War and fascism are not a historical accident resulting from mad and cruel leaders, parties, and ideologies, but the inevitable product of capitalism’s historical course – the most authentic expression of the nature of this mode of production.

Political power does not belong to Trumps, Putins, Khameneis, Netanyahus, or Xi Jinpings, but to apparatuses serving the gigantic industrial and financial concentrations of capital. These apparatuses direct the bourgeois national State machines.

The war in Iran only apparently – and according to the lies of the liberal-bourgeois and opportunist left – harms the capitalist economy, even if, as in any business deal, there are those who gain and those who lose.

The rise in oil prices, within certain limits, benefits the U.S. bourgeoisie, which has been the world’s leading producer of crude oil since 2015 and one of the main exporters since 2019; it benefits the Russian bourgeoisie; it also benefits the Iranian bourgeoisie, which – despite the conflict – not only continues to export its oil to China via Hormuz but, by decision of U.S. imperialism itself, can now sell 140 million barrels (about 70 days’ worth of exports) at full price to all countries – including the U.S. – by virtue of the suspension of sanctions.

The rise in inflation within certain limits resulting from the rise in oil prices does not harm businesses, which respond by raising the prices of their products. Instead, it harms the proletariat, the wage earners, the only ones who cannot autonomously decide to raise the selling price of their commodity – their labor power – but who, to do so, must struggle against the bourgeoisie, that is, go on strike. If the rise in inflation is not excessive – such that it does not overly suppress consumption, which has been in decline for decades anyway – it is good for profits, because it coincides with a de facto reduction in wages.

The war on Iran is in the interests of the U.S. bourgeoisie, not only for the increased oil revenues, but because it fuels the gigantic military-industrial complex of the world’s leading imperialist power, because it strengthens the financial dominance of the dollar and thereby props up Washington’s public debt. This is so true that the U.S. bourgeois regime has undertaken it despite the strong opposition of the military leadership.

The war against Iran is clearly also a war for hegemony and the division of the world market, waged by the U.S. against, first and foremost, Chinese imperialism – its main rival – and then also against European imperialisms, which, as major importers of oil and gas, will have to raise the prices of their goods, thereby making them less competitive on international markets. The German and Italian bourgeoisies, which have already paid the price of the war in Ukraine, will now pay that of the war in the Middle East.

But the European bourgeoisies, too, are madly in love with war: all have thrown themselves into a pharaonic rearmament plan to breathe life into their stagnant manufacturing sectors; German automobile industries are converting to arms production; two drones that crashed in Cyprus were enough to justify the dispatch of military ships by European countries (including the Sanchez government); they are already plotting and negotiating deals for reconstruction in Iran, Ukraine, Lebanon... The same applies to the capitalist regime in Beijing – the Chinese path to the (now evident) falsification of socialism – which now boasts the world’s second-highest military spending, which continues to grow.

All national bourgeoisies desperately yearn for war as their sole salvation from the crisis of overproduction that is advancing, inexorably leading to the catastrophic collapse of the global capitalist economy.

The intertwining of business interests among imperialist powers confirms that the conflicts between bourgeois States are by no means absolute, even if – as in wars between mafia clans – leaders and followers are killed: the Russian bourgeoisie benefits from the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran, a country with which it signed a “strategic partnership treaty” just one year ago; China has a key ally in the Iranian regime, from which it purchases 90% of its oil exports, but it is also Israel’s leading trading partner and sells control systems to both – Israel and Iran – so that one can massacre the Palestinians and the other the Iranian rebels.

What matters to the international bourgeoisie and its national political regimes, more than winning the spoils, is that the war be fought: that it devour lives, cities, factories, and surplus goods, to breathe new life into the stagnant accumulation of capital. Imperialist war, more than just a war between bands of capitalist States, is a war of the bourgeoisie against the world proletariat, it is a class war.

Further proof of this is provided by the laughable declarations in “defense of the oppressed peoples” by U.S. imperialism, as well as the mendacious “anti-imperialism” of the capitalist regimes opposed to Washington, which only the nostalgic veterans of the sham of the USSR’s false socialism can believe. The proclamations by the U.S. and Israel in support of the Iranian protesters during the January demonstrations served only to benefit the Iranian regime, which was thus better able to accuse them of colluding with foreign forces and massacre them. The bombings since February 28 – which, incidentally, began two months after the massacre had already taken place – have united the opposition forces around nationalism and thus around the regime, which can further intensify internal repression. And indeed, with the war, all demonstrations have ceased. The U.S. and Iranian bourgeoisies are earning more from oil than before. The regime change called for by the U.S. is a shift in the direction of oil revenue flows while keeping the bourgeois apparatus – based in Iran on the Pasdaran and the Shiite clergy – intact, an apparatus that oppresses the proletariat, exactly as happened in Venezuela.

All the bourgeois States of the world, first and foremost those that set themselves up as champions of democracy, have an interest in keeping the Iranian proletariat oppressed and exploited because its uprising would ignite the class struggle from Turkey to the Maghreb, passing through the Middle East, including Israel, whose bourgeois regime would lose the bogeyman it uses to chain the working class to the chariot of national capitalist interests.

European imperialisms in democratic guise, have done business for half a century with the Iranian bourgeois regime in its Ayatollah’s robe and will continue to do so, in defiance of every democratic sermon recited as needed by political bigwigs and bourgeois institutional leaders. The murderous cynicism of European and American democracies shows how democracy is the cloak with which these regimes cover their bourgeois nature, whereby Profit comes first: beneath the democratic mask, the social and political reality is that of the Dictatorship of Capital.

Political, trade union, and social freedoms are granted only to the extent that they do not harm the fundamental interests of big Capital: as the crisis of overproduction and imperialist war intensifies, they must be curtailed or entirely revoked to prevent them from hindering the intensification of exploitation and militarism.

The liberal-bourgeois left-wing parties, which in Europe as in the U.S. present themselves as an alternative and bulwark against the right and fascism, do nothing but pave the way for them: when they come to power, their policies can only carry out the dictates of big capital. They delude workers into believing that the solution lies in the electoral

arena, within the current capitalist political framework; they disorganize and disarm them, handing them over to the most backward strata who fall for the populist deceptions of fascism and follow in the wake of the petty bourgeoisie.

The opportunist left-wing parties, which do not believe in revolution and communism – even when they declare themselves radical or revolutionary – face the unveiling of fascism within bourgeois regimes by forming a united front with the bourgeois left in “defense of democracy,” marching with them toward failure.

It is enough for the bourgeois regime to promote an increasingly reactionary, ruthless, fascist right wing to make the bourgeois left embrace right-wing policies. The logic is analogous to that by which workers are made to swallow worsening contract renewals by the regime’s unions: “it could have been worse!” Against fascism, the liberal-bourgeois left has no political program to oppose it, other than the one – shared with the right – of managing and defending capitalism, marching toward economic collapse and imperialist war.

In a well-known image, many small fish, hunted by a large predator, unite to form an even larger fish, reversing the balance of power. In democracy, the picture is different: two big fish (the bourgeois right and left) circle around the small fish (the proletariat), blowing big bubbles (propaganda) and trapping them inside; the third big fish – the bourgeoisie – rises from below and eats the small fish.

What will save the working class from war and fascism will not be the “defense of democracy,” the political united front of the “anti-fascist” parties, but the class struggle in defense of wages and living and working conditions, with a class-based trade union united front leading ever more widespread and prolonged strikes, until revolution and the proletarian dictatorship.

The alternative is not between democracy and fascism, between right and left, but between capitalism and communism, between war and revolution.

- Against war between States  –  for war between classes!

- For proletarian internationalism!

- For the communist revolution!

In January, the United States administration under Trump, considered Cuba a threat to national security and subsequently tightened restrictions and sanctions that have already endured for over 60 years, intensifying the existing economic crisis that plunges 95% of the Cuban population below the poverty line, surviving on less than $1.90 a day.

This embargo includes a series of economic nomic, commercial and financial restrictions, sanctions against petroleum suppliers, essential goods, import/export prohibition to certain countries and a blocking of banking activities including access to international payment systems all of which are of enormous hindrance to commerce.

The embargo, by drastically reducing energy supplies, has paralyzed transportation, generalized power blackouts, reduced tourism and increased a shortage of medication and hospital equipment, school supplies, likewise foodstuffs, flour, rice, milk, sugar and meat, in a country which depends largely on imports.

The main commercial partners are still Russia, China, Spain, Mexico and Venezuela.

Venezuela was particularly important for petroleum supplies, by supplying between 30 to 35% of Cuba’s demand in the last decades, a percentage that drastically got reduced after the new agreements following the farcical attack by the United States in Caracas and the new imposed political Venezuelan bourgeois regime.

However, the sanctions and the retreat of its main commercial partners have but aggravated an economy and way of life in Cuba already operating for Capital, despite today’s plentiful opportunist and leftists nationalists who consider Cuba as a “good and socialist” model, against de model of the “evil free market” of the United States.

The Cuban Revolution of 1959 cleared the way for the development of capitalism and a national bourgeois class, freed from its backwards semicolonial system. It freed itself from United States imperialism only to fall under the influence of its rival, Russian imperialism, emulating the illusion that a centralized State apparatus, an expression of the national bourgeois class, could control the market economy.

It is fitting to remember that the Cuban “socialist” regime maintained long stretches of diplomatic and commercial ties with the Franco Regime in Spain, showing that ideologies are nothing more than a falsehood at the service of capital’s interest.

Here the same old history repeats itself, between two conflicting bourgeois States, just like how in the past and present, which support the "attacked" State against the other that is intended to be condemned. Economic and class analyses are completely set aside to make room for irrational states of mind that converge towards the two mortal enemies of the class struggle: patriotism and interclassism.

The propaganda of various fan groups strives to demonstrate which ruling class is less parasitic and anti-proletarian than the other. We are interested in reaffirming for those who ignore the fact that in Cuba, as in all countries today, capitalism prevails, with its economic categories: commodities, money, wage slavery, and consequently, inequalities and social classes. Therefore, there exists a bourgeois class that exploits its own working class, appropriating the national wealth.

Inside Cuba, particularly the Business Administration Group SA (GAESA) is a holding company that controls 40% of the island’s GDP, directly administered by the Cuban Armed Forces (FAR) and linked to the Castro family. While the majority of the population lives in extreme poverty, the group controls the tourism sector by managing luxury hotels, airports, ports, travel agencies, and thousands of shops. It manages import and export operations, controlling various trade routes. It controls the flow of foreign currency, including services through Western Union and the International Financial Bank (BFI). Its financial assets, totaling tens of billions of dollars, are held in secret accounts abroad, used for massive investments in infrastructure and the private sector, at the expense of social services such as healthcare.

Several holding companies, linked to varying degrees to the country’s largest economic conglomerate, are examples of these: CIMEX SA, owner of a network of stores, gas stations, import and export companies, restaurants, and financial services; ETECSA, the monopoly on telephone and internet services; Corp. Habanos SA, a joint venture between the State-owned Cubatabaco group and the British tobacco company Imperial Tobacco; BioCubaFarma, which groups together pharmaceutical companies; and Cubana de Aviación, the national airline that controls domestic and international flights. These are just some of the most important examples.

Many of these companies operate through offshore companies registered abroad, often in Panama, to circumvent US sanctions, demonstrating how State capital merges with private capital.

The Cuban proletariat, increasingly impoverished and numerous, crushed by the internal struggles of the bourgeoisie, and divided between two governments under two national flags vying for control of capitalist commerce, will gain nothing by allying itself with its own exploitative ruling class. The proletariat has nothing to gain by defending the current generals in the name of the ahistorical bourgeois myth of “national sovereignty,” nor by overthrowing the military bureaucracy of GAESA if it is simply replaced by private managers flying US flags. Hunger, blackouts, and poverty will not end with a change of flag or administration of the State-owned enterprise.

Taking sides with the national power or supporting the weaker exploiter, mistakenly considered the "lesser evil," is a misleading and erroneous narrative.

For the working class, the enemy lies within its own borders: its own bourgeois exploiters, whether in Cuba, the United States, China, Russia, or Europe. Its salvation and emancipation can only be achieved through class struggle and organization to secure better living conditions, better wages, better working hours, free and efficient healthcare, education, the right to housing, and, subsequently, revolutionary unity with workers worldwide, including those in the “aggressor” States.

The historical compass is unique, both in Havana and in New York: the rejection of any interclass front for the destruction of the wage system and the law of value.

Noida, an industrial city in India, was the scene of massive uprisings and a series of strikes last April that brought life to a standstill and led to the erection of barricades.

The pent-up anger over the new labor law – which took effect in November 2025 and permits work hours to be extended to 10-12 hours – combined with the spark of wage inequality, led to a massive explosion.

This uprising of the working class began with a sudden strike by contract workers at the Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India factory in Haryana State – a neighboring State to Noida – demanding a wage increase. By April 8, approximately 3,000 workers from a dozen firms in Haryana had gathered at IMT Manesar to support their fellow workers’ struggle.

On April 9, when the Haryana State government responded to the protests with a 35% minimum wage increase, Noida workers -primarily in the garment, hosiery, and light manufacturing sectors- who were doing the same work as workers in the State of Haryana but earning nearly 6,000 rupees less per month, quickly realized this situation and took action to demand higher wages.

The demands of the workers in Noida, rooted in their own struggle for survival, can be listed as follows:

– A minimum wage of 20,000-26,000 rupees, as opposed to the current wages of 10,000-15,000 rupees in Uttar Pradesh, which have not been revised since 2014,

– A maximum 8-hour workday, contrary to the current norm of 12–16-hour shifts across all seven days of the week,

– Double overtime pay for hours worked beyond the standard, as mandated by law but routinely violated in practice,

– Payment of unpaid wages owed by several employers,

– Equal conditions for temporary and permanent staff, including written contracts, paid leave, and social security rights; the implementation of rights from which 58-67% of the workforce in Uttar Pradesh is completely deprived,

– The repeal or withdrawal of four new Labor Laws that unions claim have legalized 13-hour workdays and stripped them of their collective bargaining rights

Protests in Noida first began as work stoppages and mass peaceful sit-ins at over 82 factories. On April 9-10, workers gathered near the NSEZ metro station in Phase 2 (a major industrial hub and official industrial zone in Noida) and took to the streets demanding a minimum wage of at least 20,000 rupees to survive. Tensions between workers and management escalated on the second and third days.

The protests initially began spontaneously, without guidance from established unions, as workers were spurred into action by the impact of the wage hike in Haryana. At the grassroots level, the union organizations present from the outset included the Mazdoor Adhikar Sangharsh Abhiyan (MASA) – an umbrella organization bringing together 16 small labor unions – along with Bigul Mazdoor Dasta, IFTU Sarvahara, Mazdoor Ekta Committee, All India Labor Reform Sangharsh Abhiyan (AILRSA), and Naujawan Bharat Sabha. These are unions operate outside the mainstream trade union federations, focusing particularly on informal and contract workers.

The strike and protests in Noida served as a rallying point for workers’ struggles in various States across India. The strike in Noida triggered solidarity strikes at Motherson Group factories in Faridabad and Bhiwadi. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath characterized the incident as a “conspiracy” aimed at derailing workers’ actions.

On the fifth day, April 13, the struggle turned violent; all major roads, including the NH-9, Sector 62, and Akshardham entry points, were blocked by approximately 45,000 workers. In Sector 84, vehicles were set on fire, and reports of stone-throwing and other violent incidents emerged; police used tear gas against the workers. Heavy security forces, including the PAC and RAF (the State’s police force), were deployed to the area, and all police leaves were canceled.

Workers pouring into the streets voiced the harsh conditions of the class struggle against capital; they rebelled against 12- to 16-hour shifts, unpaid wages, and the systematic stripping of their rights needs by the bourgeoisie, leaving them with no security. One worker summarized the plight of his class during the protests: “Rent is 5,000 rupees. When you add food, transportation, and the children’s education, it’s impossible to survive on this salary”.

Police violence peaked on April 13-14; over 350 workers were arrested. The detained workers were subjected to mistreatment. This violence will be etched into the memory of the proletariat and, like any counterrevolutionary force, will face its reckoning sooner or later.

As of April 16, most factories had resumed operations, and the protests had transformed into scattered, contained gatherings. Thus, the intense phase of the uprising lasted approximately one week (April 9-16). Outside the industrial zones, domestic workers in Noida officially joined the protests, demanding wage increases and better working conditions. This shows how, with a more organized and militant core at the forefront, the entire working class – even those workers who are most scattered and disorganized due to their working conditions – can come together in struggle.

On Saturday, April 17, the Uttar Pradesh Government officially announced revised minimum wages for specific jobs across the State. These wages were published in accordance with Section 3(b) of the India States and Union Territories Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 and superseded the previous wage decision dated March 25, 2026. Although the protests were suppressed, the wage-related demands were addressed to reduce the protests, and significant increases were applied to the wages. The increases were differentiated based on workers’ skill levels.

Percentage Increase in Revised Wages Compared to Previous Wages

Unskilled:    ₹11,313/month → ₹13,690/month (~21%)
Semi-skilled: ₹12,445/month → ₹15,059/month (~21%)
Skilled:      ₹13,940/month → ₹16,868/month (~21%)

These figures fall well short of the ₹20,000–₹26,000 demanded by workers and unions. Deeper structural issues – such as the absence of written contracts, lack of social security, four Labor Laws, and the criminalization of protests – remain entirely unresolved. As of the end of April, more than 350 workers remain in custody. Seven preliminary investigation reports have been filed, and lawyers have reported that multiple charges have been added to prevent their release on bail.

From April 30 to May 8, Section 163 of the Indian Penal Code (restrictions on public assembly) was enforced across Gautam Buddh Nagar, covering the Labor Day period. Restrictions affected the International Workers’ Day, to avoid workers demonstrations in this day.

Although bourgeois left-wing organizations were not very effective in the strikes, they attempted to influence workers with their own opportunist lines. As we noted in EKP17 (TICP 65):

“But today in India, as everywhere, political and trade union opportunism prevails, which blocks or diverts the motion of all those who have been disinherited in the defense of the national interest and the preservation of bourgeois power. The strength of the proletariat as a class, the only potentially revolutionary one, lies not exclusively in the number, but by the sound consistency of its defensive organizations and their political direction, which must end the intransigent struggle against the bosses and their State. This will only happen when one of their minorities, the most advanced elements of the proletariat class, are recognized in the revolutionary communist party”.

The rise in oil and gas prices will lead to higher inflation in the coming months, making the wage increases won through these struggles – which were already less than what was demanded – insufficient to meet the needs of the Indian working class, who, along with workers around the world, will once again take up the fight for their immediate interests.

Prime Minister Modi’s statements on Monday, May 11, in which he called for a “collective national effort,” asserting that “… Whenever the country has faced a war or any other serious crisis, every citizen has fulfilled their responsibilities… Even today, it is necessary for all of us to unite and fulfill our responsibility… " already sound like a threat to the working class, warning them not to take up the struggle again and to meekly accept further sacrifices for the supposed greater good of the Nation – an ideological smokescreen behind which, in every country, the social privilege and political domination of the bourgeoisie are concealed.

The only way for workers to break these strike bans and police violence and confront the capitalist economic crisis is to organize in combative class unions under the leadership of the Communist Party and to overthrow bourgeois rule in India and throughout the world.

The indefinite national strike currently rocking Bolivia is neither an isolated incident nor a mere trade union dispute over sectoral improvements; it is a clear manifestation of the intensification of class contradictions and of how the class struggle can be reignited during a period of profound historical crisis in the capitalist mode of production. From a Marxist perspective, the events in the Andean highlands clearly illustrate how crises of capital accumulation are violently unloaded onto the backs of the proletariat, whilst highlighting the buffering and treacherous role of the reformist trade union leaderships and opportunist parties.

Bolivia finds itself at the crossroads of a double contradiction. On the one hand, the internal and insurmountable contradiction between capital and labour, exacerbated by a severe bourgeois fiscal austerity plan. On the other, its status as a subordinate country supplying raw materials, which turns it into a battleground in the current global inter-imperialist dispute over control of strategic energy and mineral resources. This report analyses the ongoing general strike, exposing the class nature of the Bolivian state (like that of all states), the limits of collaborationist trade unionism, and the urgent historical need for the resurgence of the proletariat’s political independence through its class party.

On the other hand, the economic crisis – with its social and political manifestations – currently afflicting Bolivian society does not stem from ‘mismanagement’, the corruption of the political cliques that have controlled the government, or the failure of the demagogic ‘process of change’ and its supposed ‘socialist’ orientation, touted by the opportunists of the MAS. This is a systemic crisis of global capitalism, of which Bolivia is a part, and which cannot be resolved through reforms, changes of government or ad hoc manoeuvres regarding fiscal policy and the restructuring of the bourgeois state. And, of course, neither the opportunists of the MAS (now fractured by internal struggles) nor the right-wing parties currently controlling the government will be able (or willing) to lead any revolutionary change; they will merely implement the ‘Gattopardian’ adjustments so that nothing changes and capitalism is maintained in the only way possible: by intensifying the exploitation of wage labour and proletarianising sections of the petty bourgeoisie.

It falls to the current government to implement the pending adjustments to Bolivian state capitalism which, based on the control of the extraction and commercialisation of raw materials found in its subsoil, generates a rent that flows to the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie and the transnationals through concessions, contracts, commercial alliances, but also through networks of corruption or preferential treatment for the pay packets of executives and managers and for the social stratum of the so-called ‘labour aristocracy’, and also through various populist programmes which, although presented as means of achieving ‘social inclusion’, in reality promote clientelism, the demobilisation of the oppressed and, in the process, also generate profits for various companies linked to bourgeois power. But this model repeatedly tends to enter into crisis when international prices for state-controlled commodities fall, when the weight of debt chokes off financial breathing space, and when the size of the state, its bloated payroll, its numerous ministries, affiliated companies and institutes, and social programmes (populism/clientelism) become unsustainable and require restructuring or simply elimination through redundancies, restructuring, budget cuts and privatisations.

This is an economic cycle that leads to the political alternation of governments of the opportunistic, nationalist and electioneering left, prone to increasing the size of the state, and governments of the so-called right, which tend to be identified in ‘left-wing’ propaganda as neoliberal and supporters of reducing the size of the state. But both currents merely adopt the bourgeoisie’s ‘anti-crisis’ tactical variants, and history—even recent history—shows that the expansion or reduction of the size of the state has been embraced indiscriminately by both the bourgeois left and the bourgeois right. This is what brings together, even though they try to deny it through their rhetoric and propaganda, the policies of right-wing governments in Argentina and El Salvador with those of the ‘left’ in Venezuela, Chile and Brazil, for example. And that is the situation we see in Bolivia, where an economic adjustment and a restructuring of the state are being pushed through – measures that the right-wing government of Paz had to face, but which the MAS would very likely have to implement if it were to take control of the government. And in both cases, they will choose the path of placing the full burden of the crisis on the shoulders of the workers.

Economic, political and social background

The social upheaval of May 2026 is the direct result of the exhaustion of the state capitalism model that prevailed under bourgeois reformism and the subsequent transition to a classic austerity regime. Following the departure of Luis Arce’s government at the end of 2025, Rodrigo Paz Pereira’s assumption of office marked an explicit shift towards so-called “economic orthodoxy”, seeking to correct fiscal imbalances and facilitate the capitalists’ management of the crisis, as always, by increasing the exploitation of workers. The Paz Pereira administration immediately implemented Supreme Decree 5516, a draconian fiscal adjustment plan aimed at “restoring order” to the national capitalist economy through the reorganisation of public finances and brutal cuts to state spending, reducing the state payroll by between 25% and 30%.

Although the new bourgeois government managed to temporarily stabilise the macroeconomic variables of interest to technocrats and international lenders – raising Net International Reserves (NIR) to $3.813 billion in the first quarter of 2026 and partially containing the parallel dollar – the material basis of society is burdened by a catastrophic legacy. The year 2025 ended with inflation exceeding 20%, a historic shortage of liquid fuels and a massive loss of purchasing power in wages. The patience of the proletariat and the semi-proletarianised masses reached its limit, triggering the mass mobilisations that today shape the landscape of protest across the country.

The indefinite general strike began on 4 May 2026. At the time of writing this report, the strike had already been ongoing for three weeks and was likely to continue for some time given the intransigence of the government and employers.

The conflict is nationwide in scope, but its strength and intensity vary geographically. The absolute epicentre is the department of La Paz and the city of El Alto (where 50 of the country’s 67 rural roadblocks are concentrated). Cochabamba acts as the critical hub of paralysis on the routes to the west (with key points at Quillacollo and the Huayculi bridge). In contrast, the eastern region of Santa Cruz shows less class-based support for the strike, although it is economically suffocated due to the road isolation caused by the roadblocks. The city of La Paz has been progressively paralysed by the encirclement of roadblocks, with transport coming to a standstill, rubbish collection suspended (leaving the streets piled high with rubbish), food shortages, and hospitals issuing alerts over a lack of medical supplies; all this whilst ever-larger contingents of demonstrators are arriving in the city following long marches from other regions.

As for the social composition of the participants, we find the following:

- The Proletariat and Exploited Sectors: Mobilised by the Bolivian Workers’ Confederation (COB) following a mass town hall meeting in El Alto. Urban teachers (organised in the Departmental Federation of Urban Teachers), transport workers (La Paz Drivers’ Federation) and rank-and-file mining workers are participating with great militancy. The La Paz Drivers’ Federation is not a homogeneous class organisation; on the contrary, it brings together and amalgamates within its ranks both transport unit owners (petty bourgeoisie) and wage-earning or over-exploited workers (the driving proletariat)

- Peasantry and Rural Petit Bourgeoisie: Mobilised en masse through the Aymara peasants of 29 provinces, the Interculturistas (a layer of small and medium-sized private agricultural producers) and the Departmental Federation of Mining Cooperatives (Fedecomin). These are sectors that do not identify with the abolition of wage labour.

- Political Opportunism: Political and social factions linked to “Evism” (supporters of Evo Morales) which do not represent a revolutionary alternative, but rather exploit and parasitise the anger of the rank and file to put pressure on the Executive and reposition themselves in the struggle for control of the bourgeois state administration. Although Evo Morales is not necessarily at the helm of this movement, for all practical purposes it is led by like-minded opportunist political currents, which are driving the demonstrations and blockades and demanding President Paz’s resignation.

- The Bourgeois State and its Administrators: Led by President Rodrigo Paz Pereira, backed by the judicial and police apparatus, and ready to deploy the Armed Forces for internal repression.

- The National and Transnational Bourgeoisie: Represented by the agricultural, agro-industrial (particularly in Santa Cruz), export, tourism and poultry sectors. Behind the scenes, large capitalist consortia and imperialist interests coveting the country’s gas, minerals and lithium reserves are at work.

The working class and oppressed sectors taking part in the protests are resorting to their traditional methods of struggle, combining strikes in the mines and schools with massive road blockades, with over 67 traffic disruption points recorded nationwide. This strategy has resulted in an almost total blockade of the main urban centres in the west, paralysing inter-departmental transport and halting the flow of goods. The bourgeois state’s response has been through judicial criminalisation, labelling the protest as “illegal” or “seditious”, combined with the use of military force.

The Bolivian capitalist state’s response to the workers’ uprising has combined police terror with a legal siege. At the time of this update, the combined forces of the Bolivian Police and the Armed Forces – mobilised exceptionally for internal repression to clear major roads – have acted with extreme violence. So far, there have been at least four deaths indirectly attributed to the logistics blockade and ambulance delays, in addition to the direct victims of recent violent road clashes. Dozens of workers, protesters and community members have been injured by tear gas, rubber bullets and physical assaults during the clashes on the western routes. Dozens of strikers are facing criminal prosecution, charged with “sedition” or “illegal strike” by the capitalist regime’s judicial apparatus.

The state of the country’s economy and its impact on workers

The Bolivian economy is mired in a crisis characterised by stagnation and high inflation, which is the local reflection of the general crisis of overproduction of capital at the international level. After entering a so-called “technical recession” in the second half of 2025 (ending that year with a GDP of -0.5%), projections for 2026 point to a severe contraction of -3.2% in GDP. Traditional extractive industries (gas and mining), the mainstays of state revenue, are suffering drastic declines due to the depletion of wells and a lack of investment.

This macroeconomic outlook translates into a brutal assault on the living conditions and reproduction of the workforce. After closing 2025 with 20.2% inflation, the cost of the basic family basket continued to rise in 2026. Essential foodstuffs (bread, meat, vegetables) are facing steep price rises due to a shortage of foreign currency and import problems. The government of Rodrigo Paz Pereira set the National Minimum Wage at 3,300 bolivianos (a nominal increase of 20%) through the PEPE Programme (Extraordinary Programme for Protection and Equity). Real wages have been decimated, with an estimated loss of nearly 60% of real purchasing power accumulated over the past year. The nominal increase is fictitious in the face of the actual devaluation in the markets.

However, the labour market is composed mainly of informal workers. The informal sector accounts for the vast majority of the country’s employed or underemployed workforce. This immense contingent comprises self-employed workers and day labourers. They live from hand to mouth just to survive. They constitute the urban sub-proletariat and those workers deprived of the means of production who sell their labour power on a day-to-day basis. They do not exploit the labour of others, lack capital, and their sole source of subsistence is their own labour. Historically, they belong to the ranks of the exploited class and suffer acutely from the direct effects of inflation and shortages caused by crises of accumulation. For this segment of workers, there is no guarantee of a minimum wage or any other form of labour rights.

Small and Medium-sized Entrepreneurs or Traders (Petty Bourgeoisie): Although they operate in conditions of legal informality, these individuals possess small means of production, goods or commercial capital. Their economic goal is not mere wage-based survival, but the realisation of commercial profit and private accumulation. They frequently exploit, either formally or informally, family members or precarious wage earners. Their class position inclines them politically towards reaction: they reject strikes and workers’ blockades because these halt the circulation of their goods and threaten their small property, demanding from the bourgeois state order, credit, subsidies and social peace to continue their commercial activities.

Although the informal sector formally rejects the strike out of necessity for subsistence, it is suffocated by shortages and the lack of transport caused by the strike. Within its multi-class approach, the COB incorporates into its demands the grievances with which this sector of the petty bourgeoisie can identify.

Working conditions and the working environment have deteriorated to the extreme. The nominal increase in the minimum wage to 3,300 bolivianos is a mockery in the face of the real cost of living, forcing the working class to extend their actual working hours (through multiple jobs, underemployment and informality) to compensate for the 60% loss of their purchasing power.

Demands put forward by the strike leaders

The list of demands presented by the COB bureaucracy brings together more than 112 labour and political demands. The core of the trade union federations’ demands can be summarised in the following points:

1. Indexed Wage Increase: Demand for a real wage increase directly indexed to the current cost of the basic family basket, rejecting official caps and the government’s cosmetic increases. This demand has been overshadowed by claims from small and medium-sized transport and retail business owners, as well as from peasants and indigenous people.

2. Repeal of anti-worker regulations or those affecting the peasantry: A resounding rejection of the educational decentralisation measures implemented against the teaching profession. Contempt for the Executive’s half-hearted manoeuvres (such as the repeal of Law 1720, which allowed small agricultural holdings to be converted into financial assets recognised by the banking sector), deeming them insufficient and demanding the immediate dismissal of the ministers responsible for fiscal adjustment.

3. Fuel Supply and Quality: Demand from the heavy and urban transport sector for an immediate solution to the logistical shortages and the appalling quality of the fuel distributed, which is ruining their vehicles. Demands from small and medium-sized transport businesses.

Although some economic demands were put forward by the workers, expressing the immediate needs of the working class, the COB leadership gave its list of demands a distinctly multi-class, corporatist and reformist character. They do not challenge the root of capitalist exploitation or private ownership of the means of production; they limit the struggle to a distributive struggle within the framework of bourgeois legality.

But ‘Evism’ quickly pushed the demand for President Paz’s resignation and the calling of early presidential elections to the forefront of this movement, pushing the other demands into the background. This placed the movement on an insurrectionary footing, but not an insurrection against capitalism, rather for its continuation, under the guise of a change of government, whilst maintaining bourgeois democracy. Thus, should the insurrectionary tendency within the movement strengthen, the possible outcomes arising from this situation are: a) the retention of the current government, following negotiations with the striking movement; b) the president’s resignation, the appointment of a government of national salvation, and the calling of early elections; c) a coup d’état to halt the insurgent movement and militarily shield the ongoing fiscal austerity measures (Decree 5516). But in all these possible outcomes, the bourgeoisie will remain in power, whether it governs with the support of right-wing parties, or of opportunist left-wing parties such as the MAS, the ‘Evis’ faction and similar groups (‘social movements’ and the COB), or by placing control of the government in the hands of a military junta.

On Wednesday 20 May, President Paz announced a reshuffle of his cabinet, assuring that it would improve communication with the various social sectors.

Likewise, the president dismissed the protesters, whom he called vandals, and criticised political forces which he did not name, but with clear reference to Evo Morales and his supporters, who have an “ideological agenda” and are linked to “drug trafficking and illegal activities”. He reaffirmed his plan for macroeconomic adjustment, the restructuring of the state and the dismantling of mechanisms of corruption, which he claimed had developed over the last 20 years of MAS governments, calling for an “Economic and Social Council” in which he invited the social organisations involved in the conflict to participate. Even so, given the ongoing blockades, the president requested the creation of a “humanitarian corridor”, referring to the need to provide access in El Alto and La Paz to medical supplies, food and fuel, thereby indirectly acknowledging that the government does not have control of the situation. And in all his announcements, he did not even mention the issue of wages.

Whilst the president of the bourgeois government offers an “Economic and Social Council” (a cross-class conciliation forum), he categorically refuses to discuss the wages of the wage-earning workforce because his current historical mission is to sustain the rate of profit for employers through a fall in real wages.

On 21 May, a convoy of tankers carrying fuel and medical supplies reached La Paz under police escort. But the government still does not have control of the situation. The fact that the government has to resort to military aircraft to transport insufficient rations of chicken and pork, and depends on logistical aid from neighbouring bourgeois governments such as Argentina and Chile, demonstrates that the normal flow of capital circulation has been disrupted. The entry of tankers under armed escort is not a victory for order, but an exceptional operation that confirms that the territory remains surrounded by the bases in struggle.

The strike movement, dominated by interclassism and opportunism, remains firm in its demand for President Paz’s resignation and therefore refuses to engage in dialogue with a “dying government” and rejects the call to the Economic and Social Council, which it describes as a government manoeuvre, and which it does not wish to recognise or give oxygen to through its attendance.

The reactionary forces have also mobilised “in support of the government and in defence of democracy” in the capital. Meanwhile, international organisations have spoken out in support of the Paz government, as has the US government, which issued a statement backing Bolivia’s current government.

Positions of the various political, trade union and business groups

The strike has polarised the class camps on the national stage:

The Bourgeois Government (Paz Pereira): Maintains an unyielding stance in defence of the economic austerity decrees (Supreme Decree 5516), arguing that they are necessary to curb so-called “stagflation”. It accuses the COB of promoting an “illegal” strike and brands the blockaders as committing acts of “sedition” in the service of shadowy interests.

The Business Community (Monopolies and Landowners): Expresses absolute rejection. The agricultural, poultry, export and tourism sectors report losses running into millions and demand a heavy-handed response from the state, claiming that the isolation of production centres “destroys formal employment” (that is, halts the extraction of surplus value).

The Traditional Bourgeois Opposition and Civic Committees: Figures such as Carlos Mesa claim that the country is “held hostage by violent minorities”. For its part, the Pro-Santa Cruz Committee employs an anti-communist and opportunist narrative, accusing Evo Morales of using the protests to orchestrate a “coup d’état”. Both bourgeois factions (government and opposition) agree on the need to crush the workers’ resistance.

The Opportunist Parties (“Evismo”): They ride on the legitimate conflict of the grassroots to channel discontent towards electoral solutions or palace power struggles, betraying the revolutionary potential of the strike to turn it into a bargaining chip for bourgeois politics.

State Bodies (Ombudsman): They operate as institutional peacemakers and mediators, seeking to dilute the class conflict in fruitless round-table talks. They hypocritically warn against the use of the Armed Forces whilst attempting to preserve the bourgeois constitutional order.

The historical betrayal and opportunism of the COB

To unravel the true nature of the Bolivian Workers’ Confederation (COB), it is essential to analyse its political behaviour over time, which reveals its total submission to the bourgeois state, depending on the faction in power. Under the reformist governments of Evo Morales and Luis Arce, the COB’s trade union bureaucracy acted as a shameless appendage of the executive, pacifying conflicts, assimilating corporate structures and nipping in the bud any hint of independence or revolutionary initiative on the part of the proletariat. During those periods, workers’ demands were systematically stifled and sacrificed in the name of the stability of Andean ‘state capitalism’ and the false rhetoric of the ‘process of change’.

On the contrary, the current aggressiveness and the swift call for an indefinite general strike against the right-wing government of Rodrigo Paz do not stem from a sudden class-conscious awakening on the part of its treacherous leadership, but from its most abject political opportunism. The COB leadership has aligned itself organically with the bourgeois “Evista” faction (aligned with Evo Morales), which exploits and parasitises the legitimate anger of the rank-and-file workers.

The aim is not to destroy the capitalist state, but to wear down the current administrator (Paz Pereira) in order to force a reshuffle and reposition their allied political faction in the struggle for control of the fiscal and governmental apparatus. In doing so, the COB leadership confirms its historical counter-revolutionary role, transforming the workers’ demands contained in the inter-class list of demands into a mere bargaining chip in inter-bourgeois struggles. At the height of the conflict, the COB president went into hiding.

Prospects for the Bolivian proletariat in the absence of a revolutionary leadership

The historical drama of the Bolivian working class is once again laid bare in this indefinite national strike. The mining, education and transport proletariat is demonstrating a great fighting spirit, capable of paralysing the country’s vital arteries, united with indigenous sectors, peasants and the discontented petty bourgeoisie. However, the logistical effectiveness of the blockades contrasts with the political and ideological weakness of the organisations representing wage earners. This is evident in how wage and labour demands have been overshadowed by the call for the president’s resignation and by the demands of small business owners, such as the rejection of current fuel prices.

Lacking a revolutionary leadership with a clear programme for the overthrow of capitalism, the masses find themselves caught between the hammer of the government’s fiscal austerity and the anvil of reformist opportunism (“Evismo” and the COB bureaucracy). In the short term, the outlook is bleak: the strike risks petering out, being betrayed in exchange for nominal wage crumbs, or being used to facilitate the return of populist bourgeois factions that will continue the agenda of submission to finance capital.

The urgent need for the resumption of the class struggle

As Lenin taught in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, the monopolies and imperialist powers (whether from the Western or Eurasian bloc) vying for Bolivia’s lithium, gas and resources will never allow for the real emancipation of the working masses or their break with reformist paths, multi-classism or nationalism. Capitalism in crisis has no lasting concessions to offer. On the other hand, the workers’ movement must understand that its main enemy – the bourgeoisie – lies within Bolivia’s borders, and the call to confront the external enemy (whichever imperialist power) ends up being a distraction and a waste of energy driven by the discourse of that bourgeois ‘anti-imperialism’ of the opportunist left.

To break this vicious circle of exploitation and trade union betrayal, the following historic tasks are imperative:

1 Militant Affiliation to the International Communist Party: The current strike demonstrates that the spontaneous militancy and organisational strength of the COB are insufficient in the absence of the central subjective political factor: the vanguard party of the working class. Only the International Communist Party, firmly rooted in the Marxist doctrine of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, can unify the scattered struggles of miners, teachers, drivers, urban sub-proletarians and wage workers in general, and lead these forces towards the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

2 Continuation, expansion and intensification of the strike, eliminating minimum services and bringing in workers from sectors that have not yet joined. Refusal to participate in the Economic and Social Council convened by President Paz. Move from an insurrection as an expression of inter-bourgeois confrontation to a proletarian insurrection. Neither a “Government of National Salvation”, nor “early elections”, nor a “Military Dictatorship”. Workers’ insurrection for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

3 Whether the political course leads to the current government remaining in power or to a change of bourgeois government, the movement must uncompromisingly demand a general increase in wages, ensuring that this increase is applied and benefits even pensioners and informal workers. The General Strike must not be called off without securing a wage increase as the main demand to be made of the government and the employers.

4 The Break with Opportunism: The Bolivian proletariat must sever the ties that bind it to bourgeois factions of any stripe (Pazists or Evistas) and sweep away the collaborationist trade union bureaucracy that transforms the list of demands into a list of betrayal, interclassism and inter-bourgeois confrontation.

5 The Resurgence of Genuine Class-Based Trade Unions: It is vital to rebuild trade unions that effectively unite the working class, without divisions based on nationality or trade, and which adopt methods of struggle such as indefinite strikes without minimum services. Unions that do not centre their organisation on workplaces but on local, regional and national organisation, bringing together active workers, pensioners and the unemployed, practising debate in assemblies and grassroots participation in the various committees required for the struggle. Genuine bodies for the defence of wages and resistance against capital.

Only the formation of the proletariat into an independent political party will make it possible to transform the current defensive resistance against capitalist exploitation and fiscal austerity into a revolutionary offensive for the destruction of the bourgeois state, the expropriation of transnational and national monopolies, and the launch of socialist transformation.