Automatic translation made by AI.
On this occasion, we spoke with our comrades from the MST in Bolivia, who recently published an important assessment of the revolutionary process the country has experienced (read it here), its achievements and scope, as well as the limitations and problems that emerged throughout its development. Below, we share our interview with Juan José Villa, a leader of the MST in Bolivia, to explore in greater depth the main conclusions of this analysis.
1- The Bolivian movement has been very powerful; it has even defeated police repression on three occasions. How is it possible that, with all these factors in its favor, the people have not been able to oust Rodrigo Paz?
The Bolivian working class, while it did not oust Rodrigo Paz, has dealt him a crushing blow from which he cannot recover on his own. The leadership of the nascent dual power within the Bolivian Workers’ Confederation (COB) signed a spurious pact granting the government a three-month truce. This has been vital for the government’s survival. The process could have toppled Paz—in fact, it still can—so there is no defeat as such. Although the leadership sabotaged the struggle by refusing to take power, the masses have not been crushed; following the truce, they are dispersing into sectoral struggles. But there is a powerful tendency to regroup, paving the way for the next great struggle.
There is a lot of talk about the state of emergency in Bolivia, but to put it into proper perspective, we must remember that the counterrevolutionary policy of suppression orchestrated by Trump’s imperialism was categorically defeated by the masses in May and June. The government had already imposed a de facto state of emergency during the 50 days of struggle. It deployed police and military forces against the roadblocks. But the repressive convoys fled in every operation led by Minister Zamora—Paz’s cousin—with the cowardice characteristic of his class in the face of the powerful onslaught of the masses. The new power of the working class, which was beginning to dominate the western part of the country—with its epicenter in the department of La Paz and the city of El Alto—was evident.
The most notable counterrevolutionary offensive took place on June 6, when police and military forces protected and armed the fascist gangs of the Santa Cruz oligarchy. This counterrevolutionary bloc intervened in the roadblocks at San Julián in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, a department that the ruling class considers its stronghold and base of operations. But the strength of the masses asserted itself in eastern Bolivia with all its vitality, shattering the repressive strategy and breaking fascism both physically and morally. The masses not only defended the roadblocks but also demonstrated the emerging dual power, intensified the struggle, and took control of the police barracks. They defeated the counterrevolution!
From east to west, Rodrigo Paz was not governing. So who was? Clearly, the emerging power of the alliance of workers, peasants, and the people, which forged its own organizations—from the Túpac Katari Federation, the CSUTCB, neighborhood councils, the FSTMB, the teachers’ union, and various other unions— all with organic representation in the COB, which had become an organ of dual power through the struggle, under the leadership of the mining proletariat.
The Pro Santa Cruz Civic Committee, an organization of the subservient oligarchy, declared on May 24 that a power vacuum reigned in the country, and went even further on May 30, with its vice president, Agustín Zambrana, declaring that“the roadblockers are governing Bolivia.” Even the class enemy had to acknowledge it. It is incredible that there are sectors of the left that still refuse to see this reality.
Paz not only faced obstacles to govern; he had an even bigger problem: an emerging dual power structure. This dual power not only blocked roads and trade routes but also demonstrated that it had developed its own self-defense capabilities; the COB assembly of May 31 voted to open a corridor for the supply of food and medicine. A form of self-government was emerging. It was the duty of the leadership to build on it.
Reports from the field regarding the sympathy of soldiers in provincial barracks toward the mobilization provided the necessary foundation for defining a strategy for power. But the bureaucracy never wanted to assume its responsibility. The MST called on them to adopt the line of workers’ and peasants’ power, both in written statements and at meetings of the miners’ federation and the May 31 COB Assembly, in the presence of delegations from all sectors engaged in the struggle.
Rodrigo Paz does not stand on his own, but rather on the basis of the conciliatory policy of the COB, which—by refusing to seize power—pursued a strategy of attrition involving 50 days of blockades and marches without coordinated efforts to enter Plaza Murillo, which was the final step needed to bring the struggle to a successful conclusion. Even so, Paz and the oligarchic institutions were defeated, the land conversion law was repealed, and the fascist offensives were defeated.
When the COB leadership, headed by Mario Argollo, signed the agreement with the government on June 19 declaring a three-month truce, it simultaneously ordered the lifting of all pressure tactics. After three days, all roadblocks were removed by the masses themselves. It was in this context that Paz, with the complicity of the bureaucracy, declared a three-month state of emergency—the same duration as the truce. But the struggle had already been called off by the COB, not by the military.
The government is propped up by the leadership of a class-antagonistic organization. But if this organization decides to withdraw its support, Rodrigo Paz will once again falter and collapse. For now, he has the bureaucratic leadership’s permission to govern. That is why he continues with the imperialist austerity measures. He has devalued the currency, once again driving up inflation for the staple goods of the basic basket; shortages and the distribution of contaminated fuel continue; rates for basic utilities have increased; and a new decree announces even higher consumer prices; the foreign debt is rising due to commitments to the IMF. And the government is persecuting the leaders who were not present at the signing of the pact.
But all these actions have sparked new protests. No one respects the state of emergency. Transport workers, neighborhood associations, and health care workers are mobilizing, and the military is powerless to stop them. If the government were to open fire on the masses, the great struggle to bring it down would resume immediately, and it would be defeated. So, it is focusing on persecuting the leaders of the blockades because they are the weakest link in the process, while the masses are breaking the martial law, which exists only on paper. Even a trade union that had supported the government under the leadership of the bureaucrat Siñani has announced that its sector will also defy the state of emergency due to the devastating consequences of the currency devaluation.
The government is in a worse position than before; it can be defeated if the struggle is reorganized with the goal of workers’ and peasants’ power. However, if this goal is not embraced due to a boycott by the leadership, the rank and file will push for a return to the streets, raising the issue of power once again in the struggle itself. This is the defining characteristic of the country’s political and social situation.
2- In the Latin American context, and based on the experience from the turn of the century, it seems that the bourgeoisie and imperialism are much more determined not to let governments fall. What connection do you see between these elements of spontaneity and the lack of revolutionary leadership in the Bolivian process?
This is in line with international bourgeois strategies to counter the Latin American revolution. Previously, since the beginning of the 21st century, there had been an imperialist policy of diverting revolutionary processes through the electoral process. Thus, through elections, neoliberal governments were replaced by Popular Front governments. The latter presented a popular, peasant, or working-class facade and used socialist rhetoric, but their practices were reformist and capitalist. Because of this duality—their rhetoric and half-hearted reforms—they gained the trust of the masses, but in practice they safeguarded imperialist interests. Hence, there was never any true socialism.
Now, is there a shift in policy? Under Donald Trump’s imperialist administration, there is a tendency to reject the replacement of the Popular Front; socialist rhetoric is not tolerated, even if those governments pursue pro-imperialist policies. The preference is to impose governments aligned with right-wing rhetoric and practices. Although Rodrigo Paz took office with a populist platform, once he was sworn in, he aligned himself with Trump’s doctrine. And precisely for this reason, from his very first month in office, he faced the wrath of the masses in the first COB general strike, which ended in victory.
Imperialism does not bring down its governments—not a single one; it is the masses who overthrow them. Paz will still have the masses breathing down his neck. During this period, the possibility of his downfall remains on the table. Therefore, the question of power for the working class also remains on the table.
Trump’s imperialism is aware of this. It has two options to prevent the revolution: counterrevolutionary suppression or reconciliation with the traitorous leaderships, either to continue propping up the government or to ensure an electoral diversion. The latter cannot be ruled out, but it appears to be a last resort.
What option did Trump’s imperialism turn to first in Bolivia? Counterrevolutionary suppression—hence its military offensives and fascist mobilization. But they were defeated by the masses.
What did Paz and the U.S. Embassy turn to after their defeat? Reconciliation with the COB leadership. They did not agree to call for elections, but they did agree to keep Paz in power.
However, this reconciliation has been marred by clumsy moves on the part of the government that have broken the reform agreement. This has accelerated the emergence of new social protests; the demonstrations have prevailed over the state of emergency; and various sectors are once again calling for the government to be ousted immediately after the three-month truce.
The revolutionary process can be reorganized within the workers’, peasants’, and people’s movements by fighting for clear assessments, demanding democratic assemblies, clarifying the issue of power, organizing the COB’s emergency congress, fighting to ensure it is democratic, where the conscious struggle for workers’ and peasants’ power is defined, and a leadership with a minimum degree of class independence and militancy is elected, striving for a revolutionary leadership.
As long as these assemblies and emergency congresses cannot be organized in a conscious manner due to the boycott by the leadership bureaucracy, the process will be driven forward by pressure from the rank and file; it will reorganize itself, but will suffer from the lack of a subjective factor of revolutionary leadership, revealing a dialectical contradiction, and raising the question of power objectively—as it did in May and June—but likely with greater impact.
We must be unequivocal here: the argument that every mobilization has a leadership commensurate with the depth of the mass process is incorrect. It’s as if every process were linear, applying formal logic to the relationship between the masses and leadership. This approach reduces the issue to the following: “If there is no revolutionary leadership, then there is no mass revolution.” So what is there? Everything but revolutionary processes. Thus, the revolutionary mass movement is replaced at every moment and in every place by the categories of revolt and rebellion—which are less than a revolutionary process—casting doubt on and distrusting the very forces of the masses at every historical moment, especially in the 21st century.
What initially took the form of an attempt to contribute to and refine revolutionary theory turned out, in practice, to be the theoretical justification for capitulation to capitalist reformism. Every major mass mobilization that overthrew governments was questioned by the vast majority of the left, which denied its revolutionary content and instead labeled it a revolt or rebellion. And to consolidate this conception, they capitulated to the imperialist campaign to deny the working class as a historical subject, questioning its capacity to lead the exploited and oppressed, imposing the petty-bourgeois thesis of new social subjects, and undermining the class analysis characteristic of revolutionary theory.
Because of this anti-dialectical and pro-capitalist view—which holds that revolution is impossible—the vast majority of the left proposes bourgeois and electoralist solutions to the crises. Hence the constant calls for elections or a Constituent Assembly at every turn, even when they are faced with masses who overthrow governments and raise the question of power for the working class.
In Bolivia, the question of power is on the table. And the COB is emerging as an organ of dual power led by the mining working class. It is urgent to return to the dialectical conception of revolution. The objective factor (mass mobilization and its organizations) and the subjective factor (leadership) are almost never aligned. In fact, the objective factor is often more advanced than the subjective one. That is the dialectic of the process! In the Bolivian case, mass mobilization raises the question of power and drives the revolutionary crisis forward, while the leadership lags behind and is conciliatory; and the revolutionary party—which clearly understands that power can be seized—is still small and lacks decisive influence within the mass movement.
Let us therefore conclude that the objective conditions for the revolution to unfold are more than ripe; it is the subjective factor—leadership—that remains underdeveloped, causing the crises to drag on. But under no circumstances should we deny the existence of the objective revolutionary process.
3- One could argue that the lack of a revolutionary leadership with mass support was the decisive factor in the failure to oust Rodrigo Paz. What do you think?
The lack of leadership is a decisive factor. But the movement has not been defeated, so the overthrow of Paz remains on the table. We must build revolutionary leadership not only to overthrow Paz—since this task can be accomplished by the mobilizing force of the masses themselves in their next struggle, as they did in 2003 and 2005— revolutionary leadership is necessary to lead the masses and their organizations of struggle to seize power and sustain it over time, to prevent the revolutionary process from being derailed by electoral traps and constitutional successions. Of course, it is also necessary to prevent a possible defeat resulting from a new betrayal by the current leadership.
But what policy will we use to build the new leadership? The majority of the left—including the COB leadership that signed the pact with Paz—proposed bourgeois solutions to the crisis throughout the 50 days of struggle. They denied that the question of power was even on the table. Hence, they also contributed to conciliation by questioning the revolutionary process and the leadership role of the COB’s working class.
These are the three main positions of the left:
First, there are the supporters of Evo and Arcís, who proposed constitutional and electoral solutions. This involves the constitutional succession of Vice President Lara, either so that he can govern or so that he can call for elections. Although Evo Morales wavered on this point, as he initially proposed that Rodrigo Paz himself call for elections. Paz seizes on this to claim in peasant assemblies and in the media that he never called for the president’s resignation, thereby admitting his shameful policy of conciliation.
Second, there is the Revolutionary Workers’ Party, which led the urban teachers’ movement in La Paz—a powerful force in the struggle. This party initially proposed the creation of a People’s Assembly. However, by proposing a body that does not exist, it denied the dual power of the body that does exist—the COB—and its slogan was reduced to a poetic recitation. Finally, they called for a return to virtual classes while the struggle was unfolding in the streets, thereby denying the revolutionary process and contributing to the boycott of the struggle itself. Because of their vacillation, they lost the La Paz teachers’ union elections, and they mistakenly characterized their electoral defeat as a “shift to the right among the rank and file.”
Third is our party, which—since the COB Congress in October 2025 and the COB general strike in December and January—has put forward the line that the question of power is on the agenda and that the COB is the body called upon to centralize the struggles. In May and June, we put forward the slogan “All power to the COB and the peasant and popular organizations in struggle!” and called on the leadership to adopt the policy of seizing power.
The main debates revolved around these three political lines. The problem is that the electoralist and popular assembly approaches viewed the process not as a revolution, but as a rebellion or revolt, thereby questioning the inherent strength of the masses and disregarding the organ of dual power. This is the same problem plaguing the left that we raised in the second question of this interview.
That said, the leadership of the COB and the miners’ federation made clear their rejection of the MAS and Evo Morales—a necessary clarification to win at the 2025 workers’ congresses— but they ended up implementing a similar policy of conciliation with Paz without agreeing to denounce the electoral fraud, instead reverting to demanding that the government address the sector’s demands.
It is essential to build the leadership and become part of the mass movement, with a political line in line with the revolutionary situation. Regardless of the party’s size—whether large or small—the main task remains the same: we must show the working class that reality poses the question of power, and that the main task is to lead the COB’s dual power to victory without any compromises with the exploiters. The training of cadres depends on this: on overcoming mistrust in our own strength; on making the working class—the historical subject—visible as the leader of alliances with peasant and popular sectors; to stop reducing revolutionary processes to mere rebellions or uprisings, and to fight for political power when the mobilization of the exploited and oppressed drives the governments in power into a corner.
4- There is an ongoing debate within the global left about the relationship between revolutionary parties and the development of dual-power structures. What is your opinion on this matter?
Dual-power bodies are generally created by the masses and are distinct from the revolutionary party. In the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, the soviets were the dual-power bodies that the masses built through their mobilization. But leadership of the soviets could be assumed by any of the left-wing parties involved in the workers’ and mass movements. In February 1917, the leadership of the soviets was in the hands of the Mensheviks, while Lenin’s party, though a minority, fought to wrest leadership from them by advocating the seizure of power. “All power to the soviets!” With this slogan, they called on the Menshevik leadership to form a workers’ and peasants’ government. The conciliators denied that the process was ripe for the seizure of power and sowed distrust in the working class’s own strength. Meanwhile, Lenin and Trotsky’s Bolsheviks patiently explained that the question of power was on the agenda following the February Revolution, instilling confidence in the masses and in the revolutionary potential of the objective process. And with this line, they won control of the dual power and led the Russian Revolution of October 1917 to victory.
Today, there is confusion on the left between the organ of dual power and its leadership. It is believed that if the leadership is treacherous, the organ is also treacherous and therefore useless for the revolution, and the situation is exacerbated when the revolution is reduced to a mere rebellion. Imagine if Lenin had thought that of the Soviets—that because the leadership was Menshevik, the Soviets were no longer useful. Thinking that way, he would never have won control of the Soviets and seized power.
We must preserve the dual-power structure, and if its leadership is treacherous, we must fight to take control of it rather than turn our backs on it. That is what we plan to do in Bolivia with the COB.
5- Based on the MST’s process and intervention, what challenges are they addressing and what lines of work are they developing to strengthen the organization as it works to overcome its leadership crisis?
Power was not seized because of a leadership problem. The challenge is to build ourselves into that revolutionary leadership with mass influence. It is an arduous task, and it must be carried out within the mass organizations, confronting the treacherous bureaucracy. We must confront them within the unions themselves and not turn our backs on them. Building ourselves within the COB—that is our perspective.
It is essential to fight for democratic assemblies in every union to conduct a thorough assessment of the 50 days of struggle. The leadership must submit to evaluation by the rank and file, as is proper in a democracy. Let the sector-by-sector assemblies lead to a grand COB assembly to refocus and energize the struggle with the goal of seizing power. Fight for the right of workers to organize themselves into grassroots committees within each union and the COB to carry out democratic debates and prepare for the struggle ahead.
An Emergency Congress of the COB is urgently needed—but one that is truly democratic—to vote on seizing power and forming a workers’, peasants’, and people’s government, leaving behind the political theses that failed to foresee the current revolutionary upsurge against Paz. However, we must uphold the gains we have achieved, such as the congressional mandate for class independence, non-support for any bourgeois government, and the building of the COB Workers’ Party—resolutions that the current leadership has disregarded.
Within this context of reorganization, let us fight to defeat the already weakened State of Emergency! End the selective persecution of leaders! Freedom for those detained! Down with pro-imperialist austerity measures and sellout laws!
Overcoming the crisis means not only building a national alternative, but also an international one. In this regard, it is important to highlight the relationships forged in the heat of the struggle with revolutionary organizations around the world, which have agreed with us in emphasizing the role of the working class in alliance with the peasantry and the issue of power.
We highlight the role of the International Socialist League and the actions of activists from parties such as Argentina’s MST, who took it upon themselves to make it clear at the solidarity marches for Bolivia that the question of power is on the table; the same goes for comrades from Revolucao Socialista and Unidos Pra Lutar in Brazil, who, with their workers’ delegation, supported the struggle and the line on power. The PRT of Costa Rica played an incredible role in international outreach. The class struggle has united us in the Liaison Committee, and we hope to deepen our revolutionary ties through the debate on the world revolution.
But we also want to highlight the participation and fraternal relationship with comrades from the NPA-R in France, who—despite holding differing views and having differences—have helped raise awareness in Europe about the role of the working class, the role of the COB organization, and the call to move toward self-governance during the 50 days of struggle. We also highlight the fraternal support from the members of the group La Furia in Mexico.
Revisiting the characterizations of revolution, the campaign to highlight the presence and involvement of the working class, confidence in one’s own strength, and the principle of power as applied to the current class struggle is fundamental to the building of revolutionary parties internationally in the 21st century, a time when the left has become accustomed to setting aside the revolutionary perspective in favor of petty-bourgeois strategies.
There’s hope! Let’s move forward with historic optimism in the world socialist revolution!
Interviewed by: César Latorre
