The results of Sunday's elections in Bolivia were devastating for the leftist “Movement of Socialism” (Movimiento al Socialismo), known by the acronym MAS. Eduardo del Castillo, MAS’s candidate, received only approximately 3 percent of the vote—a historic collapse for a party that had ruled Bolivia for nearly two decades.
This result highlighted deep-seated economic crisis—20–25 percent inflation, fuel and dollar shortages, public frustration—and internal divisions within MAS (notably between Morales-aligned “Evista” and Arce-aligned “Arcista” factions).
Almost 10 years ago, writing on the theory of the “21st century socialism”, we were pointing out the following: “Underpinned by an idealist, anti-marxist perception of history, the 21st Century Socialism theory denies the historical role of the working class as a revolutionary subject and rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat. According to “Socialism of the 21st Century” theory, Capitalism doesn't need to be overthrown and therefore the solution is a mixed economy where private property in the means of production is allowed.”
Stressing out that this theoretical model is a mixture of old and new anti-marxist ideologies and taking into account the experience of the “Bolivarian Revolution” in Venezuela, we were stressing out: “The so-called “21st century socialism” is just a Latin American version of Eurocommunism; a theory which promotes the illusion that the capitalist system can be “humanized” and managed in favor of the peoples' interests. The experiments of the Left, progressive, social-democratic governments in Latin America prove what history has already taught us: that there is no democratic way to Socialism. The cases of Jacobo Arbenz's Guatemala in 1954 and Salvador Allende's Chile in 1973 are major historical examples.”
Unfortunately, the harsh reality of the class struggle came to justify our predictions and concerns. The "21st century socialism" proved to be a failed recipe of social-democratic management of the capitalist system, which, while initially inspiring enthusiasm among the popular masses, ultimately led to deep disappointment. Having good intentions isn't enough at all - you must be free from the disastrous illusion that there is a capitalism with a "human face".
Movements like the one of Evo Morales in Bolivia relied primarily on parliamentary and electoral roads to power. Instead of smashing the bourgeois state and building workers’ power, they sought to administer the existing capitalist state. This orientation subordinated the working class to the framework of bourgeois legality, leaving the coercive apparatus of the ruling class intact. Predictably, when crises deepened or the right regrouped, these governments proved unable to defend their reforms.
Venezuela’s oil, Bolivia’s gas, and Ecuador’s extractivism financed social programs that temporarily reduced poverty. But this rentier model was parasitic on global capitalism, not independent of it. When commodity prices fell, the social base of these governments collapsed. Without expropriation of the bourgeoisie and establishment of workers’ control over production, there could be no transition to socialism—only redistribution of capitalist rents.
Figures like Chávez and Morales constructed charismatic, Bonapartist leaderships that substituted for mass proletarian initiative. Instead of strengthening class organizations and democratic organs of power, “21st-century socialism” bred bureaucracies loyal to individual leaders. This stifled internal democracy, alienated the masses, and left movements fragile once the leader’s authority waned.
While these projects often invoked anti-imperialist rhetoric, they failed to link national struggles to a broader strategy of proletarian revolution in the region. The emphasis on sovereignty and national development often subordinated workers’ interests to alliances with sections of the “progressive” bourgeoisie, betraying the principle of class independence. For example, in Venezuela, the social democratic PSUV administration fused a kind of socialism with Bolivarian nationalism, presenting the Venezuelan nation as a unified bloc against imperialism. While anti-imperialist rhetoric targeted the U.S., internally this meant subordinating workers’ interests to a “national project” shared with the “patriotic bourgeoisie.” Instead of organizing the working class as an independent political force, PSUV sought class collaboration through alliances with sections of the military, state bureaucrats, and business elites willing to operate under Chavista rule. This replaced class struggle with “patriotic unity.”
Most importantly, like the revisionists of the past, advocates of “21st century socialism” embraced a two-stage path: first “Andean capitalism” or “Bolivarian democracy,” later socialism. In practice, the first stage became permanent, and the second never arrived. The result was not a transition to socialism but a left-wing administration of capitalism.
As the contradictions sharpened—economic crisis, corruption, loss of resource rents—these movements rapidly lost their mass bases. In Bolivia, MAS fell to 3% in recent elections; in Venezuela, the PSUV state apparatus presides over capitalist misery; in Ecuador and Nicaragua, authoritarian leaders cling to power by repressing dissent. Far from inaugurating socialism, “21st-century socialism” has opened the way for right-wing restoration.
“For us there is no valid definition of socialism other than the abolition of the exploitation of man by man”, Ernesto Che Guevara used to say. Indeed, all those who misuse the word “socialism” in order to support reformist projects – such as “21st century socialism” or “democratic socialism”, etc – actually seek to promote a social democratic management of capitalist barbarism, thus misleading the popular masses to dangerous paths. The case of Latin America and Bolivia provides us a valuable lesson; but, are we willing to learn?
* Nikos Mottas is the Editor-in-Chief of In Defense of Communism.