I do not know who Fuentes is so I will not accuse him of being one of Morales' palace historians, he may just be a run-of-the-mill, true-believer apologist, but his critique seems more than a bit tendentious.
I've read Webber's book and I agree with his assessment of Morales. Chavez, Correa, and the Bolivian have been in power for some time now and each is experiencing a decline in support due to their inability to deliver on the Bolivarian agenda. Morales has stopped peasants from taking over large estates, and prevented workers from seizing factories and mines. Morales whines that if these expropriations occur a coup will result and Bolivia will be delivered into the hands of capital. Webber demolishes these arguments in his book.
I'm not going to bother to deconstruct Fuentes' entire piece (it's not worth it), but one contention was so preposterous as to demand some attention. He says Bolivia isn't ready for revolution because of the absence of a large proletariat. Revolutions have been made with a much smaller industrial labor force than Bolivia enjoys. What proletariat it does have is highly class conscious, and they are joined by a large, broadly radicalized, revolutionary peasantry. The laboring classes of Bolivia have ousted a succession of rightist governments, established a people's assembly, and are by far the country's most important political faction. They are also, lest we forget, the same impressive folks who treated us to one of history's great uprisings in Cochabamba. It is just absurd to say the conditions for socialism do not exist in Bolivia. In fact Bolivians are clamoring for radical change, and it is precisely these revolutionaries who put Morales in power, and these are the same people who now criticize him.
Anyway, here's the article. It should have a warning label on it like a pack of cigarettes.