rhythms of the pachakuti by raquel gutierrez aguilar

8/12/2019 Rhythms of the Pachakuti by Raquel Gutierrez Aguilar

1/83

R H Y T H M S O F T H E PA C H A K U T I

Indigenous Uprising and State Power in Bolivia

R A Q U E L G U T I R R E Z A G U I L A R


2/83

New Ecologies for the Twenty-first Century

:

Arturo Escobar, University o North Carolina, Chapel HillDianne Rocheleau, Clark University

This series addresses two trends: critical conversations inacademic fields about nature, sustainability, lobalization, andculture, includin constructive enaements between the natu-ral, social, and human sciences; and intellectual and politicalconversations amon social movements and other nonacademicknowlede producers about alternative practices and socio-

natural worlds. Its objective is to establish a synery betweenthese theoretical and political developments in both academicand nonacademic arenas. This synery is a sine qua non ornew thinkin about the real promise o emerent ecoloies.The series includes works that envision more lastin and justways o bein-in-place and bein-in-networks with a diversityo humans and other livin and nonlivin beins.

New Ecoloies or the Twenty-first Century aims to promote adialoue between those who are transormin the understand-in o the relationship between nature and culture. The seriesrevisits existin fields such as environmental history, historicalecoloy, environmental anthropoloy, ecoloical economics,and cultural and political ecoloy. It addresses emerin tenden-cies, such as the use o complexity theory to rethink a rane oquestions on the nature-culture axis. It also deals with epistemo-loical and ontoloical concerns, buildin brides between the

various orms o knowin and ways o bein embedded in themultiplicity o practices o social actors worldwide. This serieshopes to oster converences amon differently located actorsand to provide a orm or authors and readers to widen the fieldso theoretical inquiry, proessional practice, and social struglesthat characterize the current environmental arena.

A book in the series Latin America

in Translation / En Traduccin / Em TraduoSponsored by the Duke UniversityUniversity oNorth Carolina Proram in Latin American Studies


3/83

Rhythms

of the

Pachakuti

Indigenous Uprising

and State Power

in Bolivia

Raquel Gutirrez Aguilar

Forewordby Sinclair Thomson

Translated

by Stacey Alba D. Skar

Duke University PressDurham and London

2014


4/83

2014 Duke University Press

All rihts reserved

Printed in the United States o America on acid-ree paper

Typeset in Minion with Alereya display by Tsen Inormation Systems, Inc.

Library o Conress Cataloin-in-Publication Data

Gutirrez Auilar, Raquel.

[Ritmos del Pachakuti. Enlish]

Rhythms o the Pachakuti : indienous uprisin and state power in Bolivia/

Raquel Gutirrez Auilar.

paes cm(New ecoloies or the twenty-first century)

(Latin America in translation/en traduccin/em traduo)

Includes biblioraphical reerences and index.

978-0-8223-5604-2 (pbk : alk. paper) 978-0-8223-5599-1 (cloth: alk. paper)

1. Indians o South AmericaBoliviaGovernment relations. 2. Indians o South

AmericaBoliviaPolitics and overnment. 3. BoliviaPolitics and overnment

19822006. 4. Government, Resistance toBoliviaHistory. 5. Social movements

BoliviaHistory. I. Title. II. Series: New ecoloies or the twenty-first century.

III. Series: Latin America in translation/en traduccin/em traduo.

3320.1.68813 2014

984.053dc23

Cover: Photo/Dolores Ochoa


5/83

In memory of Alfonso Gutirrez Inzunza (19212007),

because his absence, as I finish this research, is the most painful.He taught me how to love, respect, work, and cooperate.

Dedicated to Adolfo Gilly, with respect and affection,

for his tenacious efforts to understand what is happening.


6/83


7/83

Foreword

Beyond the Old Order of Things

In Rhythms of the Pachakutiwe can sense the reverberations o an extraordi-nary historical process that took place in Bolivia at the start o the twenty-first

century. The book is the product o Raquel Gutirrez Auilars political en-

aement in that historical process and the ruit o her research and deep re-flection about what took place and what meanin it holds or radical politics.It brins toether, in rare ashion, firsthand personal experience, an honestchroniclin o events, acute and provocative analysis, and passionate com-

mitment to the project o collective emancipation.Rhythms of the Pachakutiis an ambitious book that not only contributes

to the multidisciplinary scholarship on Bolivian politics and the broader lit-erature on social movements but also moves boldly into the terrain o criti-cal theory, challenin capitalist social relations and state-centered politicalprojects o whatever stripe. It questions the aspirations to power o the tra-ditional Lef and, by implication, the centralizin and vertical tendencies othe Movement toward Socialism () overnment that emered out o thestate crisis and popular strugle between 2000 and 2005. Drawin lessons

rom the insurencies in Bolivia in that period, Gutirrez Auilar stakes outan alternative popular-communitarian position as a polestar or uture lib-eration strugles.

Thouh o Mexican nationality, Gutirrez Auilar was intimately involved

in Bolivian politics or many years and acquired a quasi-leendary statusthere as an intense, brilliant activist and radical intellectual. Her own politi-cal ormation on the Mexican Lef had been linked to the Central Americanliberation strugles o the 1970s and 1980s. In 1981 she joined the orces o ElSalvadors Farabundo Mart National Liberation Front () operatin inMexico. At the time, Gutirrez Auilar was a student o mathematics at theNational Autonomous University o Mexico (). In this context she metlvaro Garca Linera, a Bolivian mathematics student also immersed in the

hothouse culture o Mexicos revolutionary Lef. Alon with Garca Linerasbrother Ral, they conceived o takin the strugle to Bolivia but adaptin itto the distinctive conditions o internal colonial and capitalist exploitation in


8/83

x Foreword

a country with a majority indienous population. Gutirrez Auilar arrived in

Bolivia in 1984 as the roup was beinnin to operate. In 1985 it established ties

with a small cohort o radical Aymara militants committed to the overthrow

o a social order they perceived as prooundly racist and colonial. Amonthem was Felipe Quispe, whose ormation had been in the small but ideo-

loically fierce political party Tpac Katari Indian Movement (MovimientoIndio Tpac Katari or ). Toether they took the name Red Offensive(Oensiva Roja), which by 1986 was unctionin accordin to a dualist struc-ture consciously conceived in Andean communal terms. Gutirrez Auilar,

Garca Linera, and the other members with a Creole backround operated inthe Red Offensive o Miners Cells (Oensiva Roja de Clulas Mineras), while

Quispe and the Aymara members operated in the Red Offensive o TupajKatari Ayllus (Oensiva Roja de Ayllus Tupakataristas). Red Offensive pri-

marily concentrated on ideoloical-political work in the trade union move-ment and amon rural Aymara communities. In late 1988 and early 1989 itmade the decision to privilee armed strugle and adopted the name TpacKatari Revolutionary Army (Ejrcito Guerrillero Tpac Katari or ). The conducted several military operations between 1990 and 1991 and wasquickly dismantled by security orces in 1992. Gutirrez Auilar and her com-rades were imprisoned, in her case or a period o five years.

In 1995, while behind bars in La Paz, Gutirrez Auilar wrote a ascinatinpolitical memoir reflectin sel-critically on her own experience and its im-plications. Gutirrez Auilars Entre hermanos(Amon brothers and sisters)is crucial or understandin the political vision that she subsequently devel-oped in Rhythms of the Pachakuti. In the memoir she explains how she cameto question the vanuardist, democratic centralist, militarist, and state-

centered orientation o the revolutionary Lef, to which she had devoted her-sel up until that point. The startin point was her early rustration with the

lack o transparency and critical debate within the , and she recountsthe intention amon the ounders o Red Offensive to make their own ora-nization more internally democratic.

The ideoloical innovation o Red Offensive was to conceive o a com-

munitarian socialism in Bolivia. This led it to enae initially in the wider

effort to help build a community o communities. Yet between 1988 and

1989, Gutirrez writes, the roup arrived at its essential unity and undamen-tal reason or bein when the members vowed their commitment to armed

strugle. This act o bondin around the existential priority o combat led theroup to turn inward. Clandestine military work inevitably displaced broaderinsertion in mass political activity and the rowin indienous movement.


9/83

Foreword xi

At the same time, the conviction that only the armed overthrow o the statecould brin about revolution caused the roup to define itsel primarily as

aainst the state and thereby to enter into an ever tihter spiral o state and

antistate violence.For Gutirrez Auilar, the missed opportunity o contributin urther to

community sel-determination and the disastrous enaement with the statecalled or a new orientation toward radical politics. She ound inspiration

in the recent Zapatista insurency in Mexico. Here was a vibrant popular

strugle whose aim was not to seize state power but to construct and exerciseits own autonomous power, a movement rooted in indienous communitiesthat also had repercussions throuhout national society.

In spite o the utter deeat o the and the apparent consolidation oa neoliberal reime that intentionally undermined all collective ties o soli-darity, Gutirrez Auilar retained a conviction, unusual at the time, that thepossibilities or radical political strugle remained open in Bolivia. In another

prison writin rom 1996, she concluded that

whether in the Paris Commune o 1871, amon Aymara communitymembers in 1781, the soviets in 1917, the Turin proletarians in 1921, thestudents in 1968, or the women coca rowers in their recent march,

in any o these actions, the decisive actor was the joinin toether owomen and men willin to expend all o their enery to solve in com-mon, at the margin of, beyond, and outside state normativity, the prob-lems that stifle them. In these actions, and in the different individualand collective efforts to overcome the destiny imposed upon them andto move fluidly as a ree release o constructive enery, we find thethread o another history that has been systematically proscribed,the onoin history o el poder hacer[human capability], as well as

the oundation or imainin that another orm o lie is possible.(Gutirrez Auilar 1996, 64)

Afer emerin rom prison with provisional reedom while her court case

continued, Gutirrez Auilar became a oundin member o the importantintellectual roup Comuna in 1998. It was also comprised o lvaro GarcaLinera, who upon release had reinvented himsel as a researcher and teacherin the socioloy department o the Universidad Mayor de San Andrs in LaPaz and was ainin increasin public intellectual prominence; Bolivias lead-

in political philosopher Luis Tapia; and Ral Prada, a creative social theoristwho went on to a political career under the auspices o , first as a dele-ate to the constituent assembly rom 2006 to 2009. In 1999 Gutirrez Auilar


10/83

xii Foreword

(1999a) published an existential inquiry into the loic o patriarchal domina-tion in capitalism and an accountin o the societal and psychic obstacles towomens emancipation. In the ollowin years Comuna produced a stream

o books that combined critical theory with conjunctural political analysis tounderstand the crisis o neoliberalism and the reemerence o popular poli-tics and insurency. The oriinality, quality, and radicalism o this body o

work distinuishes it in the context o Latin American political thouht in the

neoliberal period. It was notable not only or its penetratin insights intotheBolivian political process but also the ways in which it provided an intellec-tual reflection ofthat process. Gutirrez Auilars essays on the Water War and

the Coalition or the Deense o Water and Lie (Coordinadora de la Deensa

del Aua y de la Vida, known locally as La Coordinadora) in Cochabamba,where she was in act enaed as an activist, stand out amon the contribu-tions and anticipate her analysis in Rhythms of the Pachakuti.

Subject to onoin court restrictions in Bolivia, Gutirrez Auilar returned

to Mexico surreptitiously in late 2001. She continued to collaborate with Co-muna at a distance and kept close tabs on the political developments and

popular mobilizations within the country. Strains within Comuna emeredincreasinly afer 2006 when Garca Linera entered office as Bolivias vice

president in the overnment o Evo Morales. As slowly bean to

consolidate state power and rein in the autonomy o the social movementsthat had brouht it to power, Gutirrez Auilar ound hersel compelled todenounce the same democratic-centralist tendencies o the Lef that she

had repudiated years beore. It was in this context o state reconstitution ol-lowin indienous, popular insurrection that Gutirrez wrote Rhythms of thePachakuti.

In this book Gutirrez Auilars account o the cycles o indienous andpopular insurency is shaped by her own role as an activist at the time, her

discussions with participants and leaders in the social movements, and care-ul interpretation o data culled rom interviews, political documents, and

the press. This distinctive personal backround, the unusual combination osources, and her bold political orientation make her account ar more thana conventional contribution to academic literature: it is itsel a revolutionarydocument reflectin Bolivias recent revolutionary turmoil and debate. Andor Enlish-lanuae readers, it is not only the Bolivian case that deserves tobe studied and understood but also Gutirrez Auilars own political thouht.

The book has the initial merit o concentratin on three cases that haveattracted widespread attention in the press and in the social sciences becauseo their successul challenes to the neoliberal order that reined in Bolivia


11/83

Foreword xiii

between 1985 and 2000. Gutirrez Auilar first explores the Water War in

Cochabamba in 2000 that led to the ouster o Auas de Tunari, an affiliateo the multinational corporation Bechtel that souht to privatize water dis-

tribution in the reion. Second, she looks at the waves o protest and urbansiee oranized by rural and urban communities o indienous Aymara thatculminated in 2003 with the overthrow o then president Gonzalo Snchez

de Lozada, an internationally touted architect o neoliberal reorm and a

close ally o the United States. Third, she considers the movement o coca learowers, with their base in the Chapare reion o Cochabamba, who beanby resistin the U.S.-led War on Drus in the Andes and who ultimately cata-pulted into presidential office their trade union leader Evo Morales in late

2005, at the end o the period analyzed by Gutirrez Auilar.Gutirrez Auilar is able to write about these movements with particularamiliarity and insiht because o her own political work on the altiplano andin Cochabamba. She draws on conversations, correspondence, and interviews

with her ormer comrades in the lvaro Garca Linera, who becameor a time a political advisor and intermediary between Felipe Quispe and

Evo Morales, and Quispe himsel, who became secretary eneral o the Peas-ant Trade Union Conederation o Bolivia. She also draws on her workin

relationship with Oscar Olivera, the trade union leader o actory workers inCochabamba who became the head o the Coalition or the Deense o Waterand Lie. Gutirrez Auilar hersel was part o the Coalition or the Deenseo Water and Lies technical assistance team and attended rassroots meet-ins in which the movement deliberated on its strateies and oals. She alsoained access to rare and ephemeral documentation such as photocopies othe notebooks o the secretary o the peasant trade union oranization in

Omasuyos (pp. 125126) and public pronouncements by rassroots orani-zations in the heat o the strugle such as the Auust 2004 declaration o

the Coalition or the Deense and Recuperation o Gas (pp. 336340). Suchsources allow her to ascertain the movements popular and radical imai-

naries or to discern what she calls their horizons o desire, as well as theirlimitations. These are the kind o sources that the mainstream press tendedto inore at the time and that historians o the uture are likely to overlook.

In a classic essay on the discourse o counterinsurency, the historian

Ranajit Guha once distinuished between three sorts o sources or the

study o subaltern uprisins. For Guha, documents produced at the time o

an insurency would constitute primary sources, while the works o aca-demic social scientists or historians writin later would constitute terciarysources. Gutirrez Auilars book is what Guha would call a secondary


12/83

xiv Foreword

source, a record produced by someone who lived throuh and participated inthe events yet also writes with a partial chronoloical and analytical distance.

In terms o its deeper conceptual approach, Gutirrez Auilars method

recalls that o Guha in his renowned study Elementary Aspects of PeasantInsurgencyin that she subjects each o the popular movements to a careulscrutiny that exposes their underlyin principles o political oranization and

consciousness. But the objective is not to elucidate these paradims in orderto understand popular politics in a clinical ashion or to deconstruct domi-nant modes o thinkin about the subaltern. In an unapoloetically utopianvein, that is to say in a revolutionary vein, she is interested in drawin romthese historical experiences in order to construct an alternative emancipatory

project o broad applicability in the uture. Her rapplin with the limita-tions, contradictions, and rustrations o the Bolivian movements, as well aswith their achievements, reflects her own efforts to help define a new politicalaenda with the potential to advance beyond capital and the state.

Gutirrez Auilar enaes with the creative work o the theorist John

Holloway, with whom she developed a close intellectual relationship afer herreturn to Mexico. Both had been inspired by the Zapatista movement, yet

they arrived at similar conclusions throuh different routes. Gutirrez Aui-lar drew rom her practical experience with and reflection upon power dur-in her time in prison, while Holloway pursued his theoretical exploration

o power in the academy. Holloways Change the World without Taking Poweris a orceul (and controversial) work that arues theoretically aainst the

state as an intrinsically despotic orm o political power. Yet one o the prob-lems with the book is its sheer abstraction, which can make the arument

seem inapplicable in actual historical circumstances. In Rhythms of the Pacha-

kutiGutirrez Auilar draws rom Holloway and adopts a similar theoreticalstance but provides a more concrete historical roundin or this position

based on her analysis o the insurencies in Bolivia. Her overt, honest reckon-in with the movements makes or compellin readin and will surely renewdebates about the prospect o chanin the world without takin power andrelations between social movements and the state.

Gutirrez Auilar arues that a community-popular political conscious-ness was estatin within the insurent movements between 2000 and 2005.With this move, she poses an alternative to the view o Bolivias reat politicaltheorist Ren Zavaleta Mercado who had traced a national-popular politi-

cal tradition rom the nineteenth century throuh the national revolution o1952 and up to the democratic strugles, led by the trade union movement,aainst military dictatorship in the early 1980s. For Gutirrez Auilar, the in-


13/83

Foreword xv

dienous and popular political subjects in the latest phase o strugle did notdefine themselves primarily in terms o the nation, were not simply seekinparticipation within a more inclusive and democratic state, and did not seek

to capture state power. Rather, they were experimentin with a new definitiono us that pushed beyondthe nation-state, and were proposin leitimateautonomousways to brin about collective coexistence and oranize politicalsel-reulation (p. 418).

She cites the list o demands (pliego petitorio) produced by the InterUnionPact rom 2001 as the clearest expression o this utopian community-popularperspective (pp. 126 ff.). It souht to transorm the state-society relationshipby invertin the command structure and subjectin hiher representatives to

the will o local community authorities. It asserted collective property rihtsand reclaimed community control over the resources that had been alienatedrom their rihtul owners. This project amounted to turnin the dominantpolitical and economic reime upside down and inside out (pp. 417418).This desired inversion o the political order sinified an imminent Pacha-kuti. Gutirrez Auilar appropriates this semantically rich, mythically reso-nant Quechua term, meanin a turnin or upheaval (kuti) o time and space(pacha), or contemporary political discourse as a vernacular Andean con-cept o revolution, thouh one that differs rom a classical Western or lef-ist notion. Her aim is to expose the sins and promise o that Pachakuti. Shetracks its emerence and unoldin dynamics, a process that she losses usin

the metaphor o rhythms. She perceives and records their particular patterns,their motion and timin, their pauses, stresses, and beats, their alterations

and pulsation.We need to take seriously Gutirrez Auilars vision o the recent insur-

encies. In act, despite the sinificant roles o Olivera, Quispe, and Morales,and the rowth o into a national party, there was no fixed personal or

institutional leadership durin crucial phases o indienous and popular mo-bilization. Furthermore, there did emere a deep critique o the Bolivian stateas a neocolonial apparatus and o neoliberalism as a hypertrophied reime ocapitalist domination. And yet, as Gutirrez Auilar is ully aware, the move-ments never ully realized the community-popular potential that she per-ceived in them. As she puts it, Why, i they were indeed aainst the state, didthey not clearly advance beyond it? (p. 260).

This problem is the crucial one or Gutirrez Auilar, and it is ascinatin

to see how she rapples with it. She distinuishes between the elements oradical imaination that constituted the internal and emerent horizon odesire o the movements and the effective results o the challene to power


14/83

xvi Foreword

that constituted their practical scope. Her method is desined to probe theap between the two, and she is too scrupulous to attribute the split merely toexternal orces, as miht a more acile or idealistic advocate o social move-

ments. Throuh the careul analysis o her sources, she identifies one ex-planatory actor as bein the contradictions in the contento the insurentspolitical vision. In lare part this derived rom contrary tendencies to re-

pudiate the dynamics o the state and to desire uller and airer incorporationwithin them. While she doesnt belittle the latter, she notes that the ofen un-conscious points o political compromise, convention, and constraint pointto a major theoretical-discursive weakness that prevented insurent orces

rom exceedin certain parameters o liberalism. She is also attuned to the

formsthrouh which insurent orces expressed themselves, and in this sec-ond explanatory actor, she finds that the trade union tactic o the list o de-mands (pliego petitorio) made beore the state ultimately allowed the state torerame and resolve the process o neotiation. A third explanatory actor

involves political strategy. She traces the increasin electoralist outlook o

as a crucial development that undermined the partial and temporary

unity o the community-popular perspective. In mid-2005, when the politicalorder was at the point o crumblin and insurency was spreadin throuh-out the country, opted to prop up the overnment o then president

Carlos Mesa in order to ensure that electionssure to avor would beheld in December. As Mesa stepped down, popular social orces also came out

in avor o an orderly succession in executive authority while ailin to ener-ate a transormative new aenda or a constitutional assembly.

The effects o these actors were increasinly evident at the time GutirrezAuilar was writin her book, in the early years o the overnments

first term. In January 2006 Evo Morales assumed the role o head o state,

with Garca Linera at his side. As the rulin party bean to centralize power

and political representation, and the social movements bean to demobilize,Gutirrez Auilar ound the sins ambivalent, disconcertin, conusin

(p. xxxix). The rhythms o the Pachakuti radually stalled.Gutirrez Auilar describes Bolivia as the most successul example o the

recent strugle againstcapital andagainstthe state in Latin America, thouhhow to advance beyondthem remains an open challene. Her book capturesthe exceptional political effervescence in Bolivia in the period rom 2000 to2005: the mobilizations in urban streets and plazas and on rural hihways,

the popular assemblies and deliberations to take direct action or to buildlocal electoral alliances, the democratic interventions in municipal, conres-sional, and constitutional arenas o public discourse and politics. She also


15/83

Foreword xvii

reisters the depth o the challene to the internal colonial and neoliberal

reime durin that remarkable cycle o insurency. And in her dense, urentrecord and her reusal to conorm to the old order o thins, we can still eel

the pulsations o that creative and unfinished moment. In its restless critiqueand probin aspiration, Rhythms of the Pachakutideserves to stand as a keytext in the international literature o radicalism and emancipatory politics inthe new century.

Sinclair Thomson, New York University


16/83

Preface

In Bolivia, primarily in La Pazs ruged and stunnin altiplano, in the city oCochabamba and the ertile valleys that surround it, and in the lush and hu-mid lands throuhout the Chapare reion, thousands upon thousands o men

and women propelled a wave o social movements between 2000 and 2005.These uprisins ended the neoliberal heemonic path that had been direct-in the reoranization o everyday lie and economic production. In this way,they marked a definitive end to the continued development o that process.

There was a dynamic wave o social potential that affected public lie in

plural, polyphonic ways. This opened a space-time o Pachakuti. In other

words, it produced a social context defined by disruptin what until then

had been accepted as a normal part o everyday lie: the preroative o a ewmen and women, rom a privileed social status and ethnicity, to overn anddetermine the ortune and ate o everyone else. This included the authority,accepted until then as leitimate, to use and manae public resources in a

predatory, selective, and, above all, private way or the sole benefit o a ew.These were the same ew who or decades had reveled in their power to ov-ern and in their unlimited access to pleasure.

There were hundreds o community plannin events to reach areements,to oranize, enerate mutual trust, and fiht or and deend what belons toeveryone collectively and what should also be collectively manaed and used

or everyones benefit. On various occasions, the ethnic and social conflictthat defines and divides Bolivian society was clearly visible in the same waythat lihtnin illuminates dark nihts. The visibility o the various mecha-

nisms or political and social domination that make it possible to exploit

Pachamama (mother earth in both Quechua and Aymara) and her childrenenerated a rowin collective response, which empowered the participationo thousands upon thousands o men and women. They oranized in com-munities, trade unions, neihborhood councils, ederations, conederations,

and coordinatin committees to transorm and modiy those oppressive andunjust social dynamics. This marked the beinnin o an era o Pachakuti.This studys research comprised two objectives. First, I souht to clar-


17/83

xx Preace

iy the series o events that established the pattern, method, and meanin

o Bolivias rebellious social participation. This included Aymara peasants,

residents rom El Alto and Cochabamba, the Chapare reions coca rowers,

and Bolivias humble and hardworkin inhabitants, both urban and rural. Inother words, I souht to listen to and understand the process that producedthe rhythms o the Pachakuti. In doin so, I discovered that each o the tem-pos I identified is based on the ollowin: dignityrecovered in the decisive

acts o rejectin what is unjust and unacceptable; autonomyexercised in theplannin and execution o what was decided, in conrontin the establishedpower, and in the strugle or leitimacy or empowerment; and the ability tocooperatewith others in conditions that were essentially equal althouh never

ree o tension. Dinity, autonomy, and the ability to cooperate are the un-damental notes in a symphony in crescendo. These are the threads that I havetraced to examine each mobilized social roups movements and trajectory.

For my second objective, I souht to understand the latent, and thus moreimplicit, political substance and desires ound nestled in the most intimatedepths o ancestral and modern ways o oranizin social lie. These occasion-

ally suraced durin the wave o uprisins, and their analysis can assist us inthe task o imainin and producin a tolerable present and perhaps a betteruture. It is only there that we can pose the question o how to advance toward

the objective o Pachakuti. For this purpose, I have researched the elementsthat constitute what I call the horizon of desiredefined by the events in thestrugle that unolded in Bolivia between 2000 and 2005.

I developed this dual approach by desinin a theoretical stratey whilethe events were unoldin. This stratey includes a sensitive analysis o socialstrugles and, at the same time, a mechanism to systematically compare the

practical scopeo each strugle to the interior horizondefined primarily by

collective acts. What ollows are some initial reflections on this.

Theory is almost always constructed rom a dominant social position. Itis a privileed location or the aze. Thereore, it was not my intention to de-velop a theory with this research. Instead, I souht to outline a theoretical

strategy. This stratey would clariy, on the one hand, the most sinificant acts

o rebellion that occurred in Bolivia between 2000 and 2005. On the otherhand, it would provide insiht or a more eneral reflection on the multiplehorizons o desire stemmin rom these collective acts o conflict and rebel-lion, which a particular theoretical tradition has identified as social emanci-

pation.This project thus draws rom both the study o recent history and philo-sophical reflection. Consequently, it does not escape the conceptual and dis-


18/83

Preace xxi

cursive clashes between history and philosophy. The theoretical-philosophical

character o the researchand not only historical analysisemeres rom

the oal to reflect on the social movements particular tendencies that could

serve to connect and understand certain political phenomena that deserveurent discussion.

Moreover, unlike the classical meanin o the term theory, a theoreti-

cal stratey or understandin the recent social movements and rebellions

within their historical scope does not aim to conceal, in the name o objec-tivity, the subject it theorizes. Instead, it seeks to present the outcomes, theacts, as practical and reflexive production rom people who are socially posi-tioned and who assume specific political intentions, whether these are explic-

itly stated or implied. The theoretical stratey that I propose does not ollowthe tradition that privilees the production o objective knowledge. Instead, itollows the tradition that supports practical understandingo the social ex-

perience o rupture, resistance, and challene to the social order. Thereore,I am approachin emancipation in two ways. The first explores the specificemancipatory practices that characterize the political activity o various asso-ciations o men and women. These roups, with their uprisins in Bolivia,

enerated new perspectives to produce and define social coexistence and

other possibilities or sel-overnance. That is why my detailed descriptiono the experience o mobilization and strugle occupies a privileed place inthis project. That first approach to emancipation is necessary and makes pos-sible a second: to critically reflect on both the explicit and potential mean-ins o the acts and events produced by the men and women who were theirprotaonists.

I will thereore undertake a theoretical stratey that investiates the mo-ments that constitute a social rupture or a series o social ruptures. My oalis to identiy and trace the components o a matrix to make it possible or us

to analyzedesire and producesocial emancipation. I understand a matrixessentially as a structured set o premises, conceptual connections, and aru-ments that identiy and explain a set o phenomena. This case involves thesocial ruptures produced by the popular indienous strugles and uprisinsin Bolivia between 2000 and 2005. For that reason, my theoretical strateydeliberately avoids the trap o representative canons or conceptual prisons.Instead, this stratey both arises rom and supports those who produced theaorementioned series o ruptures durin the recent social conflict.

The paes that ollow thus trace the conflict throuh the periods that con-stituted an upheaval, a time o resistance to and defiance o the traditionalorder and relationships o domination. This marked the beinnin o the


19/83

xxii Preace

potential or historical transormation. My intention is to reflect on these

social events and their capacity to erode and dismantle the orms o domi-nation in Bolivia that existed prior to the year 2000. I will also consider the

initial political power within these emancipatory periods in order to identiythe limits o their potential and to analyze the obstacles they aced. I want toclariy rom the beinnin that this study does not aspire to be a historyo theuprisins and acts o resistance that occurred in Bolivias recent past. Muchmore research would be necessary or that. Instead, I am seekin a riorouscritical examination o particular moments in the conflicts development. Myintention is to link these emancipatory periods throuh theirpractical com-

prehensionas concrete emancipatory political practice and not in relation to

any specific theory. My purpose is to explore a method or evaluatin theselected moments both in terms o their emancipatory potential and theirlimitations. Thereore, this study is not intended as history, and I ask the

reader to orive the apsand perhaps lack o precisionthat may appear.At the same time, I want to underscore my efforts to identiy in detail the di-erent historical possibilities that emere in each period studied. My projectis inspired by a collaborative spirit to define social emancipation. It is notmeant to provide a precise or meticulous recordin o the events.

One belie that defines all o my lies work, and thereore these paes, isconfidence in the potential or sel-overnance and social coexistence be-

yond the modern state and capital. Included in this is a rejection o the ol-lowin basic suppositions: the separation o production and reproduction

rom everyday lie and rom the material conditions or social developmentand manaement; the deleation o social sovereinty to overnin rep-

resentatives as the oundation o all political activity; and the restriction othe individual and collective creation o values or social well- bein to the

oppressive constraints o material value and capital. In opposition to this, I

am convinced that collective production is possible rom a more or less stablepracticein time and spaceo social coexistence. This need not be analo-ous to the orm o modern synthesis, based on the state, oranized throuhthe deleation o political representation, and ounded on the primacy o ma-terial value, sustained competition, and wealth as private property. In act,

this wealth should be shared. I want to clariy this essential belie urther be-cause this book rests upon it.

My approach conceives o modern societies as made up o antaonistic

roups subordinated to capital under the illusion o bein interated intoconflictive totalities permeated by relationships o exploitation and domina-tion. These apparent totalities constitute themselves as an illusory social syn-


20/83

Preace xxiii

thesisthe modern statethrouh the construction o political and produc-tive mechanisms. These mechanisms provide stability in time and space byoranizin everyday lie and containin internal conflict, not resolvin it. The

manaement, administration, and control o such conflicts constitute what isenerally reerred to as politics.

There are times in history when social conflicts, conrontations, and up-heavals transcend the constrictive ramework desined or their adminis-

tration and control. Such is the case o Bolivia rom 2000 to 2005. Durin

such periods, the traditional illusory social synthesis that the state representserodes and ails. This is due to the act that the social conflict questions, re-

jects, and threatens at least three basic pillars o that synthesis: the dominant

roups monopoly on decision makin about key public matters; the oun-dations or the relationship o command-obedience within the society, a re-lationship that essentially rests on the social belie in the leitimacy o the

aorementioned monopoly (such oundations depend on the social imai-

narys deep symbolic structures that reconize certain orms o dominationas acceptable; in other words, the relationship o command- obedience is

entrenched in reat hierarchical divisions between enders and ethnicities,

the most intimate in a social roup); and the types o political, economic,

productive, and ritual oranization within the reulatory and administrativeramework or social lie that are chared with solvin the basic needs o theeneral population defined in the previous social synthesis.

When these three pillars that support the state order are threatened by

political conflict within a society, the hierarchy and the accepted mechanismso access to political authority in that social roup collapse, either completelyor partially. The opportunity then arises to study in depth, and on multiplelevels, the disruption o the traditional social order. And this can be done

without havin to reestablish specific, universal, and affirmative types o so-

cial reconfiuration, either practically or theoretically. My projects reatestsystematic exercise is to reflect on this possibility. It is difficult to maintainthat perspective because it continually oes aainst what has been consideredor centuries to be political or qualified as political theory.

My oal is in part to insert my contributions into a current o thouht

aimed at comprehendin political and social transormation as a Coperni-can inversion. This involves displacin the centrality o state and institu-tional power as a privileed space or politics to instead situate it in the poly-

phonic and plural social capacity or insistently distortin the heteronymouspolitical order. My oal is also to open up a reflection on that reat social

transormation that can be capturedand also restrictedby the modern


21/83

xxiv Preace

term social revolution, or that is expressed more precisely in the ancestralQuechua and Aymara term Pachakuti. My startin point, then, is to clearlyaffirm that society does not need new and better proposals or synthetic re-

confiuration to effect deep social transormation. These proposals wouldbe touted as alternatives to the current order but rom a location o univer-sal and affirmative expression, which is the space par excellence o the dis-course o political philosophy. The drivin idea behind my project involvesunderstandin and supportin social transormation. It also considers waysto permanently reconfiure the instituted order on various levels and throuh

contrastin tempos. This process is expansive and permanent, albeit discon-tinuous. In other words, it is a process o demarcatin rhythms and enerat-

in tempos.By ramin my approach in this way, I am able to analyze social transor-mation and the events o conflict, resistance, and uprisin throuh a pro-

ound inversion. What at one moment could be considered a weakness, at

another can be seen as a virtue or vice versa. What was once an end oal cannow be seen as a means to an end and so orth.

Understood in this way, and based on my observations, I think that themanitude o the disruption o Bolivias social and political order can be

studied by reconizin the combined interplay between the ollowin two

elements: thepractical scopeo the rupture under waythe extent and realpower o social conrontationand the interior horizono the social sectorsconrontin the established order. I offer my reflections in the ollowin paes

specifically on these two elements in order to consider their confluence anddiverence.

What I am callin the practical scope of a struggleis easier to determine,since it essentially consists o its real material orce, its disruptive capacity, itsinternal vitality to continue and advance, its associative networks, its impor-

tance in the roup o strugles in a country and in the world, and so on. Theseare elements that can be observed rom the outside. On the other hand, theinterior horizonis more complex. It can be studied by analyzin the discrep-ancy between what is done and not said, between what is said and not done,and in what implicitly or explicitly appears to be a desire or potential. In other

words, it relates markedly to the collective type of subjectivity that is pro-

duced durin times o rupture rom daily lie, rebellion, and uprisin. Durinthese periods, shared potential is revealed, while desires and utopian horizons

are articulated in a complex way. Desires and utopian horizons are enerallymoreperceivedthan observed and thenformulatedas hypotheses to ollow.A social rupture o reat manitude inevitably transorms social relation-


22/83

Preace xxv

ships. Relationships o domination and exploitation are drastically altered,

both in their orm and content. Moreover, there is a transormation o essen-

tial belies in a hierarchical cateorization o diverse sements o the social

structure. I this chane does not take place, then the precedin moment wasnot a social rupture o reat manitude, even thouh the events may have

been intense. The rupture, particularly when it is deep, can carry the social

roup over the threshold or potential transormation, thus producin histori-

cal innovation. My oal here is to learn rom the recent Bolivian experience.

It is first necessary to understand the dynamic between stability and trans-ormation in contemporary societies, which are oranized as artificial statesyntheses that in reality are overned by the power o material value. With

this in mind, I will outline the notion o emancipation that inorms my re-flection on the recent popular and indienous movements and uprisins inBolivia.

When a society aces local strugles o resistance and multiple deensiveand offensive acts o explicit conflict, it enters a period o reat political in-stability. I neither the old orms o exercisin control nor the reulatory arti-acts or manain the conflict on its various levels are able to unction, thisopens up a threshold for possible transformation. It is then easible to con-

sider a process o social transormation or chane o state. Note that we

reer to a chane o state in lowercase letters since we are alludin to thesocial makeup and its inner flows and structures, such as modes o beinpeople in the world, and o reulatin their relationships with each other andwith and throuh thins. This is not a State as it has been understood andstudied in certain classical branches o political philosophy. The emancipa-tion is undamentally a social chane o state. Throuh it, society recoversits ability to make political decisions without havin these decisions dele-

ated rom above. This radually lessens the preerence or material value

over real people. Moreover, it constitutes a distinct social relationship, onethat rests on how use value operates based on its appropriation by people who

are reely associated or autonomous ends. In this sense the chane o statethat defines emancipation is constituted by events that occur over time. Inother words, it is not a location or a specific objective that could be observedin an isolated way. Throuhout history, emancipatory thresholds have beenopened up by reat acts o social conrontation led by men and women in

specific historical and eoraphical locations. As expansive and permanent,

albeit intermittent, acts o reconfiurin the order, their reatest difficulty hasbeen to achieve stability durin the drive or transormation beyond the acto conrontation itsel.


23/83

xxvi Preace

These notions more or less delineate a conceptual constellation around the

term emancipation. I will try to use these to define characteristics o mean-in without confinin them to or identiyin them within conceptual canons.

Throuhout the chapters in this book, I will review the events, discourses, in-tentions, and limits o the popular indienous uprisins in Bolivia between2000 and 2005. The theoretical stratey that I have ollowed consists o a ri-orous reflection on the constitutive moments, the oundin irruption o threereat social orces whose actions shaped the period o rupture that Bolivia

has experienced. These permitted the now onoin project o reconfiura-

tion known as Evismo, which represents the political project concentratedaround the personal authority o Evo Morales.

Althouh Ren Zavaleta (1986, 9) used the notion o national-popularto understand the type o complexity that exists in societies such as Bolivias,my oal is to reflect on the notion o communitarian-popular. Zavaleta re-flected on Bolivian society as bein structured in part by colonial domina-tion and in part by the development o capital . . . while at the same time

maintainin precedin social and political orms (qtd. in Tapia 2002c, 336).In my approach I am oin to consider the potential or a stable irradiation othose previous social and political orms, which are eminently present durinperiods o observable social conflict. Moreover, I will explore their potentialto be stable, structurin orces or social composition when state and national

decomposition is occurrin. I will also reflect on the potential to imaine

orms o sel-overnance that are not necessarily or completely state run orcapitalist.

My study will consider the ollowin: what happened in Bolivia between2000 and 2005, rom a series o chronoloical tables and inormation aboutwho participated in the events and how they participated; what did not hap-pen and what the protaonists o the uprisins wanted to happen, usin my

own personal experience in the Bolivian strugles as a basis or this, andthe contrasts between what the leaders o the local strugles say they want

and what they actually do and achieve; and what was achievable and what

could possibly occur in the uture. This type o analysis oes aainst other

approaches that the dominant academic tradition currently consecrates as

leitimate or knowlede. It is thereore worthwhile to briefly consider howsocial strugle is defined or the purposes o this study.

Assumin with Marx (1848) that the history o all hitherto existin human

society is the history o class strugles, it remains productive to ask how tostudy class strugles or, expressed more broadly, how to understand the de-velopment o social conflict.


24/83

Preace xxvii

In eneral terms, we can establish at least two possible approaches to

understandin and studyin who is part o the strugle and how the collec-tive oals are articulated. First, the approach that we call socioloy seeks

to identiy who or what social classes are and only then reister the concretemodes o their strugles. Second, the critical approach ocuses on the

strugle itsel, on the concrete development o the conflict, and on the spe-cific method o conrontation. It then attempts to examine who strugles andhow, what social oranisms brin them toether, and what epistemic horizonthey unveil.

The socioloical approach is inscribed in the dominant academic tra-

dition. It encompasses the traditional, official Lef as well as new theories

concernin social movements. These are understood as more or less fixedconfiurations o subjects united by interests that are deended aainst theinterests o other economic, social, and political projects endorsed by othersubjects. These subjects are identifiable and their behavior can be describedbased on principles that are considered rational and that ive coherence tothe sum o their actions.

The oundation or this way o thinkin is objective identification, even

i understandingthe events is sacrificed in the process.To identifymeans, inthe broadest sense, riidly associatin a terma wordwith an object,or reerent, and assinin a meanin to it that would describe or contain, inthe most precise way, the traits and/or attributes o the reerent in question.This is the key theoretical crux rom the positivist aenda or knowlede andthe loic that or decades defined it. Understandin, as a subjective point oreerence in the collective production o the world and as a subjective ex-

perience o linkin to preexistin meanins while at the same time bein anopportunity or their transormation, is somethin radically different rom

what preceded it.

The most meaninul objective o my research is to discuss what supportsan understandin o the social conflicts development. That is because that

subjective experience orms the basis or what makes emancipation possible.In the critical Marxist tradition that inorms my project, the cateory o class

strugle plays a central role. Furthermore, within this dual termstrugleand classesI place the main emphasis on recordin, knowin, and under-standin the strugle. I share the ollowin view with Serio Tischler:

Strugle? Resistance? The question immediately emeres about the

content o said concepts and, ollowin this one, the question o who.Then we are very likely to find ourselves aced with many whos, many


25/83

xxviii Preace

strugles and the collective not as an abstract composed o a roup osubjects who affirm their quality as individuals, but as a real form of exis-tence that is produced as an instant of negation/overcoming(in the orm

o collectivization) the split on which closed individuals and the controlof capital are based(subject/object, labor/capital, state/society, etc.). Inthis sense, the collective is an action that transresses and explodes theapparent orm o social objectivity, maniested as a separate and au-tonomous world that submits human beins to its loic. And that in-stant is class understood as condensation o the insubordination o themateriality o human existence in this very act, condensation then romlabor as sel-determination rather than its existence as salaried labor

(subordinated to capital). Or to the human doingas opposed tobeing, touse John Holloways words. (Tischler 2004a, 113; emphasis added)

In this sense, one o the keys to critically readin reality consists o not start-in with the identification and delimitation o the various individual roupsthat constitute the social corpus and that come into conflict but rather privi-lein the study o the moments in which the neation or overcomin o

such individual status occurs. This then opens up periods o collectivizationand practical attunement. In other words, the aze is ocused on explainin

the conflict in a way that breaks the conceptual etish o cateorization asthe basis or knowlede. This enerates creative, ambiuous moments whenhuman bonds are redefined throuh expansion, increased complexity, and

access to various types o social power(Colectivo Situaciones 2002).In my research or this study, I traced the stories behind the various roups

that shaped the Bolivian strugle between 2000 and 2005, their local histo-ries and their institutional oranization. I also avoided becomin mired in

what could be called theparadoxo theory about social movements in Latin

America. Various theoreticians rom the Lef represent this paradox. Aferdocumentin the crisiso what is known as the classic or Fordist workinclass, they embarked on a search or new subjects or new orms o ora-nization and o unique social existence. However, they retained the ormerconceptual matrix that ocuses on beingoverdoing. In other words, insteado directin their attention to the practical unoldin o the struglesthe

assault on capital as well as the polyphonic wave o resistance, uprisin, andrebellionthey preer to locate and label the new subjects with one or more

analytical terms. This allows them to identiy the conflicts and account or

them externally and vertically.There are two ways to rame this paradox related to traditional class


26/83

Preace xxix

strugle. With the first, resistance is understood as merely a reaction to theinitiatives and actions used by capitalism. Ultimately, this is what happens toToni Neri and Michael Hardt (2000, 2004), or example. The second reco-

nizes the autonomy o social acts o insubordination durin periods o rup-ture. However, theorists are obsessed with fittin these acts into riid rame-works that aain make the subjects externally identifiable. The most notable

example o this effort in Bolivia is lvaro Garca Linera.A second important topic or studyin the development o social conflict

concerns the articulation o collective oals. These reer to the ways in whichthe overall meanin o the strugle is produced durin the act itsel and theprocess or strenthenin the challene to the state and to capital. Durin the

sixties and seventies, a classification o those oals existed: economic and/orpolitical, democratic and/or socialist, amon other criteria. And the charac-terization o the strugles, based on the oals that they explicitly upheld, wasusually classified under the pairin reormist/revolutionary or democratic/

socialist. These types o classifications ell out o use afer the collapse o theSoviet Union. Despite that act, and althouh other terms are used and sup-ported by different types o aruments, the theoretical ramework has beenrestored, and this restoration unortunately conserves the basic classificatorycriteria.

The ollowin are two o the essential premises or this ramework: First,by conceivinstudyin and understandinsociety as a whole, the politi-cal is basically understood as a way to reulate and/or direct that totality.In this way, projects and proposals are only understood as political whenthey are posed as a totality. This first premise offers two options: the socialwhole is understood as internally susceptible to harmonization throuh thelaw, which is the theoretical basis or liberalism, or the social whole is per-ceived as divided by antaonistic contradictions, and a need arises or a revo-

lution to enerate a new social totality, which would no loner be antaonis-tic. This is the central proposal offered by the dominant version o Marxism.This first premise is complemented by the second premise that society should

be overned by a special body o people. These rulers unction socially as ad-ministrators who make decisions about thins and control relationships be-tween people throuh thins.

It is now possible to outline the differences between these two ideas thatare undamental to all political thouht. I the existin social whole is open to

harmonization, what is required is the production o institutions and prac-tices that uarantee overnability, whether rom the Riht or the Lef. Thiswould be throuh various attempts at social plannin. On the other hand,


27/83

xxx Preace

i the social totality is internally torn by antaonism, it is necessary to over-come that totalitys internal conflict in order to produce an other order thatwould constitute a new totality. This second approach is enerally accepted

by the traditional revolutionary Lef. It offers various alternatives dependinon how it proposes to overcome the current social totalitys order and what itsugests as a basic order or the new totality.

In summary inherent in the aorementioned ramework is a undamen-

tal assumption: to view society as a totality. This perspective is shared by

both the classic Riht and Lef. When this assumption is accepted, it brinswith it other abstract principles that uide the study o what happens withina society. One such principle that comes rom what is known as classical or

vular Marxism identifies historical necessity to deeat the capitalist order.That is one o the principles that I am interested in discussin in this research.Variations o classical Marxism sugest the idea o historical necessity to

deeat the capitalist order. This is enerally based on analyzin history as anobjective and observable process that can be scientifically studied by objec-tivelyunderstandin the development o the contradictions between pro-

ductive orces and mechanisms o production. These contradictions are

essentially perceived as ultimately a drivin orce both or history as well asor the inevitable all o the capitalist reime.

In contrast to this precedin view, critical Marxism is understood as a

theory o social strugglerather than atotalizingtheory o capitalist exploita-tion and domination and the historical necessityto deeat it. It thus empha-sizes social conflict and the real ways in which some men and women strugle

aainst capitalism. In other words, it defines the strugle as a concrete devel-opment o a unique social reality that challenes the totality o domination-exploitation. It thus breaks rom a teleoloical view o history because it ac-cepts each strugle as uncertain and potentially capable o creatin somethin

new. This approach explicitly seeks to develop a way to theorize the numerousacts o uprisin aainst the capitalist order, which reers to the specific waysthe particular context evolves or the construction o an epistemic horizon.In other words, this approach makes it possible to analyze the deep contento such strugles rather than bein limited to recordin them as mere anoma-

lies. Moreover, they would not be perceived as movements that just ade away.

Precisely in that sense, my perspective opposes orthodox Marxisms randnarrative, which assined social acts o strugle or resistance a value within

the previously assumed eneral sense o history.Accordin to Holloway, orthodox or traditional Marxism included in itsvariations two basic suppositions as the basis or understandin history. The


28/83

Preace xxxi

first is the theory o the historical necessity or socialism to prevail over capi-talism. The second involves privilein the knowlede about such a necessityover real strugles aainst capitalist exploitation and domination. This in-

cludes reconizin and understandin the laws o history that determined thenecessary decline o capitalist society (Holloway 2001a, 174). For a lon time,there was a set theoretical ramework ounded on these ideas, which rameda specific understandin o the political aspects o social strugle. This viewo history includes various uidin assumptions. The ollowin are three othem: the idea that the development o capitalism itsel prepares the materialconditions that lead to socialism; the understandin o socialism basically asnationalization o modes o production and economic plannin; and the

sugestion that the principal activity o the revolutionary subjectwhetherthe workin class, the workin class in alliance with poor armers, the work-in class oranized in a revolutionary party, and so orthshould be to takepolitical power, which is manaed by the state, in order to support the oal o

buildin socialism. This roup o assumptions can be called orthodox Marx-ism. Althouh there has been varyin emphasis on each o the aoremen-

tioned three ideas, they have constituted the eneral theory within which thepolitical contents and meanins o social strugle were understood, classified,

and evaluated or several decades in the twentieth century.Critical Marxism beins with a critique o these assumptions. It theorizes

that society is torn between those who work and those who control and reapthe benefits o other peoples laborthe capital/useul labor contradiction. Itthen ocuses on the various ways in which those who work resist and strugleaainst the conditions imposed on them. In this sense, or critical Marxism,historys path can essentially be understood by documentin and meticu-

lously studyin the development o the conflict. This analysis would ocus onthe side o the social conflict where those who work and produce wealth are

concentrated in multiple ways. Consequently, there is no historical necessity.Instead, there is a continuous act o resistance and collective creation that

is produced within particular conditions o material production and capitalaccumulation. There are no objective economic laws that determine the needor socialism. Instead, the social conflicts development has a specificity thatdefines what is reerred to as the present in each historic moment.

At least two questions (see Holloway 2004) arise rom these theoretical as-sumptions: First, is it possible to reveal a eneral meanin, a political horizon,

rom the recent strugles, movements, and uprisins aainst capitalism thatwould sugest that they could possibly be in tune or linked? Second, to whatextent are such social strugles directed not only aainst but beyond capital-


29/83

xxxii Preace

ism? In the research that inorms this project, I continually dealt with thesequestions, outlinin possible responses. And as I asked mysel these ques-

tions, I repeatedly happened upon two central themes. The first o these was

how to be able to understand the sometimes drastic and at other times subtlechanes in the social temperament. These enable widespread and creative acts

o cooperation that undermine the dominant social order, thus overwhelmin

institutional rameworks. The second was how to imaine and contribute toanalyzin the onoin transormations, beinnin precisely with that collec-tive subjectivity in a state o insubordination. In other words, I also ound itnecessary to urther clariy the notion o human emancipation as a concep-tual constellation that defines recent social strugles. I offer some preliminary

responses to these two questions below.Reardin the first problem, in a world torn by conflict and tension, thereis no pure or disinterested knowlede, only knowlede that is site specific

and intentional. With this in mind, I arue that the analytical study o the so-called new subjects, privilein their classification, sooner or later re-createsa type o relationship o subordination between those who make up the newsubject studied and those who classiy it in one way or another, or even thosewho pay so that it can be studied precisely in that way.

In contrast, the theoretical approachacademic or militantocuses onthe conflict itsel. It considers the concrete and contradictory development

o the site-specific social conflict and, in particular, the tension involved inhow that development is experienced by those who produce it. This theoreti-cal approach acilitates understandin the various ways the conflict is definedand, occasionally perhaps, a type of subjectivitythat rejects various mecha-nisms or social subordination, both in daily lie and in moments o overt

social rebellion. This approach also makes it possible to distinuish betweendifferin derees o contestin the social order, and it does so without havin

to appeal to a teleoloical position. Moreover, there is even the potential tocompare different human experiences as parallel, contrastin their possibili-ties and limits.

Juded rom the standpoint o capital, intanible labor, exchane value,

and state power, modern social conflict advances throuh plunderin, pilla-in, exploitation, and contempt. This conflict can also be viewed, however,

rom the side o active labor, the makin useul, the privilee o use value,and the practical capacity o diverse human communities to cooperate with

each other. From that perspective, that same conflict is viewed as leadin toautonomy, the reappropriation o common assets, the rebuildin o a senseo justice and respect. The ollowin open questions can then be considered


30/83

Preace xxxiii

rom this second anle: What can we learn rom this diverse, eneretic, andmultitudinous roup o collective acts? In what way do these strugles illumi-nate emancipated orms o coexistence? To what extent do they break rom

subordination and exploitation, and how do they oretell a different utureeven i they are aain subjected to the capitalist order? In what way do theycontribute to the transormation o social relationships?

These concerns constitute the heart and soul o my research, clearly mer-in historical, philosophical, and epistemoloical analysis. Moreover, these

undamental questions, posed rom the perspective o emancipation, orm

the basis or my study o what occurred in Bolivia between 2000 and 2005.They are necessary or establishin clues to identiy the common character-

istics shared by the polyphonic continents and social roups that oranizeddurin those years to plan, make decisions, speak, and act. My purpose is toattempt to use words to re-create the subjective experience o the doingun-leashed againstcapital in some o the conflicts most crucial moments. Thisalso involves examinin the concrete ways in which the men and women whomobilized have also tried to o beyondcapital, either explicitly or implicitly.In order to do this, it is necessary to study the actual development o the up-risins, investiatin powers most proound challenin tendencies. These

have essentially been constructed over the last decade rom social structuresthat are apparently not political, such as community, neihborhood, or

amily. My research thus ocuses on articulatin the strugles and conflictsthat spread throuhout Bolivia at the dawn o the twenty-first century and tolearn rom what they teach us, once aain, about human emancipation.

To accomplish this task, it is possible to investiate the most chaotic mo-ments o social rupture. Three levels o analysis, exemplified by the ollowinthree questions, could potentially help us clariy what is occurrin: Which

men and women within a society decide to fiht and how do they do it? How

do they oranize and what discourses do they produce? What space do theycreate or meanin? Movin fluidly between these three questions, I will out-line ideas throuhout the book about how, durin the years o mobilizationin Bolivia, there were proound ruptures with two o the twentieth centurysmost emblematic political philosophies: statism and liberalism. From 2000to 2005, the repeated waves o uprisin, conrontation, and selective autono-mous manaement o lie and public affairs shattered two notions. The firstwas the restricted imae o votin citizens. These were thouht o as people

who exercised their rihts in the privilee o private property and in politicalparticipation throuh the existence o political parties, so vital to the demo-cratic process. The second was the imae o the corporate militant committed


31/83

xxxiv Preace

to some type o sectarian, labor, or traditional political oranization loyal toa set o practices and institutionalized, hierarchical structures that consti-

tute a state. Durin those five years in Bolivia, the vision o collective action

was chaotic and sporadic. It rew out o a collective and plebeian democ-racy, throuh meetins, blockin hihways, and buildin barricades. This isa democratic way to act and oranize social existence. However, it has beenconsistently devalued, both symbolically and practically, durin the years

o Evo Moraless overnment by state proessionals with political decision-makin power and public influence. I hope to make a contribution to socialemancipation by documentin and analyzin these ruptures, which I propose

as a conceptual constellation.

Accordin to the dictionary o the Royal Spanish Academy, emancipa-tion is the action and effect o emancipatin or emancipatin onesel. Theverb to emancipate has two definitions: a) to liberate rom parental au-

thority, rom tutelae, or rom servitude; and b) to liberate onesel rom anytype o subordination or dependence. These two definitions o the verb toemancipate reer to endin a relationship o subjection. Another possible

characteristic o the verb to emancipate depends on whether such action

is considered reflexiveXemancipates itsel romYor whether it is doneto a second subject: XemancipatesY. The first alternative is inherent in mydefinition o social emancipation in this study. It is just as Marx reerred tothe proletariat: emancipation o the workers will be by the workers them-

selves. Moreover, the notion o social emancipation that I am interested indiscussin must be understood as both transitive and reflexive. The subjectthat acts does so in reerence to itsel. Etymoloically, the verb to emanci-pate, accordin to Toni Domnech, literally means removin the hand othe master rom onesel: Emancipatin oneselliberatin onesel rompaternal tutelaemeans becomin a brother. Emancipated rom the tute-

lae o my master, not only can I be a brother to all the children who sharedreality with me under the same noble tutelae, but I can also be the eman-cipated brother to all those who were under the tutelae and domination oother patriarchs (2004, 14).

The notion o emancipation presupposes a relationship o subjection,

either binary or plural, that is severed by the previously subordinated part

that has the resolve and ability to do so. Emancipation has enerally beenconsidered primarily in political terms, which means analyzin certain

established relationships o power that, rom modernity, are defined in rela-tion to the state and/or capital. Framed in this way, the most radical questionis how workin society can emancipate itsel rom the state and capital. As


32/83

Preace xxxv

John Holloway (2001a) has stated, this consists o thinkin about how con-temporary insubordination moves against and beyondcapital and the state.

There is a copious amount o literature on this topic and on some other re-

lated questions, such as revolution and communism. It is not my presentintention to offer a systematic account o that discussion. Instead, my oal isto delineate some elements to define emancipation as a notion that is open,neative, and sinificant in order to outline a conceptual constellation. Ac-cordin to Adorno, conition o the object in its constellation is conition othe process stored in the object, or, stated another way, to become aware othe constellation in which the thin stands means so much as to decode theone which the latter bears within itsel, as what has come to be (1966, 166).

One cannot think critically without some type o conceptual ramework.Thereore, I believe that in order to reflect on emancipation, it is advisableto bein with certain historical experiences o strugle systematized in philo-sophical ormulations. I join Holloway in thinkin that it is necessary to con-sider chanin the world without takin power. The first step involves aban-

donin the idea o social chane, which was part o what is reerred to as therevolutionary stratey prevalent durin the twentieth century. Althouh we

have already reviewed this, lets summarize it now.Essentially, what is known as the revolutionary stratey proposed a par-

ticular notion o chane based on the strugle to take power. It consisted

o buildin oranizations that were hihly cohesive, hierarchical, and disci-plined. These could oranize the various social strugles in a particular coun-try and lead them, o course. In eneral, with this objective in mind, revo-lutionary party activity identified, classified, and souht to subordinate theactions, perspectives, and intentions o local strugles and o diverse roupso men and women in their numerous personal strugles. The key aspect

o this stratey was the radical and systematic conrontation with the state.

The objective was to displace the social sectors that occupied its institutionsin order to then transorm them rom top to bottom. In this sense the loi-cal oundations or this arument consist o establishin the existenceandconceptualizationo at least two specific, distinct, and opposin entities,

the state and the revolutionary party, and to account or their opposition.Followin this reasonin, the notion o revolutionary chane remains con-

strained to alterin the roup occupyin the state apparatus and destroyininstitutions and previous hierarchical relationships to build new ones.

However, i we part rom the opposite premise, definin social emanci-pation as chanin the world without takin power, we have to abandonthe universal modern oal within the eneral definition o emancipation and


33/83

xxxvi Preace

simultaneously relinquish the point o reerence on the totality. I will attemptto do this in a series o theses that will rame the meanin o social eman -cipation as a constellation. For my arument, I am modiyin Holloways

thesis in the ollowin way: taking power is neither a necessary nor sufficientcondition to change the world.

I sel-emancipation consists o chanin the world and vice versa, mean-in i emancipation is first and oremost political activity and collective prac-tice or transormin the world, then it is a praxis of disruption and escape.It is a material and symbolic disruptiono the existin order and anescaperom the semantic and symbolic contents that precede us and that ive ma-terial existence and meanin to what is already established. Thereore, sel-

emancipation basically consists o carryin out shared acts o resistance andstrugle to transorm social, economic, and political relationships. This thenenables collective, autonomous decision makin and the reulation o socialcoexistence based on this type o decision makin.

Current emancipatory strugles are occurrin in the midst o neoliberalcapitalist relationships and under the political order in nations that are be-comin ever more transnational. Thereore, the meanin and outcomes o

recent emancipatory strugles are potentially ambivalent, disconcertin, andeven conusin. Durin the last decade, various social movements have man-aed to topple overnments and limit plunderin and neoliberal domination.Defined in this way, recent strugles o social movements in Latin Americahave been emancipatory strugles. They have opened channels so that societycan directly intervene in politics, establishin vetoes to different policies byneoliberal overnments. However, many o these policies remain in effect

and the social order o exploitation and economic and political exclusion

continues intact. Worse yet, this paradox appears to have emered in variousproressive overnments in Latin America.

With that bein said, social strugles and indienous uprisins over thepast decade have revealed the proound ruptures, inequalities, and conflictsthat tear apart societies in our continents nations. These tensions, which were

explicitly exposed by the indienous uprisin in Bolivia, trigered the domi-nant classs sudden political and institutional collapse, althouh it has quickly

manaed to bein a viorous reconstruction.In this way the Bolivian experience demonstrates the power o inertia rom

state domination and the capitalist order. It obstructs, entraps, or hinders the

raw potential to change the worldin the context o such acts o rebellion andinsurence. The oal o my research is thus to think specifically about the di-ficulties o chanin the world as well as transormin social relationships and


34/83

Preace xxxvii

established policies so that men and women rom the masses are able to buildsel-overnance based on their own traditional oranizations. The entire pre-cedin analysis leads to one preliminary affirmation: social emancipation is

not achieved directlyvia the classic revolutionary stratey or takin poweror rom its lihter version o controllin the overnment apparatus throuhelections that seek a uture constituent assembly. And it is not achieved di-rectly because, quite simply, social emancipation is different rom a roup opeople, linked broadly throuh political affiliation or ethnicity to the insur-ent continents, who manae a societys institutional ramework on behalo the people.

The electoral control o the overnment apparatus, even the takin o state

power throuh revolution, has too ofen hindered the deepenin o the trans-ormative and liberatin potential that comes rom the act o rebellion. More-over, this is precisely what allows some party or political action to come topower or or an oranization to take control o the state. Furthermore, in

specific cases in which some revolutionary or popular party has taken ov-ernment or state control, there has been a tendency toward a decline in col-lective potential to participate in public affairs, which constitutes an essentialaspect o current emancipatory strugle. However, this contradiction shouldnot sugest cateorically that overnment or state control by some action othe mobilized population would always be counterproductive and block thestrugle or emancipation in every historical instance.

In this sense, and in strictly hypothetical terms or the sake o clariyinthe arument, it is possible to consider both questions as loically indepen-dent o one another. In concrete political-practical terms, however, this affir-mation demands clarification. What I am aruin is that collective emanci-patory action and its deep transormation o social, economic, and politicalrelationships needs to be considered from a separate and distinct channelrom

the political strugle or overnment and state control. This is because theymove at different speeds and throuh different paths. These two types o so-cial action are separate and independent o one another. This is despite theact that each exists in relation to the other because toether they define po-litical reality at a iven place and time. Thereore, what occurs in one o thesepolitical spaces and times is not unrelated to what is happenin in the otherone and vice versa.

At a meetin o the Coalition or the Deense o Water and Lie (Coordina-

dora de la Deensa del Aua y de la Vida, known locally as La Coordinadora)in Cochabamba on March 11, 2006, with Evo Moraless Movement toward

Socialism () overnment recently installed, this problem was presented


35/83

xxxviii Preace

in the ollowin way: The question o how to overn is really s problem,while the question that we are still acin is the problem o power, its disso-lution and disruption.

There are numerous advantaes to statin thins this way. First, it puts theproblem o the subjecto social emancipation in its proper place. It distin-uishes between the diverse, plural masses, aced with the problem o how todissolve the power apparatus, and the particular body that temporarily occu-pies the political apparatus. No proressive or revolutionary overnment inhistory has concerned itsel with the question o how to dissolve the powerstructures allowin or sel-overnance, admittin plurality, and acilitatinconditions or societys sel-reulation. Basically, there are two predominant

relationships that define social divisions. One involves those who work andthose who live off o the labor o others. The other is between those who ov-ern and make decisions and those who obey and suffer the decisions o others.

In eneral the variety o overnmental models sugests the different possiblecombinations between the social roups broadly defined in this way and thespecific ways they intersect. In the current Bolivian overnment, or example,its popular character comes rom the act that those who occupy the stateapparatus are not directly members o the elite who have traditionally livedoff o the labor o others.

It is important to note an obvious distinction between the plural, tumul-tuous, insubordinate, and collaborative subjectivity that continues in recentexperience to be linked to a reflection on social emancipation and the defi-nition o its challenes and difficulties. Another issue involves the numerouspossible types o overnin bodies that ace a whole series o pendin tasks.This is undoubtedly somethin altoether different, which is what Cocha-

bambas Coalition or the Deense o Water and Lie helps clariy above. An-other equally convincin example, similar to the previous one, is the Zapa-

tista perspective. For the Zapatistas, existence is not defined by one unifiedtype o politics but by two classes o politics: the official one and the otherone. However, at the moment, we do not have a very clear idea how to definethe characteristics o that other type.

The second advantae o the aorementioned assertion by the Coalition or

the Deense o Water and Lie is that it distinuishes between administrativeand overnmental tasks that are part o lefover institutions and challenesrom those who insist on social emancipation and who cannot relinquish re-

flections on power and politics now. What this means is that there is an under-lyin conflict. On the one hand, there is a question o power, politics, and theconstruction o sel-overnance on the basis o sel-manaement o common


36/83

Preace xxxix

oods and social wealth. On the other hand, there are social strugles romthe last decade that demand a response to the ways in which collective co-existence can be reulated in a non-liberal way, meanin in a way not based

on deleated representation or the alienation o sel-aency and with directshared decision-makin power.

This problem is not an insinificant one. It stems rom and seeks to pro -vide a solution to the undamental question o managing to stabilize in timea mode o social reulation that is outside of, against, and beyondthe socialorder imposed by capitalist production and the liberal state. Up to now, thesocial enery that has overwhelmed institutions desinated to reulate po-

litical participation has had a resoundin success in various Latin American

countries. However, it is paradoxical because it is a success and then its lost,as noted by the Ecuadorians rom the Conederation o Indienous Nation-alities o Ecuador (). The sweepin acts o insubordination and defi-ance aainst rules and schedules o production o capital and the state haveset the historical stae or the continued relevance o reflections on social

emancipation.Althouh these tremendous acts have overwhelmed the institutional

ramework and this excess o social enery has eroded neoliberal heemonyand halted its advance, they lack an explicit horizon of desireonce they canveto the actions o others. We understand a horizon o desire as similar to ametaphor or what is collectively desirable and easible. This acilitates a com-

mon meanin out o numerous collective actions. I reiterate that such an ab-sence is clearly expressed in the principle that affirms: we achievesuccesses that mask deeats. It is also revealed in the analoy expressed by aresident rom Cochabambas May 1 neihborhood. Reerrin to the currentBolivian political process, he stated that we did not want to build ourselvesa little room in their home. We wanted to build a new home. More clearly,

Euenio Rojas, the current mayor o Achacachi and kamayu(uerrilla ora-nizer), points to the Aymara uprisin between 2000 and 2005 and asserts thatwe have known how to destroy institutions, but we have not been able to

build new ones. This last example also clearly shows the difficulty o express-in the oal or our own way o doin thins to be the one that is establishedas leitimate and leal.

In order to consider these questions, it is worth reflectin on the dual na-ture o time under the capitalist order. It is possible to distinuish between

at least two different temporalities: a time o everyday lie and a time o rup-ture, which is a rupture o everyday lie. In traditional culture, everyday lieis marked by and interrupted by estivals. For that reason, when they truly


37/83

xl Preace

come rom below, movements and strugles resemble estivals. They are col-lective enterprises in which what has been accumulated durin normal timesis squandered in search o some purposeul shared objective. Thereore, it

happens that the time o rupture o everyday

rhythms of the pachakuti by raquel gutierrez aguilar

Documents