the New Orleans Citizen Participation Project, who is promoting Participatory Budgeting in the Louisiana city.  The Survivor’s Council, which takes place in the Katrina-devastated Lower 9th Ward, is inspired by Venezuela’s communal councils and is a way for community residents to connect, debate, discuss and work towards to resolve the problems in their community.

Activists also need to remember – as my Brazilian wife highlighted during our tour around the states last fall showing our film Beyond Elections – that the best way to support movements abroad, is to make change at home.

In the United States, the Left is often fragmented in to factions and issues.  How many times have you gone to an event on “Venezuela” or “Cuba” or some specific issue in the community, and you know everyone in the crowd, because they are the same handful of people that go to all of these types of events.  That’s great, they are active, but they are often disconnected from the other issues, and from the community and the issues affecting the local community sometimes only a few miles from where the event is being held.

Activists in the United States may be quick to protests loudly against the “illegitimate” US war on Iraq or Afghanistan, but when it comes to the internal illegitimate low-intensity warfare waged by the US government against poor communities in the United States, many middle-class activists don’t make the connection. US activists need to bring the “buy local” banner of local farmers, in to the activist realm – “organize local” around local issues – which are, of course connected to the big picture.

Activists need to think about not only how to create organizations but movements with grassroots committees that will ensure that everyone has a roll to play, and that their voice is heard.  I believe that San Francisco lost a huge opportunity in 2005, when the SF People’s Organization was founded.  I excitedly asked one of the new directors when the general assembly would meet again and if we would be setting up local grassroots committees in the communities around San Francisco.  He responded that we wouldn’t have to meet again until the next year, and until then, he and the two-dozen organizers would fight throughout the year for our interests.

He didn’t get it.  I tell this story to my foreign friends and they laugh.  In the United States, activists are used to getting out on the streets to protest, e-activism – clicking buttons to sign protests and forward urgent actions, but with all the other activities US citizens are involved in (with music, sports, dance, art, socially etc…), many don’t want to think about joining another group.  That’s not the point.

The only way that Uruguay’s Leftist political coalition, Frente Amplio, retained so much of its support, despite being brutally repressed and exiled during a more than decade-long dictatorship, was because of its grassroots committees.  As I pointed out in an article in 2007, Frente Amplio’s rise to Uruguay’s Presidency in 2005 was an important victory, but by turning its back on its grassroots activists, the coalition has lost the fervent support on the streets which kept its dream alive for so many years.

Many of these examples take time.  Consensus takes time.  Local grassroots committees take time.  And that is not something that US activists have a lot of.  They could, but they don’t, in large part due to an entertainment industry which ensures that we are encouraged away from such activities.

Another issue that US activists must contend with paradoxically is the traditional lack of needs.  Participatory Budgeting, Communal Councils, MST organizing works because the local community has a series of very immediate needs that aren’t being met: Perhaps it’s electricity, or potable water, or land.  Only by joining forces will the community be able to accomplish their demands.  In the United States, many communities have traditionally not had these desperate needs.  Of course, some have, but many have not.  Which means that individuals haven’t felt the desperate need to come together because they are content with their homes, their cars, their jobs and their cable TV.

But times are changing.  Even suburban neighborhoods are falling apart as a result of the Mortgage Crisis. The financial crisis is growing, and rather than correct the failures of the system, Washington promises to hand over more to those that got us in to the problem in the first place.  Meanwhile, unemployment is rising, homelessness is rising, and no one has resolved the lack of health care for millions of US residents.  These are pressing issues, and they are issues which must be dealt with from the bottom up, from the local, from the community out.  As they say in Venezuela, “endogenous development”

So, in the United States, activists have to contend with:

-people’s busy lives

-lack of community

-lack of interest or needs

Of course, no model can ever be simply lifted up and plopped down on top of a completely different reality and expected to work.  That concept is part of the same hierarchical system which these experiences are trying to correct.  These experiences must be a creative process and collaborative.  Activists need to listen and work together.   Deliberate and build shared space together that are rooted in faith and love, and not fear.  And this can be done without the large funds many in the United States believe you need for a healthy organization.

Of course resources help, but if they don’t exist we just need to be creative.  Like the barter trade systems which were set up across the Southern Cone after the December 2001 economic crisis, in which community members came together to trade what they had for things that they need, or things that others had to offer.

Lastly, Latin Americans are more than willing to support these experiences across the US, and to share experiences and trade ideas.  Activists in the United States just need to be willing to take chances and unite with those around them.

To learn more about these experiences in local democracy, or to watch and/or purchase, Beyond Elections: Redefining Democracy in the Americas, visit www.beyondelections.com.

For more from Michael Fox, visit www.blendingthelines.com.

Cerámica de Cuyo: A Profile of Worker Control in Argentina

By Benjamin Dangl, June 23, 2007

In the worn out meeting room of worker-run Cerámica de Cuyo, Manuel Rojas runs a rough hand over his face. The mechanic recalls forming the cooperative after the company boss fired the workers in 2000: “We didn’t have any choice. If we didn’t take over the factory we would all be in the streets. The need to work pushed us to action.”

After working at the ceramic brick and tile factory for nearly 35 years, Rojas joined the other two dozen workers at Cerámica de Cuyo and began to organize into a cooperative. These workers were part of national movement at a time when Argentina was in an economic crisis. Across the country, hundreds of factories, businesses and hotels shut their doors and sent their employees packing. Many workers, like those at Cerámica de Cuyo, decided to take matters into their own hands. As the stories of these workers illustrate, the cooperatively-run road hasn’t been easy.

Cerámica de Cuyo is surrounded by vineyards and artists’ homes in the bohemian community of Bermejo, Argentina , right outside Mendoza. Dust blows around the sun burnt factory yard as I sit down with Rojas and his co-worker Francisco Avila. Rojas wears a weathered blue plaid shirt while Avila has a baseball cap resting on a head of gray hair. We’re in the Cerámica de Cuyo meeting room. The ancient chairs have crumbling foam cushions. Phone numbers and Che Guevara slogans are scrawled on the walls. It’s easy to sense the wear and tear that lifetimes of labor have had on the place.

In August of 1999, the Cerámica de Cuyo owner cut wages. Though he promised it was only temporary, the lack of money pushed many employees to search for work elsewhere. Some left the country in desperation. “The boss kept promising money, so we waited,” Rojas says. “We worked on weekends, waiting and waiting, but no paychecks arrived. We had to support our families, pay the bills and everything.” In February, 2000, all the workers were fired. A year later they decided to form a cooperative and run the factory themselves.

While organizing the cooperative, they had to guard the factory to prevent the robbery of expensive equipment and machinery. Neighbors helped the workers out at this critical time, providing food, firewood and blankets. “Workers from other cooperatives came to the factory with classes, informing us how to organize a cooperative,” Avila says. “This kind of solidarity is common.”

Cerámica de Cuyo produces roofing tiles and bricks, and now employs around 32 people. Before the formation of the cooperative, the pay scales were typical, with the owner earning a lot more than the workers. Now everyone is paid the same amount and all workers have one week of vacation. Regular assemblies are organized to discuss administrative and financial topics, or to hire a new employee. Since the formation of the cooperative, they have also been able to buy newer machines.

“Before, the boss wouldn’t let us into the main administrative office. Now it’s ours,” Rojas says. “We go in there anytime to check on orders and be involved with that side of the business.”

We walk outside into the now scorching sun. One truck dumps off a load of dirt while clay is formed into bricks and tiles and sent inside to a massive kiln. Rojas works as an all around mechanic, fixing everything from fork lifts to conveyor belts. When we enter the main factory room, he is called from three directions at once with questions to answer and problems to fix. Steam rises from the hot, wet, recently cut bricks. The whole place smells like a potter’s kiln.

While Rojas works on a control panel for the conveyor belt, Avila takes me upstairs to his work area at the top of the kiln. Here the temperature rises by about 20 degrees Fahrenheit. Though it feels like a sauna, Avila is comfortable and turns up the radio to a popular cumbia song. It’s a dangerous job: “Sometimes when the electricity is shut down, and the gas keeps going, there can be an explosion, so I have to pay attention.”

“It hasn’t been easy,” Avila says. “Before, we were workers. Now we have to be lawyers, accountants and everything. Before, we didn’t worry about the machines. Now they’re all ours, so we care more about them. Now when a machine breaks down we have to wait for money and parts.”

Both admitted that one of the hardest things about working in a cooperative was that all workers, young and old, received the same wages. Rojas says, “Some people who have no experience at all are making the same per hour as those working as mechanics with 35 years of technical experience.”

Avila agrees. “Some workers want to earn more for working less. At the beginning it was all compañero this and compañero that, very glorious. But when we started working more, a lot of the conflicts broke out about salaries.”

Back in the meeting room, Rojas explains that now, whenever there is a problem, they all discuss things in the open, in assemblies. “There are always conflicts, but what’s good about it now is that we solve it together, right here.” He pounds his fist on the battered meeting table.

Lessons From Latin America

Firing The Boss: An Interview with Chicago Factory Occupation Organizer

By Benjamin Dangl

Thursday, 15 January 2009

On December 5, 2008 over 200 recently-fired workers at the Republic Window and Doors factory in Chicago occupied their plant, demanding that they be paid their vacation and severance checks. The occupation ended victoriously six days later when the Bank of America and other lenders to Republic agreed to pay the workers the approximately $2 million owed to them.

But the workers didn’t stop there. They are now seeking ways to restart the factory and potentially operate it as a worker-run cooperative. The workers are also filing charges against their former employer for failing to give the workers sufficient notice of plans to shut the factory down; the workers were only given three days’ notice, and the management refused to negotiate with the workers’ union about the closure.

On January 14, the United Electrical Workers (UE) - the union the Republic workers belong to - announced that California based Serious Materials, a highly successful company in the green, heating efficient window market, will likely buy the Republic and Windows’ assets, putting the workers back to work. “We are all hopeful about the possibility of Serious reopening our plant.  This would be a very happy ending to our struggle,” former Republic worker and Local 1110 Vice President Melvin Maclin said in a UE press release.

In this interview Mark Meinster, the International Representative for the UE, talks about his role as the coordinator for the plant occupation, connections between the struggle of the Republic workers and workers struggles and tactics in South America, the fight to re-open the plant, and what the Republic workers’ strategies say about social change in an economic downturn.

Benjamin Dangl: First, please briefly describe your role in the union, in the occupation of the Republic Windows and Doors factory, and the ongoing struggle of the Republic workers.

Mark Meinster: I’m an International Representative for the United Electrical Workers (UE).  My primary responsibility is to oversee the union’s organizing work and staff in Chicago, IL and Milwaukee, WI.  I was the lead organizer on the effort to organize the Republic workers into UE in 2004 and led negotiations for a first contract in 2005.  Since then I and UE Field Organizer Leah Fried have worked with the local on leadership and steward training, grievance handling and contract negotiations.   I coordinated the plant occupation at Republic Windows and Doors and participated in negotiations with the employer and the financial institutions involved and continue to work on efforts to reopen the plant.

BD: Could you please talk about some of the connections you see between the Republic workers’ struggle and actions, and the strategies and experiences of similar workers groups in Argentina and Venezuela and the landless farmers in Brazil? How did you learn about these struggles and come to apply them in Chicago as a union organizer?

MM: Obviously there is a long history of workers taking actions of this type, both within the US and in other countries. Because there have been very few plant occupations in the US since the 1930’s, we needed to look to workers’ struggles in other countries for recent guidance.  For example the Canadian Auto Workers, who have engaged in similar actions over the past twenty years to protest plant closings and win severance benefits, provided us with invaluable technical advice.

But in many respects workers’ struggles in Latin America were the biggest inspiration for the Republic occupation.   I had read about the land occupations carried out by the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra in an interview with Joao Pedro Stedile in 2002.  I was struck by the MST’s focus on popular education and leadership development, and especially the way they placed the occupation tactic within the context of the right to unused land enshrined in the Brazilian constitution.  The occupation, although technically an illegal tactic,  was used to enforce a legal right.  This gives workers confidence and places the struggle on a moral plane, allowing for more significant community and political support.  We drew on this concept in planning the Republic occupation.

Current UE Local 1110 president Armando Robles attended the World Social Forum in Caracas, Venezuela in 2006.  There he heard from workers from Inveval, a “recovered” factory in Venezuela.  They had inspired a movement of workers occupying and running factories, with the help of the government, that had been abandoned by bosses who had fled the country.  Armando returned from that experience politicized and inspired.  I visited Venezuela in 2007 and spent time visiting worker-run co-ops.  I was struck by the workers’ investment in the revolutionary process and their ability to run production without management.

We drew on the Argentine factory occupations to the extent that they show that during an economic crisis, workers movements are afforded a wider array of tactical options.  Militant action can win public support during a downturn in ways that would have been impossible before.  In fact, the film “The Take” was screened in the factory during the occupation in a makeshift movie theater set up in the locker room.

BD: Is there a plan to transform the Republic factory into a worker-run cooperative? If so, how did the decision to do this come about? At this point, how is the process going of setting this up?

MM: At this point we are working to find a buyer for the factory, focusing on firms specializing in energy efficient windows.  Though we are also exploring the idea of a cooperative enterprise, the fact that no real movement of worker-run enterprises exists in the US makes this option much more difficult at this point.  The workers have set up an entity, called the “Windows of Opportunity Fund”, to help provide technical assistance and study this and other possibilities for re-starting production.

BD: Could you comment on the role the Republic workers’ struggle in inspiring workers across the US to take up similar tactics to confront unemployment and problems related to the current US economic downturn?

MM: I think the Republic struggle shows we can win support for bold tactics, especially when we think carefully about how we project the struggle to the public.   Time will tell whether the Republic struggle will be viewed as a bell-weather event or a flash in the pan.  On the one hand, the occupation led to a huge outpouring of support - from solidarity rallies all across the country to donations of money, food and essential supplies.  That this support was on a scale unthinkable only a year ago is proof that this action spoke to the desire of working class people to seek ways to resist to the current economic onslaught.  On the other hand, for this event to be a spark others will have to pick up the baton.  That means organized labor will have to take some measure of risk, embracing militant tactics when necessary and abandoning its reliance on political maneuvering as the primary means for the advancement of a working class agenda.

***

Benjamin Dangl is the author of The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia (AK Press). He is the editor of TowardFreedom.com, a progressive perspective on world events, and UpsideDownWorld.org, a website on activism and politics in Latin America.

Related articles:

Finding Common Ground in Crisis: Social Movements in South America and the US

Workers Occupy Chicago Factory: Echoes of Argentina’s Worker Uprising

Workers Occupy Chicago Factory: Echoes of Argentina’s 2001 Worker Uprising

By Benjamin Dangl

Monday, 08 December 2008

When the 250 workers at the Republic Windows and Doors factory in Chicago were told that the plant was shutting down, they decided to take matters into their own hands. On Friday, December 5, the workers occupied their factory in an act that echoes the sit-down strikes of the 1930s in the US and the occupation of factories during the 2001 crisis in Argentina.

“They want the poor person to stay down. We’re here, and we’re not going anywhere until we get what’s fair and what’s ours,” Silvia Mazon, 47, a formerly apolitical mother and worker at the factory for 13 years told the New York Times. “They thought they would get rid of us easily, but if we have to be here for Christmas, it doesn’t matter.”

The workers are demanding that they be paid their vacation and severance pay, or that the factory continue its operations. They were given only three days’ notice of the shut-down, not the 60 days’ notice which is required under federal and state law.

Supporters Rally Outside

On Friday, fifty of the workers at the plant – taking shifts in the occupation – sat on chairs and pallets inside the factory and were supplied with blankets, sleeping bags and food from supporters. Throughout the takeover, workers have been cleaning the building and shoveling snow while protesters gathered in solidarity outside waving signs and chanting.

The occupation of the factory - which produces heating efficient vinyl windows and sliding doors – is taking place in the midst of a massive recession, with the rate of unemployment in the US at a 15 year high, and with 600,000 manufacturing jobs lost in this year alone. As another indicator of the economic crisis, 1 in 10 Americans - a record of 31.6 million - now use food stamps.

The factory workers are protesting the fact that the Bank of America received $25 billion in the recent $700 billion government bailout, and then went ahead and cut off credit to Republic Windows and Doors, resulting in the subsequent closing of the factory.

“The bank has the money in this situation,” said Mark Meinster, a representative of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, the union the factory workers belong to. “And we are demanding that Bank of America release the money owed to workers who have earned it and are entitled to it.” On Monday, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich announced that, in support of the workers, the state will temporarily stop doing business with Bank of America.

Workers Occupy Chicago Factory

President-elect Barack Obama also announced his support: “When it comes to the situation here in Chicago with the workers who are asking for their benefits and payments they have earned, I think they are absolutely right . . . what’s happening to them is reflective of what’s happening across this economy.”

Rev. Jesse Jackson delivered turkey and groceries to the workers, saying, “These workers are to this struggle perhaps what Rosa Parks was to social justice 50 years ago…  This, in many ways, is the beginning of a larger movement for mass action to resist economic violence.”

Occupy, Resist, Produce: Argentina’s 2001 Crisis

Argentina’s crisis was similar to the current recession in the US in the sense that in December of 2001, almost overnight, Argentina went from having one of the strongest economies in South America to the one of the weakest. As the occupation of the factory in Chicago indicates, there are some tactics and approaches to combating economic crises that were used in Argentina that could be applicable during the US crisis.

During Argentina’s economic crash, when politicians and banks failed, many Argentines banded together to create a new society out of the wreckage of the old. Poverty, homelessness and unemployment were countered with barter systems, alternative currency and neighborhood assemblies which provided solidarity, food and support in communities across the country.

Perhaps the most well known of these initiatives were the occupation of factories and businesses which were later run collectively by workers. There are roughly two hundred worker-run factories and businesses in Argentina, most of which started in the midst of the 2001 crisis. 15,000 people work in these cooperatives and the businesses range from car part producers to rubber balloon factories. Though the worker occupation of Republic Windows and Doors is different in many respects to examples of worker occupations in Argentina, it is worth reflecting on the strikingly similar situations workers in both countries found themselves in, and how they are fighting back.

Chilavert Workers (Photo: Dangl)

The Chilavert book publisher in Buenos Aires offers one example of workers taking back a bankrupt factory to operate it as a worker cooperative. “Occupy, resist and produce. This is the synthesis of what we are doing,” Candido Gonzalez, a long time Chilavert worker explained to me during a visit to his bustling publishing house, with printing presses clamoring away in the background. “And it is the community as a whole that makes this possible. When we were defending this place there were eight assault vehicles and thirty policemen that came here to kick us out. But we, along with other members of the community, stayed here and defended the factory.”

Candido didn’t attribute Chilavert’s success to any politician. “We didn’t put a political party banner in the factory because we are the ones that took the factory. All kinds of politicians have come here asking for our support. Yet when the unions failed, when the state failed, the workers began a different kind of fight… If you want to take power and you can’t take over the state, you have to at least take over the means of production.”

Back in Chicago, at a time when politicians have failed to respond appropriately to one of the worst US economic crises in history, the occupation of the Republic Windows and Doors factory is a reminder that desperate times call for fresh approaches to social change.

“We aren’t animals,” Republic Windows and Doors employee Apolinar Cabrera, 43, told reporters. Cabrera is a father of two, with another child on the way, and has been an employee at the factory for 17 years. “We’re human beings and we deserve to be treated like human beings.”

Click here to take action in support of the workers at Republic Windows and Doors and to hold Bank of America accountable.

The Machine Gun and The Meeting Table: Bolivian Crisis in a New South America

By Benjamin Dangl

Tuesday, 16 September 2008

On Monday, September 15, Bolivian president Evo Morales arrived in Santiago, Chile for an emergency meeting of Latin American leaders that convened to seek a resolution to the recent conflict in Bolivia. Upon his arrival, Morales said, “I have come here to explain to the presidents of South America the civic coup d’etat by Governors in some Bolivian states in recent days. This is a coup in the past few days by the leaders of some provinces, with the takeover of some institutions, the sacking and robbery of some government institutions and attempts to assault the national police and the armed forces.”

Morales was arriving from his country where the smoke was still rising from a week of right-wing government opposition violence that left the nation paralyzed, at least 30 people dead, and businesses, government and human rights buildings destroyed. During the same week, Morales declared US ambassador in Bolivia Philip Goldberg a “persona non grata” for “conspiring against democracy” and for his ties to the Bolivian opposition. The recent conflict in Bolivia and the subsequent meeting of presidents raise the questions: What led to this meltdown? Whose side is the Bolivian military on? And what does the Bolivian crisis and regional reaction tell us about the new power bloc of South American nations?

Massacre in Pando

Map of Bolivia

On September 11, in the tropical Bolivian department of Pando, which borders Brazil and Peru, a thousand pro-Morales men, women and children were heading toward Cobija, the department’s capital to protest the right wing governor Leopoldo Fernández and his thugs’ takeover of the city and airport.

According to press reports and eye witness accounts, when the protesters arrived at a bridge seven kilometers outside the town of Porvenir, they were ambushed by assassins hired and trained by governor Fernández. Snipers in the tree tops shot down on the unarmed campesinos. Shirley Segovia, a Porvenir resident recalled to Bolpress, “We were killed like pigs, with machine guns, with rifles, with shotguns, with revolvers. The campesinos had only brought their teeth, clubs and sling shots, they didn’t bring rifles. After the first shots, some fled to the river Tahuamanu, but they were followed and shot at.” Others reported being tortured; days later the death toll rose to 30, with dozens wounded and over a hundred still missing. Roberto Tito, a farmer who was present at the conflict, said “This was a massacre of farmers, this is something that we should not allow.”

In 2006, Fernández, who denies orchestrating this violence, was denounced by then Government Minister Alicia Muñoz who said the governor was training at least a hundred paramilitaries as a “citizen’s protection” force. These paramilitaries are believed to have participated in the massacre. Fernández is one of the opposition governors that form part of the National Democratic Council (CONALDE), an organization which includes governors from Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, Tarija, and Chuquisaca who are organizing for departmental autonomy against the Morales government and his administration’s redistribution of land and natural gas wealth, and other socialistic policies.

Leopoldo Fernandez (El Deber)

After the massacre, President Morales declared a state of siege in Pando, sent in the military, and by September 15 a tense peace had reportedly returned to the region. Morales also called for the arrest of Fernandez who fled across the border, into rural Brazil. [Update: Fernandez has since been arrested and taken to the Bolivian capital.]

This massacre took place just weeks after an August 10 national recall vote invigorated Morales’ mandate: he won 67% support nationwide, showing that his staunch, violent opponents are clearly in the minority. In Pando, Morales won 53% of the vote, an increase of 32% from the 21% he received from Pando residents during the presidential election in 2005.

A few key political developments led to this recent increase in regional tension. On August 28, Morales announced a presidential decree establishing a constitutional referendum on December 7. This referendum would apply to the constitution which was re-written and passed in a constituent assembly in December 2007. On September 2 of this year the electoral court said it opposed the referendum because it had to first be passed by Congress and the opposition controlled Senate. The debate revived existing conflicts, and opposition leaders began to block major roads and seized an airport in Cobija on September 5.

The days leading up to the September 11 massacre in Pando were full of anti-government protesters ransacking businesses and human rights organizations across the country. On September 10, an explosion reportedly set off by opposition groups disrupted the flow of gas lines to Brazil from Tarija, Bolivia.

US Ambassadors Expelled

Following these tumultuous events, Morales demanded that US ambassador to Bolivia, Philip Goldberg leave the country. “Without fear of anyone, without fear of the empire, today before you, before the Bolivian people, I declare the ambassador of the United States persona non grata,” Morales said. “The ambassador of the United States is conspiring against democracy and wants Bolivia to break apart.”

Philip Goldberg (IMC Bolivia)

The announcement came after a private meeting Goldberg had with the right wing governor of Santa Cruz on August 25, and a later visit to the opposition governor of Chuquisaca. Throughout Goldberg’s time as ambassador, which began in 2006, the Morales government has accused him of orchestrating US funding and support to opposition groups in the eastern part of the country. [See the February 2008, The Progressive Magazine article "Undermining Bolivia" for more information on Washington’s destabilization efforts in Bolivia.] Before coming to Bolivia, Goldberg worked as an ambassador in Kosovo from 2004-2006 and consular in Colombia. At a press conference Goldberg held in La Paz before leaving for the US, he said: “I want to say that all the accusations made against me, against my embassy… against my country and against my people are entirely false and unjustified.”

Following the US ambassador’s expulsion from Bolivia, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez announced that the US ambassador in his country had to leave: “He has 72 hours, from this moment, the Yankee ambassador in Caracas, to leave Venezuela.” The US responded by asking the ambassadors of Venezuela and Bolivia to leave the US. This all took place during a tense few months in US-Latin American relations in which the US Navy re-instated its Fourth Fleet in the Caribbean after decades of inactivity, Chavez announced joint exercises with Russia in the Caribbean and Bolivia strengthened its ties with Iran.

On September 15 in Santiago, Chile, the nine presidents within the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), including Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Chile – even Colombia, a close US ally - met to come to a resolution on the Bolivian crisis. This organization is one of the newest in a series of regional networks that are making increasingly collaborative political and economic decisions throughout South America. All of the leaders backed Morales, condemned the opposition’s violent tactics and emphasized that they won’t recognize separatists in the country.

Bolivian Military Alliances

Though the threat of a “civic coup d’etat” Morales spoke about in Santiago still looms, the Bolivian military is unlikely to back the government opposition. I asked Kathryn Ledebur, a human rights specialist and director of the Andean Information Network in Cochabamba, Bolivia if the military might side with the opposition to overthrow Morales. Lebedur said, “No way, they are in a tough bind, and CONALDE is trying to set Morales up, drive a wedge between him and the military. But in spite of their frustrations, they [the military] have received more materially and in terms of a positive discourse from the Morales government than any other civilian one, and that makes a huge difference.”

Bolivian Ministers of Defense & Government (ABI)

“CONALDE has intentionally created a messy catch 22 for the Morales administration, a tense, provocative violent situation, in some cases targeting the security forces,” Ledebur explained. “If Morales orders repression, or there are clear cut violent acts by the security forces, his legitimacy as a socially conscious president erodes. But if the security forces don’t [act], as they didn’t for a long time, the vandalism escalates, and the military and police get humiliated and attacked - which in the long term erodes what, at least for the armed forces, had been a mutually beneficial marriage of convenience, with friction along the way.”

This past June the Andean Information Network released a report analyzing the Bolivian Armed Forces’ growing mission in the country under Morales. According to this report, part of the military’s support stems from the fact that Morales has given the military popular and lucrative jobs such as “enforcing customs regulations and confiscating contraband at the borders, including authorization to arrest offenders.” The AIN report explains that “traditionally military officers look forward to border postings as ‘the most profitable part’ of their careers.” In addition, “under the Morales government, the armed forces are in charge of baking subsidized bread (the regular price has gone up 270 percent in the past year), as well as passing out bonuses to schoolchildren and senior citizens.” Improved wages among some officials and better equipment have also kept the military on Morales’ side.

The AIN report also stated that the Bolivian military institution “will continue to categorically reject aggressive regional autonomy initiatives or threats of secession as risks to both national sovereignty and the budget they receive from the national government.” As one high ranking officer explained to AIN, “The only way the military would even remotely consider a coup, is if they took away most of our budget; at the core, we’re really a bunch of bureaucrats.”

US Influence in a Changing South America

UNASUR Meeting (ABI)

The current crisis in Bolivia and the ongoing diplomatic drama between the US and Latin America says a lot about the future of the region and its cooperative handling of economic and political questions. In an interview via email, Raúl Zibechi, a Uruguayan journalist, professor and political analyst who writes regularly for the Americas Program, said he believes the expulsion of US ambassadors, and the regional leaders’ response to the conflict in Bolivia, “is the manifestation of the fact that the USA can no longer impose its will on Latin America, and very concretely in South America.” He says there are two reasons for this change: “the birth of a regional power that seeks to be a global player, such as Brazil, a capitalist power but with different interests from the USA, and the existence of governments born of the heat of the resistance of social movements in countries that are large producers of hydrocarbons, as in Venezuela, Bolivia and perhaps Ecuador.”

Zibechi emphasized Bolivia’s importance as the leading supplier of gas to Argentina and Brazil, and how this contributes to the support Morales receives from these nations. “Brazil has big stakes in much of Bolivia and it already announced that it would not permit a destabilization of the country,” Zibechi explained. “The key alliance in the region is between Brazil and Argentina. They have problems, but in this topic they are very united.”

Back in Santiago, Chile, after six hours of talks between the nine South American presidents, the UNASUR group issued a statement which expressed their “their full and firm support for the constitutional government of President Evo Morales, whose mandate was ratified by a big majority.” In the statement, the leaders “warn that our respective government energetically reject and will not recognize any situation that attempts a civil coup and the rupture of institutional order and which could compromise the territorial integrity of the Republic of Bolivia.” They also decided to send a commission to Bolivia to investigate the killings in Pando.

Though working to overthrow leftist governments is unfortunately nothing new in South America, region-wide cooperation between left-leaning governments, without the presence of the US, is new. As Morales and other regional leaders forge ahead with progressive policies, there may be no turning back for this changing continent – regardless of the challenges posed by the Bolivian opposition. The geopolitical map of the hemisphere is being redrawn, in large part by the new alliances between South American nations, and the region’s increased resistance to Washington’s political and economic interference.

Peace March in La Paz (ABI)

The economic and agricultural powerhouse of Brazil is a key part of this new regional defiance and independence. “In Brazil, the right wing in the parliament questions very strongly the [US Navy’s] Fourth Fleet because they say it is to control the new oil fields in Brazil,” Zibechi explained. “In Brazil, things don’t depend just on Lula being in the government. Brazil has autonomous politics that go beyond who governs… Because of this, imperial policy is to overthrow Chavez and Evo before there are changes in these countries that are so profound that they no longer depend on who is governing.”

In Bolivia, much still depends on what happens on the ground, outside of the presidential meetings and negotiations. The opposition has lifted their road blockades for now, and meetings between the government and representatives from the opposition continue. Meanwhile, many of Bolivia’s social organizations and unions have pledged their support for Morales and against the right wing. On September 15 thousands of workers, families and students marched in La Paz, the nation’s capital, against the massacre in Pando and the right’s violence. “We are against the massacre of campesinos which has taken place in Pando,” Edgar Patanta, the leader of the Regional Workers’ Center, told ABI, “We will not permit the repetition of these acts. We will defend democracy and life as we have in the past.”

Fear and Loathing in Bolivia: New Constitution, Polarization

By Benjamin Dangl

Thursday, 03 January 2008

“Let’s go unblock the road, compañeros!” a man in an old baseball cap yells as he joins a group of people hauling rocks and tires from a central intersection in Cochabamba. This group of students and union activists are mobilizing against a civic strike led by middle class foot soldiers of the Bolivian right. These actions in the street are part of a political roller coaster which is dramatically changing Bolivia as it enters the new year.

Two major developments marked the close of the year in Bolivia: the passage of a new constitution and the worsening of political polarization in the country. The new constitution reflects the socialistic policies advocated by indigenous president Evo Morales, while racism, regional and political divisions still threaten to push Bolivia into a larger conflict.

In the final weeks of 2007, a variety of protest tactics were used by political factions to advocate competing visions for the future of the country. From November 24-25, clashes between security forces and opposition protesters in Sucre left three people dead and hundreds wounded, forcing the assembly rewriting the country’s constitution to move to Oruro. Anarchists dressed in black and pounding drums marched against racism in Cochabamba, while older Bolivians in La Paz organized rallies in support of a new pension plan. In the town of Achacachi, Aymara indigenous leaders sacrificed two dogs in a ceremony declaring war on the wealthy elite in Santa Cruz.

Rightwing-led departments shaded green

Santa Cruz is a department with a capital city of the same name and is the center of the right’s growing movement against the Morales government. The Bolivian right is led by four right wing governors in the eastern departments of Beni, Pando, Santa Cruz and Tarija, civic committees, business and land owners, and the political party Democratic and Social Power (PODEMOS). The right organized various civic strikes throughout 2007, while supporters of the Movement Toward Socialism, (MAS, the political party of Morales), also flexed their political muscle in protests, blockades and strikes. Though government and media battles often carve new policies and shape debates, street mobilizations remain a vital part of Bolivian politics.

Transformation Through a New Constitution?

On December 8-9, MAS assembly participants and their allies passed the new constitution in Oruro. Opposition party members boycotted the meeting. Representatives of neighborhood councils, mining unions, coca growers’ unions, student and farmer groups mobilized in Sucre to defend the assembly from right wing intervention. Activists blew up dynamite to intimidate political opponents while assembly participants chewed coca to stay awake throughout the weekend-long gathering.

The new constitution paves the way for many of the changes the government has been working toward since Morales was elected in 2005. The document gives the state greater control over natural resources and the economy, and guarantees expanded autonomy for departmental governments and indigenous communities. It also calls for a mixed economy, where the rights of private, public and communal industries are protected. Indigenous community justice systems are better recognized through the new constitution and the document establishes that Supreme Court judges are to be elected instead of appointed by congress. The constitution also lifts the block on second consecutive terms for the president. This change would allow Morales to run again for two more terms in a row, in addition to his current time in office.

Though it was passed in the assembly in Oruro, the new constitution still has to be approved in a national referendum along with a vote on an article on land reform which is still in dispute. This controversial article puts a limit on private ownership of land to 100,000 hectares. Such a policy would greatly impact large land holdings in the department of Santa Cruz and other regions. On top of these challenges will be the difficulty of actually implementing these policy changes which so far only exist on paper.

Rightwing assembly members from PODEMOS, civic leaders and governors announced that they will not recognize the new constitution as it was passed without their support. MAS’s take on this, as represented by Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera, is that the light-skinned elite do not want to give up any of their privileges. Linera told the Los Angeles Times that these elites “have to understand that the state is no longer a prolongation of their haciendas [estates.]“

Rightwing striker with club in Cochabamba

As a way out of the tense divisions, Morales announced that a referendum would be held in 2008 on his presidency and all governorships. In this referendum, which is scheduled to happen sometime before September 2008, Morales established a rule that he has to receive over 54% of votes – what he received when elected president in 2005 – supporting his presidency to remain in office. If he doesn’t receive this support, he is to hold elections within 90-120 days. At the same time, there will be a referendum on whether the governors will stay in office. If the governors do not receive more votes than they did when they were elected in 2005, then they can be replaced by an interim governor of Morales’ choosing until the next elections.

This referendum could be a way for Morales to strengthen his own mandate, while weakening the right. Though criticism among Morales’ base of support has increased recently, when given a choice between supporting the right and Morales, this large voter group would likely vote for Morales. There is also a lack of alternatives to Morales among the Bolivian left. A massive voter registration drive, largely in rural areas, launched by the Morales administration is also likely to play into the president’s favor in this referendum. A recent poll conducted by Ipsos Apoyo, Opinión y Mercado showed that 56% of the population currently approves the performance of Morales.

The Right and New Polarization

Shortly after Morales announced plans for the referendum, the right made another bold announcement which made political negotiations even more unlikely. On December 15, right wing leaders in Santa Cruz declared autonomy from the central government. Leaders announced the creation of Santa Cruz ID cards, a television station and its own police force; the Bolivian national police force will no longer be recognized. In addition, the autonomy declaration establishes that 2/3 of taxes from the oil and gas industry in that department will remain in Santa Cruz, rather than going to the central government. Expanded autonomy for four of the opposition led, resource rich, departments would further threaten the stability of the Morales government.

Meanwhile, strikes, road blockades and protests have been organized among all political factions and violence has often erupted throughout what has been a turbulent end to the year. There have been approximately eight political bombings in Bolivia in 2007. Most of these incidents involved dynamite or grenades, and the majority of them were against leftist unions or MAS party officials

Pro-government march in La Paz

Morales and his opponents have shown interest in meeting to negotiate some kind of compromise. Such a meeting was put at risk when on December 31 right wing leaders said they threw the new constitution into the garbage. Morales responded by saying that their autonomy statute should be thrown in the garbage. These declarations are likely to further erode relations between political opponents and increase division in the country.

A government plan to redirect gas industry taxes from departmental governments into a national pension plan has resulted in outcries from the right, and praise from MAS supporters. This pension, called the Dignity Salary, was approved in congress on November 27 without many opposition members present. The pension plan gives Bolivians over age 60 approximately $26 per month. The funds, which are to be an estimated $215 million annually, would be redirected from current gas tax funds which had previously gone to departmental governments. Right wing governors protested the pension, demanding that this redirected tax money stay in their departments.

Another of the right’s criticisms of the Morales administration is that the president’s policies are bad for business and international relations. Recent events and reports prove otherwise. On January 1, the government announced that in 2007 the Bolivian economy grew by 4.2%, which is more than the 1.7% growth in 2001 when Jorge Tuto Quiroga was vice president of the country. Quiroga, of PODEMOS, is a key leader of the current opposition against Morales.

Police confronting protesters in Cochabamba

In mid-December, Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Chilean president Michelle Bachelet met with Morales in Bolivia to show their support for his government and the new constitution. The three heads of state negotiated a plan to develop a $600 million highway from Santos, Brazil, across Bolivia and to sea ports in Arica, Chile. During the same visit, the Brazilian hydrocarbon company Petrobras announced it would invest up to $1 billion to further develop the Bolivian gas industry.

Morales also cut a deal with a South Korean company to collaborate with Bolivian state-owned COMIBOL to exploit a copper mine in Corocoro, outside La Paz. On December 21, Bolivian foreign minister David Choquehuanca, during a visit in Beijing, announced proposals for Chinese investment in Bolivian telecommunications, transportation, hydrocarbons and minerals. Though specific deals with China were not discussed, Choquehuanca told Reuters that “We need investment but we need investment that gets us out of poverty, not investment that strips our natural resources and leaves us poor.”

Last November, in the cold lobby of a museum in La Paz, Bolivian vice president Garcia Linera arrived late to a panel on political change in Latin America. It was raining heavily in the Bolivian capital and the political crisis threatened to tear the country apart. Throughout the presentation, Linera left the panel to field numerous cell phone calls. When he finally commented on the polarization and conflicts in the country, he warned about the risk of widespread division, and said this moment of “bifurcation” is “much closer than it appears.” He spoke of how the “new state is consolidating itself” and how the right may “gradually accommodate” itself to these changes. Yet, he warned, the right could also work to block the government’s changes to revert to a past balance of power, which could create more tension. As Bolivia enters the new year, this tension is more present than ever.

Bolivia ended 2007 with more questions than answers about the future of the nation. Will the government be able to transform the state into something useful for a majority of Bolivians? What role will the social movements of Bolivia play in pushing for radical change? Will the policies in the new constitution be applied in effective ways? Though many of these issues may not be resolved in 2008, the good news is that Bolivia is directly addressing these critical questions.

Benjamin Dangl is the author of “The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia“, (AK Press, 2007).  Photos by Dangl.  Email: Bendangl(at)gmail.com

New Politics in Old Bolivia: Public Opinion and Evo Morales

By Benjamin Dangl

Thursday, 29 November 2007

Nearly two years into the presidency of Evo Morales, government officials and leftist social organizations are determined to break with the past and transform the nation. The opposition calls it a civil war. The government calls it a revolution. Other Bolivian activists and analysts call it business as usual. A look at public opinion and recent conflicts in Bolivia exposes the challenges facing Bolivia’s first indigenous president.

During the weekend of November 24-25, opposition protestors clashed with police in Sucre, Bolivia. Protesters were demanding that the capital of Bolivia be moved to Sucre. Three people died and over 100 were wounded in the confrontations. Leading up to this bloody weekend, assembly people of the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS, the political party of Evo Morales) had been routinely attacked by opposition groups advocating the capital move and protesting the MAS and the new constitution. Due to these frequent attacks, the MAS moved the assembly to a nearby military college for security. Opposition assembly people boycotted the gathering at the military college, protesting the move and the MAS plans for the new constitution. On Saturday, November 24, the MAS and allied parties gathered to pass a new draft of the constitution without the opposition present. The new draft was passed by 138 out of the 255 assembly people.

Protests in Sucre, Photo: Bolivia Indymedia

According to Evo Morales, the draft that was passed guarantees autonomy for departments and indigenous groups, nationalization of natural resources, greater access to water, land, electricity, education and healthcare. Morales explained that the constitution respects private property, but also public and communal property. The assembly has until December 14th to approve the final constitution. This final constitution requires the support of 2/3 of the entire assembly, meaning these articles won’t be passed without the participation of opposition groups. Any articles in the constitution that do not receive 2/3 approval will go to a national referendum for citizens to vote on.

The Landscape of Public Opinion in Bolivia

To gain an unofficial understanding of the general public opinion regarding the Evo Morales administration, I recently spoke with a number of Bolivians from diverse economic, geographical and political backgrounds. These informal discussions took place on buses, in parks, bars, farms and living rooms. They offered insights into the current crises and political landscapes in the country. It was these opinions and popular sentiments that erupted into violence recently, and will likely decide the fate of the government.

In general, I found that poorer, working class and rural people tend to support the MAS primarily because Morales is the first indigenous president of Bolivia, a former coca grower and is from a humble background like their own. These supporters, which largely make up the government’s base across the country, cite the partial nationalization of the gas, redistribution of land, improved access to basic services and the work of constituent assembly (in spite of its problems) as key reasons for their support. Many of the country’s social organizations and unions are within this supportive group. Though they have criticisms, many leaders have entered, or are working with, the government in some capacity. This is the group that will likely continue to defend the government from opposition forces and keep Evo Morales in office.

Protest Against Right Wing Strike in Cochabamba, Photo: Ben Dangl

I have also met a number of people that in spite of the criticisms they have, recognize the historic importance of the first indigenous president, and the fact that the MAS is a political instrument developed by grassroots movements. These people acknowledge the challenges facing the administration, yet are not contented with the changes that have taken place under the MAS government. They say more private land and corporations should be expropriated, that the gas should be fully nationalized, and that the MAS is depending on the old structure of the corrupt state, rather than transforming the state. Criticisms are growing within this group, particularly after the violence and problems at the constituent assembly. Though this group may weaken the overall support for the government, they currently lack a coherent political strategy or major party outside the MAS.

Others cited the government’s lack of expertise, management and technical skills as reasons to be critical. They contend that instead of picking people with technical and political experience, the MAS chose to hire people that are close political allies, and indigenous people with union organizing experience. These critics say such choices have contributed to poor management within the government. It’s important to point out that in the past it has been the technically experienced politicians that have used their skills to loot the country. In this government, there has been a concerted effort to include workers, indigenous people and leaders from excluded sectors that understand the suffering and needs of the population which the government was elected to work for.

I have also met a handful of people that are against the indigenous president for racist reasons. Others oppose the government for ideological reasons, and advocate continued neoliberal policies. Within this oppositional group is the occasional critique that Evo Morales isn’t governing for Bolivians, he is just following orders from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro of Cuba. This is not true. The route that the current government is taking with the management of natural resources, the re-writing of the constitution and other issues has been established by popular demands from the Bolivian people. For decades, numerous mobilizations and protests pushed the constituent assembly and gas nationalization into the political agenda. It’s true that there is a considerable amount of influence and support coming from Cuba and Venezuela. Yet many people in Bolivia see this as a good thing. It’s a collaborative relationship of mutual respect, and much less hierarchical than the relationships former Bolivian presidents have had with the Washington or multinational corporations. For example, when Venezuela lends money to Bolivia, there aren’t any neoliberal strings attached, such as the privatization of water resources.

Constituent Assembly, Photo: Bolivia Indymedia

Finally, there is a large and vocal political opposition to the Evo Morales administration. This opposition is organized primarily through right wing political parties and civic organizations in the eastern parts of the country. These groups have led the charge against the MAS in the assembly, the media and the streets. A recent strike was called by prefects for six of the nine departments in Bolivia. This strike represents the cohesion of the right, and the regional division in the country. Though the MAS won the presidency, it did not win a number of prefect and mayor positions. These local governments and right wing leaders have united against the MAS. It’s this opposition which poses the biggest challenge to the MAS government.

A common critique that crossed these lines of support and opposition to the government was the tension and violence in the country. The recent deaths and injuries in Sucre are part of a cycle of violence that has beset the administration since it took office, erupting earlier in Cochabamba, Santa Cruz and elsewhere in the country. These outbursts aren’t necessarily just the Morales administration’s fault, but part of a power struggle which has erupted between the MAS and the opposition. And, as Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera explained in a recent interview in Americas Program, these tensions, both racial and economic, are not anything new for Bolivia: “The novelty today is that for the first time the society is forced to look at itself in the mirror, and it has to see its limitations, its cracks, its weaknesses. … The real problem would be if we didn’t resolve them, if we just did what past governments have done and swept them under the rug.”

“With or Without Evo”

Another group of intellectuals and journalists offered their analysis of the current government and the role of society outside the government palace.

In the worn down Bolivian Workers’ Center office in El Alto, I met with Julio Mamani, a journalist who has for years reported on his city, its politics and social movements. Mamani lamented the lack of space for critique within the MAS: “If you critique the government, they say you are an instrument of neoliberalism.” Others in the government shared this criticism, complaining about a “with us or against us” mentality within the MAS that stifles open discussion and critiques.

Mamani explained another challenge is the lack of political alternatives on the Bolivian left. Most groups have gathered under the umbrella of the MAS. “What will happen to them after Evo is gone?” Mamani asked.

Felipe Quispe, a long time indigenist/leftist leader, and Felix Patzi, a radical sociologist and former minister of education in the MAS government, had answers to that question.

Quispe, Indymedia

In a hotel lobby near the central Plaza Murillo in La Paz, a mustachioed Quispe, smoking cigarettes and chewing coca at the same time, tilted his hat above his forehead and shook his fist in the air when talking about indigenous mobilizations in recent years. “We have tried to recuperate our land and our power. Yet this power is in the hands of our looters, including the MAS. We have to reorganize, rearticulate our forces in the country sides and in the cities… Who will make the revolution for us? It’s us, the poor, those on the bottom, the discriminated, the workers, we who built this country, it’s up to us. We need to govern ourselves.”

The academic Patzi spoke of the social and indigenous movements that were very active in recent years and helped pave the way to the election of Evo Morales. “The MAS is a part of the momentum of these social movements… If this movement is to go forward, it’s up to us. We’ll have to continue this process with or without Evo.”

Others on the left are planning for a Bolivia without Evo, or at least a radicalization of the existing government. Writer and analyst Luis Tapia also looked beyond conventional thinking. Tapia has a beard, long flowing hair, and red-rimmed glasses. Speaking in a sure, steady tone, he explained that Bolivia contains many more political and social forces that the state does not include. “In Bolivia, politics is a lot more diverse than just the state,” Tapia explained. He mentioned communitarian governance among indigenous groups, unions, anti-privatization movements and neighborhood councils which question the vast inequalities in the country. “This political diversity and power often doesn’t fit into political parties or governmental positions. Democracy is not synonymous with the state.” Tapia said that the Bolivian state only represents a part of the diversity of the country, and likened presidents to monarchs — both centralized positions of power which facilitate the application of policies which are harmful to the people. Tapia said there is a dire need to “de-monopolize” politics and democracy in Bolivia.

Government Palace, Photo: ABI

On the other hand, the MAS contends that it is a government made of social movements, and is working to transform the state so that it can better serve the needs of the poorest sectors of the population. As Morales recently explained: “It is the experience and the effort of the social movements that is causing democracy to address the issues that really concern poor and needy people… Democracy is much more than a routine election every four years.” Indeed, many of the ministers and party members within the MAS are from union and indigenous movements. In many ways, and with limited results, the MAS initiatives and policies have reflected the demands of these excluded sectors.

The hope and enthusiasm of the first year of the Morales administration has dissipated. The initial plans and announcements of 2006 have largely unraveled in 2007. Instead of an instrument of transformation, the constituent assembly has been turned into a political swamp which the MAS may not be able to pull itself out of. Though the gas has been partially nationalized, some land has been re-distributed, and access to basic services increased, much still needs to be done. There may be a strong presence of social movement leaders within the government, but until the MAS can transform the state into something which reflects the diversity of Bolivia, it risks being suffocated by the rusted apparatus of the old state. Though the poor majority may still support the Morales administration, these first two years in office have exposed the stark challenges facing the polarized country.

Benjamin Dangl is the author of “The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia,” (AK Press, 2007). Email Bendangl(at)gmail.com

Click here to listen to a Uprising Radio interview with the author on the conflicts in Bolivia.

Latin America’s Leftist Shift: Hopes and Challenges

By Benjamin Dangl

Monday, 13 March 2006

Within the last six years in Latin America numerous social movements have gained momentum in the fight for human rights, better living and working conditions and an end to corporate exploitation and military violence. Recently, left of center leaders have been elected in Bolivia, Uruguay, Chile and Venezuela.

These political leaders, whose victory in office is due largely to these social movements in the streets, have pledged to fight poverty and prioritize the needs of the people over the interests of Washington and international corporations. This resistance is connected to centuries of organizing among indigenous groups and unions in Latin America. I’d like to discuss some reasons why this leftist shift is happening right now and about a few key moments and events in this movement’s recent history.

Latin America is currently waking up from a decades-long nightmare brought on by military dictatorships which came to power throughout Latin America in the 1970s and 80s, including Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Jorge Videla in Argentina and General Rios Montt in Guatemala among others.

Under such dictators, hundreds of thousands of innocent people, labeled as “leftist insurgents” by the military, were kidnapped, tortured and murdered. Much of this nightmare was funded by the US government and some of the architects of the repression were trained by US teachers in such places as the School of the Americas in Georgia.

Besides implementing this terror, dictators worked with Washington and multinational corporations to introduce neoliberal economic policies to the region. This economic model, often referred to as the Washington Consensus opened up markets for investment, put public works in the hands of private corporations, rejected government intervention in the economy, worked to dissolve unions and involved impoverished nations borrowing millions through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The debts accrued by military dictators are crippling Latin American countries to this day.

For decades this economic model has ravaged Latin America while IMF officials and free market enthusiasts continue to say, “just wait a little longer, the market will fix everything.” Of course, the market hasn’t fixed everything.  In many ways the current leftist shift in Latin America is a reaction to the failures of these policies.

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez emerged as a major political leader in 1989, when then President Carlos Perez borrowed billions of dollars from the World Bank, breaking the country with debt and raising income taxes. Riots filled the streets and many were killed. Chavez tried to lead a coup against Perez and failed. It’s the momentum from this conflict and discontent which Chavez rode into office in 1998, in a groundswell of support. People were tired of business as usual and the Bolivarian revolution led by Chavez, offered a change.

In 2000, in Cochabamba, Bolivia, a people’s revolt against Bechtel’s water privatization was sucesseful. The Bechtel corporation (which has since been contracted to deal with reconstruction efforts in New Orleans and Iraq) pushed this privatization deal with Cochabamba which increased the cost of water by up to 300%. People were billed for using rain water and drinking from wells they had created themselves. Cochabamba residents organized protests, road blockades and city-wide strikes against the privatization. Eventually Bechtel packed up and left town and water was again made a public work.

The house of cards of corporate globalization came crashing down in Argentina in December 2001. The neoliberal policies supported by the IMF and implemented by President Carlos Menem in the 1990s were widely seen as responsible for the collapse. An economic depression which could be likened to the Depression of the 1930s in the US, hit Argentina like a landslide. In one day, Argentina went from being one of the wealthiest countries in the region, to one of the poorest. The government was bankrupt with debt, the banks closed down and factories laid off workers by the thousands. People could no longer get money out of the bank.

As a result, citizens from diverse classes protested, kicking out the president, and demanding the resignation of everyone else in the government and the corporations that were to blame for the mess. “Que se vayan todos,” was the cry – “throw them all out” would be the English version of this phrase. At this time, people in Argentina didn’t just kick out their corrupt leaders, they organized neighborhood assemblies, barter fairs, urban gardens and alternative currency – all to survive. The country had been broken and in this time of crisis people looked to each other for support, solidarity and created a new world out of the wreckage – without the help of the government. Some workers who were fired took over their places of work – hotels, factories and businesses were occupied and run by worker cooperatives. In fact, this is one of the lasting successes of this 2002 movement; hundreds of factories and businesses are still in the hands of the workers across Argentina.

I have visited a number of these factories and talked with the workers. Many of them weren’t anarchists, communists or leftists of any kind when they took over the factories. Some of them were even members of right wing parties. They took over the factories and businesses not for ideological reasons, but because they had no food to eat, because some of them didn’t even have enough money to take the bus home when the boss threw them out; so they stayed at the factory. They did this to feed their kids, because there was no other choice.

This kind of crisis is in part what is fueling the revolt in Latin America right now. People are saying, “I can’t pay for the water, the food, the gas. I can’t afford the hospital fees and want a better future for my children.” The neoliberal system doesn’t work. People want to try something else. Many hope this “something else” is represented in the political processes led by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Nestor Kirchner in Argentina and others.

Such rebellions in the streets in Argentina to throw the bums out and start another world, in Bolivia to end gas privatization, in Brazil where farmers are taking over unused land – these groups paved the way for the current political leaders in the government, they opened up spaces for people like Chavez and Morales to come to power.

So what does it mean that this leftist movement has come into the political palace?

In the case of Argentina, President Nestor Kirchner has negotiated deals with the IMF to bring his country out of debt and economic depression by not doing everything the IMF says. Since the 2001 crash, Argentina with Kirchner at the helm has set an example by breaking with the IMF and setting the tone at negotiating tables with international lenders. In 2003, Argentina threatened to default on its payments to the IMF, something unheard of for countries of its size. The IMF responded by backing away from some of the policies and interest rates it was demanding. Kirchner’s hard line negotiating was an example for other countries and helped Argentina climb out of its crisis.

Tabare Vasquez in Uruguay has made gains in human rights and ending impunity for military officials involved in past dictatorships. Morales in Bolivia has pledged to reverse the negative impact of the war on drugs in Bolivia, nationalize the country’s gas (in some form or another), organize an assembly to rewrite the country’s constitution and reject US -backed trade agreements. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela has utilized massive oil wealth to fund a social revolution.

However, these leftist governments are far from perfect: Uruguay’s Vazquez has gone down a neoliberal path which some argue has gone further to the right than the previous government. Instead of enacting the radical changes his base demands, President Lula in Brazil has strictly followed IMF prescriptions, and instead of using government funds to spur on social projects in education and health care, he has continued making payments on the $230 Billion debt.

Venezuela’s political process is largely powered by oil money, meaning the revolution may last only as long as the oil does, and the revolution is not that exportable to countries without such natural resources. Evo Morales in Bolivia has already been accused of working toward gas nationalization deals which are far from what social movements demand. And though the “water war” against Bechtel in Cochabamba in 2000 was successful in kicking the company out, the public water system that was developed in its place has problems with corruption and mismanagement. The momentum and solidarity that exploded in Argentina during their 2001-2002 crisis has all but disappeared. Class divisions, apathy and a lack of civic participation mark the country’s social movements.

Other challenges to this leftist shift are posed by the US government and multinational corporations. The US military has set up a base in Paraguay, 200 kilometers from the border with Bolivia. Hundreds of troops are reportedly stationed there. Analysts in Bolivia and Paraguay who I’ve spoken with believe the troops are there to monitor the Morales administration, leftist groups in the region and to keep an eye on Bolivia’s gas reserves (which are the second largest in Latin America) and the Guarani Aquifer which is one of the biggest water reserves in the hemisphere.

As US hegemony is threatened in the region, military and other forms of intervention are not out of the question. As documented by Eva Golinger in her book, “The Chavez Code,” the US government supported and helped fund the short lived coup against Hugo Chavez in April, 2002. Washington has worked hard to push free trade deals in Central America, Colombia and continues, along with many corporate media outlets, to demonize the hopeful political processes in Latin America.

Things can’t be expected to change overnight. (I heard this phrase a lot while I was in Bolivia recently.) There is reason to be hopeful about what is going on in Latin America.  A new space for democracy and a different kind of politics and economics has been opened up; a new era where at best the needs of the people are favored over the interests of Washington and corporate investors.

There also may be safety in numbers. Many left of center presidents are expected to win in Latin American elections in the coming months. On April 9^th, Ollanta Humala a leftist social movement leader, is expected to be elected the president of Peru. Left-leaning former Mayor of Mexico City, Andrez Lopez Obrador leads the polls in the Mexican president race. The election there will take place on July 2^nd. Elections in Ecuador will take place in October, and socialist Leon Roldos is expected to win.

A progressive trade, political and economic bloc – spurred on by leftist election victories - is also an enormous possibility. This trade bloc would be an alternative to US hegemony and neoliberalism in the region. Chavez is leading the way toward making this a reality. Within such a bloc, instead of bowing to Washington and corporate interests, progressive Latin American nations will unify to create an alternative to exploitative US backed trade agreements. Such regional cooperation and integration offers a long term, sustainable solution to corporate exploitation.

[This article is from a talk given at “The Winds of Change in the Americas Conference” in Burlington, Vermont on March 5, organized by Toward Freedom]

Benjamin Dangl is the author of “The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia”, (forthcoming from AK Press in Jan. 2007). He edits www.UpsideDownWorld.org, uncovering activism and politics in Latin America and www.TowardFreedom.com, a progressive perspective on world events. Email Ben(at)upsidedownworld.org