Not all protests are creating equally.
I want to call this out because I’ve seen some leftists support the protests against Morales. I think this is a terrible and uninformed position. Remember, not all protests are created equally.
The protests in Bolivia are being presented by the American press as part of the broader global protests. I’ve seen more about Bolivia than Ecuador in the American press, for example. And I’ve seen way more American political figures praise the Bolivian protests than, say Ecuador and Chile.
There is a reason for this. The protester’s agenda complements US policy more than Morales’ agenda. International reactions to protests aren’t cryptic or coincidental. When the US tells you what they want, believe them! Then, consider why the US wants that.
On twitter, I saw people painting leftists who oppose the protests as “tankies” who think everything is a CIA op. The simple truth is, the protests in Bolivia would probably exist with or without the CIA, whether they’re involved or not. The other simple truth is, either way, the majority of protesters are indeed right-wing.
The protests are premised on the idea that Evo Morales is corrupt and fixed the election. I don’t want to comment on the specifics, because I don’t know the specifics. But, what I do want to comment on, is right-wingers worldwide have realized that people who might be vaguely liberal but don’t cohere to a specific worldview, are very easily swayed by “corruption”.
This is most apparent with Lula in Brazil, who was targeted by heavily coerced and fabricated accusations of corruption, and is now in prison for it. But it happens everywhere. Trump loves throwing around corruption accusations, for example. But the fact that you can find corruption in every inch of American politics shows that Trump doesn’t care – he only “cares” as a tool to benefit him.
So again, did Morales do something corrupt? It’s definitely possible, but either way you slice it, he still rightfully won the election, by a large margin. The “corruption” accusations are seeming more and more like the boy who cried wolf, but some people still buy in.
And finally, to go back to the “tankie” accusation (I don’t want to call out who tweeted that, but it was a fairly prominent account). For one, tankie literally means nothing anymore, and I just tweeted about that the other day. Liberals got ahold of a term that has increasingly signified more things, and has an increasingly vague meaning. It has been drove it into the ground, to its logical conclusion, to mean anyone left of Elizabeth Warren is a tankie. Thanks for giving liberals an anti-Left insult guys!
But the implication of “tankie” here, is that tankies are stupid ideologues who will unequivocally defend a self-proclaimed socialist government, no matter what they’ve done.
The issue is, Morales isn’t a socialist. At least not in a conventional sense. People aren’t supporting Morales on ideological terms, because he isn’t committed to socialism in the same way Marxist-Leninists, ie Tankies, are. People are supporting Morales on material terms, because he has advanced a lot of great social policies, and have helped Indigenous Bolivians greatly.
The implication of calling someone a tankie is reducing their opinion to mere ideology, and suggesting they have that opinion for idealistic, or non-material reasons. But in reality, if you’re on the left, and don’t support Morales, you are the ideological one. Because the alternative is a “centrist” right-wing, antagonistic, and anti-Indigenous, pro-Capitalist party, which would absolutely increase material suffering of common people.