miners union, the FSTMB, which belongs workers majority in the comanagement boards are explained, among other things, in the following interview with Felipe Vasquez, a member of the Executive Committee of the FSTMB and of the POR-Combate.
The interview was given to Carlos Illades in the Huanuni mining area in February.
What is the basis for the demand that the miners have presented to the government for a minimum wage with a cost-of-living increase?
To go back into history a bit, we can say that since 1942 the miners have been the standard-bearers of the demand for a living minimum wage.
For several decades, this has been the demand that the workers have been most interested in. But it was simply ignored both by the MR governments under Paz and the military regimes
Since November 1981, the Huanuni mines by the government that - Revolutionary "copy of the Workers Party) opposes This alternative miners have maintained that the demand for a living minimum wage is inseparable from the demand for a sliding scale of
This was the only consistent answer for the workers facing the crisis that has gripped the country.
Up till now, the miners union is the only organization that has made a serious study of the question of a living minimum wage and of the sliding scale needed to compensate for inflation.
We have taken into consideration the patterns of consumption among the working people, the nutritional needs that are linked to our geographic condithat is, after mid-February, we will start to mobilize.
As I have said, a minimum living wage with automatic cost-of-living increases is a demand that we cannot give up.
on in act the patio
Q. What is the position of the FSTMB the "comanagement" in the state enterprises that the UDP government is talking about?
A. Since 1970 we have been discussing the question of workers participating in the management of the public enterprises. This was a way of challenging the government bureaucracy's control of these enterprises.
At the same time, it was necessary to mount a counter-attack against sections of the bourgeoisie that wanted - and still do want - to denationalize the key sectors of the economy. We had to point out how the workers could run the economy on a different basis.
It was also necessary to make it clear that the reason the state-owned enter. prises went into the red and have stayed there was the bureaucratic management imposed by the bourgeoisie.
For a whole period "comanagement" as the workers understood it had a progressive character, since it represented a vigorous struggle against reactionary governments that were trying to reprivatize the strategic sectors of the economy.
When we talked about "comanagement" in 1970, in reality we were fighting for a workers majority in the administration. Likewise now, we don't want the whole thing to be reduced - as the present government does - to mere technical administration.
We want the workers to have a direct influence over the use of resources, in determining a planned allocation of resources, in the sale of products, etc.
Q. What are the different positions on the question of comanagement within
There are three general points of
Some support the government's position, that is, for parity between government and union representatives in the administration of the enterprises. The involvement of workers representatives in
this scheme would amount to no more than a simple administrative role.
The workers representatives would not have the slightest power of decision with respect to financial matters. In other words, the government wants to involve workers representatives in the framework of relationships of capitalist exploitation.
Then, there is the position that is being put forward by the revolutionary organizations. It calls for a majority for the workers in the comanagement boards and the right of workers to a say in the financial dealings of the enterprises, in the sale of the products, and so forth.
In other words, we are calling for a change of orientation in the management of the enterprises in order to move toward workers self-management.
Finally there is a position based on total opposition to "co-management." control, but have not defined very well
At present, the FSTMB is discussing this question in a national commission made up of representatives of the government and of the COB. But we miners have made it clear that this discussion should begin among the rank-and-file workers and not be channeled from
Some people think that the participation of the workers in the administration of the nationalized enterprises could undermine the fight for a minimum living wage with automatic cost-of-living
This could happen, they argue, because the workers would be drawn into assuring the profitability of the enterprises. What do you think about that?
We miners think that we could get rid of the bureaucrats, if we reorganized the use of resources, and if we brought in new machines we could make the enterprises profitable.
In the case of those enterprises that bring in the least profit, we would seek ways of increasing production. But all of that requires a rectification of the governpolicy toward the mining industry. It is necessary to work out a policy improvement in the living and working conditions of the miners.
For all these reasons, we think that there is no basis for the argument that workers "comanagement" would be an obstacle to winning a living minimum wage.
If the government does not accept the formula of "comanagement" with a workers majority, there are two possible alternatives.
We may decide not to participate in the "comanagement" bodies. Or within the framework of "comanagement," we may take up a vigorous fight on the trade-union level, with the active participation of comrades involved in "co-management."
Q. What do the miners think about what the UDP has been doing in the government?
A. We miners took the lead in the Bolivian people's fight for democratic rights. Our idea was that this would make it easier for us to organize and therefore to carry on our fight in more favorable conditions.
With the November 1981 strike at Huanuni, we won respect for the rights political rights, and gram, the workers thought that the UDP would follow an anti-imperialist policy, introduce a living minimum wage with an automatic cost-of-living increase, and so
Concrete experience has opened the workers' eyes about the UDP govern.
A technocratic team has assumed the dominant role in the government and imposed a series of measures, such as those decreed in November (1), which dealt a severe blow to the workers' aspira-
The government has not put defending the workers' interests first. We, for our part, have taken our distance from the government. It is an index of the workers' rejection of the UDP's policy that in the elections that have been held since November nongovernmental left slates despite the opposition of the Bolivian Communist Party, the miners have confirmed their class independence in several congresses.
Q. What has been the reaction of the workers to the departure of the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR)
Bolivian miners underground (DR) from the government in January?
A Not everybody had seen it the same way. Nonetheless, most workers agree on one point: The governmental crisis has been the reflection of the contradictions that run through the regime because of its composition. (2)
We workers are very concerned about the present situation. This is because it is the most reactionary sectors that have gained the most from the breakup of the
The workers do not confuse bourgeois But they have a stake in the present democratic process and are demanding that it be deepened. This does not prevent us in the least from preparing to deal with an attempt to reestablish a dictatorship, which is clearly in the works.
In your opinion, what are the immediate perspectives for the Bolivian workers movement?
A. I think that the decisive moments are approaching. In such a context, there will be an increase in workers' mobilizations, and there will be a tendency for the workers to radicalize.
In Bolivia, there have been a lot of attempts to impose bourgeois solutions, both civilian and military. All these schemes have failed. The only possible alternative for the workers is a workers government and socialism. 1. This refers to the austerity program instituted by the UDP government shortly after coming into office. For the details see IV, No 22 January 24, "The Bolivian Cauldron." by S. Romande. 2. The executive branch is run by a coalition of reformist parties (the UDP) with different strategies, that of the MIR being particularly right wing. The legislature is dominated by the right.
11
The Northern Ireland Assembly squabbles among the Unionists themselves? • A. I think that there is a great deal of fear of the Assembly within the nationalist population. It has had some immediate effects - the first demand was for a 'shoot to kill' policy. And the British responded by instituting a 'shoot to kill'