Quebec Seperation Revisited

[Guerrilla22]

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The question of whether Canada will remain one country will hang in the balance again as the mainly French-speaking province of Quebec heads into an election campaign this week.

The campaign will be partly about health, jobs and taxes, but underlying it all will be the perennial tussle between the separatists, who promise an independence referendum if they are elected, and the federalists who want a united Canada.

"The Parti Quebecois means wishful thinking. It means a return to division by another referendum, as quickly as possible," Quebec's federalist Premier Jean Charest told about 2,500 fellow Liberals in a pre-campaign weekend speech.

"In brief, the PQ represents a step backwards."

Charest has summoned the Quebec National Assembly for an emergency session on Tuesday to hear his preelection budget. The next day, he is expected to dissolve the assembly and launch a campaign for an election on March 26.

"It's not a secret -- yes, there will be an election soon," Charest said at his weekend address.

Many analysts believe the veteran Charest has the momentum to win reelection and stave off another referendum, but the race is tight and by no means guaranteed.

The polls are deceiving. The latest survey, by Leger Marketing, puts Charest's provincial Liberals ahead of the Parti Quebecois with a seemingly comfortable 36 percent support, to the PQ's 31.

In fact, the Liberal vote is so concentrated in certain electoral districts in Montreal that many of them are superfluous. The result is that the Liberals actually need to win by about six percentage points.

Pollster Jean-Marc Leger said either side could win the election, and there was even the possibility of a minority government because of the emerging strength of a third party, the Action Democratique du Quebec, polling at 21 percent.

"All options are open," he told Reuters.

However, Leger said the trends are in Charest's favor. A year ago, he had 32 percent support, which has inched up one percentage point every few months to 36 percent currently.

The Parti Quebecois, meanwhile, has lost momentum, dropping from 43 percent support a year ago to 31 percent.

That's partly because of uncertainty over Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair, who has admitted to having used cocaine as a cabinet minister when his party was last in power.

He has annoyed the party faithful and the normally allied trade unions, and an increasing number of Quebec journalists question his leadership abilities.

This will be Boisclair's first campaign as a party leader, and Charest's fourth, including a stint as national leader of Canada's now-defunct Progressive Conservative Party.

Leger said Charest's prowess on the campaign trail and in formal debates, together with Boisclair's disarray, could explain why he's calling an election now rather than waiting until he has an insurmountable lead.

Charest has a close ally in Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has repeatedly made good-news announcements in Quebec. The federal budget is widely expected to be delivered on March 20, just before the Quebec election, and will be chock full of cash transfers to Quebec.

Harper's Conservatives and the federal Liberals back the provincial Liberal Party, which promises tax cuts and a guarantee of timely access to public health care or private health care paid for by the province.

Currently, 45 percent of Quebec voters favor Quebec sovereignty, but close to a third of them are parking their votes either with the Action Democratique -- which does not favor independence -- or with one of the smaller parties.

Quebec voted 60 percent to 40 percent against independence in a 1980 referendum. It came within one percentage point of voting in favor of it in the only other referendum in 1995.

[redcannon]

how would "the nation of Quebec" be run? would it be socialist, like Canada?

[Guerrilla22]

Canada isn't socialist. I'd imagine they would adopt the provincial government as the federal government if seperation did in fact take place and form a constituent assembly to draft a constitution.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

We're far from socialist, but we're at least of a more left bent than America. I can talk about communism and anarchism without getting my head lopped off and sacrificed to a Reagan shrine.

I think the Quebec issue is more senseless nationalism that will benifet only the top echelons of French Canada. Everyone else is just a tool. The justifiction they have is really shabby too. If they want to leave, I won't stop them, but I think it's narrow-minded.

[Severian]

^^Well, thank you for that lovely example of how there's nothing progressive about fashionably lefty "anti-American" Canadian nationalism. It's just support for Canadian imperialism, including its continued domination of Quebec.

Quebec is an oppressed nation. This status began with the conquest of French Canada by the British Empire. It continued through the imposition of a semifedual system of seigneural landlords on the province. In 1970, the Canadian army was sent into Quebec to round up all kinds of political dissidents and union activists under martial law. And today, French speakers continue to be worse off in terms of income, education, health, etc.

The labor movement in Quebec is for Quebec sovereignty - unfortunately it remains tied to the bourgeois Parti Quebecois, as the article mentions. 'Course, one obstacle to changing that situation is the policy of the New Democratic Party - the labor party in English Canada.

Its continued refusal to support Quebec sovereignty is an obstacle to uniting the working class and the unions across Canada. It's chosen to defend the unity of the bosses' state rather than fight for the unity of the working class.

Further reading, facts and details:
Quebecois Are An Oppressed Nation (http://www.themilitant.com/1996/609/609_20.html)
Why "The Militant" support Quebec independence (http://www.themilitant.com/1996/605/605_10.html)
Quebecois Self-Determination Is Central To Canadian Revolution (http://www.themilitant.com/1998/6214/6214_18.html)
Workers in Quebec resist bosses' attacks (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6548/654810.html) - explains how these labor struggles fit with the fight for the rights of the Quebecois nationality.

[Guerrilla22]

the French Canadains are really trying to protect their cultural identity. While Quebec independence may not be viable from an economic standpoint, you have to respect their wishes to retain their cultural identity and end the domination of their province by the English speaking majority.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Maybe I just have trouble putting nationalism and the unity of the working class in the same category.

[rebelworker]

Heres a nefac discussion paper prepared here in Quebec.

Notes on the Québec national question

[Adopted for discussion at the 12th NEFAC conference. A more indepth position will be developed by the Quebec Regional Union with this as a basis and submitted to a future NEFAC conference.]

For nearly 50 years, the national question has been at the heart of debates among the left in Québec. If there are (and there will probably always be) anti-authoritarians who choose to take a position in favor of Québec's independance, other anti-authoritarians will take positions which do not necessarily support the survival of the Canadian state. We choose to oppose both Québécois and Canadian nationalism without denying the reality of national oppression.

Canada as we know it was formed with the specific goal of assimilating its francophone population, which doesn't share the same history as other communities of European descent on this continent, into a political ensemble that is, by majority, Anglophone. Francophones, whose social standing after the British conquest of Nouvelle France (1759-1763) was changed from colonizer to colonized, were historically denied the status of a nation and were kept in a position of social-economic inferiority by a "colonial democracy" ready to use any means at its disposal to maintain its "territorial integrity." With the national oppression of Francophones a clear reality, Canada indeed became a "prison of peoples." And, just in case we need something to refresh our memories about the past, we can recall The Sponsorship Scandal, with which the Canadian government illegally spent billions to “sell Canada to Quebec” after the narrow “no” victory at the 1995 referendum. If we need another reminder, there is The Clarity Bill, with which the Canadian government was empowered to overrule the Quebec government to dictate what kind of question and what kind of majority would be necessary for a referendum on sovereignty. Francophone survival and existence in Québec today is a direct result of our active resistance to the British project of assimilation.

And there are other pieces to Canada's history. This country was built, from coast to coast, on the "pacification" (with the use of force, it goes without saying) of entire populations, not just of the indigenous and the french speaking métis in the prairies but also of the working class, regardless of whether it was francophone, anglophone or allophone. The nationalist version of Québec's history almost exclusively deals with francophone resistance to the will of central power (for example, in the opposition to the draft) but there is no mention that, elsewhere in this country, people generally took part in many of the same oppositional social struggles. This complicit silence is the product of nationalism. It goes hand-in-hand with an analysis that gives individuals the same interests based on linguistic, racial or territorial characteristics while denying the reality of class oppression.

There have been moments where social and national issues have merged in one progressive and liberatory struggle. The insurrection of Les Patriotes in 1837-38, which fought for an independent liberal republic is one example. The independence movement of the 60's and 70's, which fought on both national and class fronts, is another. But these moments have been rare. Nationalist ideology has mostly allowed French-Canadian (and Québécois) elites to create a balance of power against the monopolistic fraction of the mostly anglophone Canadian ruling class. First reactionary in its religious form, then "progressive" when it cotailed popular movements, and finaly simply neoliberal after a few years in power, nationalist ideology has been able to adapt its discourse to stay "fresh" during changing times. Sadly, the left hasn't managed itself in the same way.

***

The idea that the national question was the key to social change in Québec, that national liberation and social liberation should come together as part of the same movement, dates back to the 1960's. At that time, proof was abundant that francophones were systematically in a position of social-economic inferiority at home and compared to the anglophones of the rest of Canada. A simple walk from west-end Montreal to east-end Montreal was enough to make one notice how evident the oppression was. It was the independent leftist magazine Parti Pris, in an international context of decolonization that popularized the analisis of Québec as a colony to liberate. Their political program rested on 3 pillars: the secularization of society, independence and socialism. Parti Pris thought that the national question and the social question could be dealt with in one anti-colonialist socialist revolution. From this foundation, numerous writings were developed to analyse Québec in the context of national oppression. "Stage-ism" was then introduced -- independence first, socialism second -- as was the transitional program, a series of "just" demands that were meant to raise conscisnous and lead to a break with capitalism.

In the last 30 years, the joint action of the labor movement and a sovereignist party in power corrected the most outrageous forms of national oppression. For example, there is no longer a wage difference between workers from Québec and Ontario employed by the same corporation. Francophones are now present in every economic area and at all levels, from foreman to CEO. Despite some failures, French is now respected as the common language in Québec. Progress has been made in every social area where Québec used to be behind the rest of Canada (to the point of producing envy amongst Anglo-Canadian progressives).

What remains is the question of political independence. An honest analysis of the national liberation movements of the 60s which provided inspiration for the strategy of progressive independence should show that they all failed. Despite seizing power, despite formal independence, decolonization failed and there was no true national liberation or social liberation. Neocolonialism dominates everywhere, as colonialism once did. Countries which for a while escaped the imperialist orbit return to it under the imperatives of globalization. Those on the left who believe that a sovereign Québec could follow a different path than the one traced by neoliberalism are greatly mistaken. If countries like Brazil, South Africa and France have failed to break free, how would a small state whose main economic partners are party to NAFTA show any better success?

***

One of the central aspects of the revolutionary critique of nationalism is that it's an essentially bourgeois ideology whose goal is to unite two classes with antagonistic interests in a competition against other nations, all the while giving the leadership of the political struggle to a section of the ruling class. This is exactly what happened and what continues to happen in front of our eyes in Québec. It is only in countries without a national ruling class and without a professional political class that revolutionaries have been able to take control of nationalist movements. But thanks to the defectors of the Québec Liberal Party who founded le Mouvement souveraineté-association and then the Parti Québécois (P.Q.), we now have both in Québec. For 30 years revolutionaries have tried to take control of the "Québec national movement" and to give it a progressive orientation -- but the left remains marginal. Maybe this is because it is impossible to break away from the P.Q. without breaking away from nationalism. There will always be some activists who will argue that one must support the P.Q. if one supports Quebec independance because, in the last analysis, the P.Q. is the only party that is able to realize it. And they are right!

* * *

Brought into this movement by their unions and religious and political "elites", many working people have devoted their lives to defend the only possible solution to solve this identity crisis "once and for all": the sovereignty of Quebec. But this is a false solution to a real problem. Social, political and economical inequality is the result of the domination of a parasitic class over all others, not the result of national oppression. We must recognize that it was mainly the politicians and business owners that first benefited from Quebec nationalism, not the working and popular classes. (Between 1960 and 1990, with the help of the provincial state, the francophone ownership of business in the province rose from 15% to 65%. This new 'Quebec Inc.', as it is sometimes called, is far from being limited to small business as some have reach the status of world-class corporations, like Bombardier and Quebecor World.)

Why continue to talk about the national question in 2004? Because on the left, independence, coupled with a strong and responsible state, is often seen as a sine qua non condition of social progress. Because in the hand of the ruling class, nationalism is a poison that breeds xenophobia and racism, that creates divisions and forges false alliances between the elite and the rest of the population. The "historical" project of the working and popular classes is not nationalism, it is internationalist socialism. The answer to inequality will never come from a state but from a re-appropriation of the collective wealth by those producing it. Quebec's sovreignty is trapped in a bourgeois deadlock. The nationalist movement is no longer progressive. Social struggle has been conveniently postponed by most nationalist politicians (that is when they dont actively suppress it when in power).

Any revolutionary involvement worthy of the name find its roots in a revolt against all forms of injustice, oppression and exploitation. From there, it is easy to understand why almost a whole generation of revolutionaries gave their support to the struggle for the independance of Quebec. From there, it's also easy to understand, for those who choose to open their eyes, why more and more revolutionaries, including us, are no longer thinking of independance as a central strategic axis. We'll concentrate on the class war. Along the way, down the path of social revolution, libertarian communism, with its emphasis on federalism and democracy, will offer an opportunity to address the whole range of national questions existing in Canada -- the Quebecois, what's left of the french canadians, the Indigenious and others.

We are admittedly in favor of the complete destruction of the Canadian federal state, which is only a political fiction after all, and for the self-determination of all the peoples that are imprisoned in it. But why stop there? We are also for the complete destruction, in the same movement, of all the other states of the region, starting with the American state. Though traces of national oppression remain, in particular in the economic structure of Quebec (why the hell did we end up with textile while Ontario got auto?), there's no politically justifiable reason to make this issue a key organizing point. On the other hand, the social question remains in full. What is the right to self-determination worth without social and economical equality? You'll forgive us if we focus on this.

Based on a text from Rupture no 4, summer 2004.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

That makes a great deal more sense to me than the arguements I've heard from Duceppe or the nationalists.

[Cheung Mo]

I don't think people foolish enough to favour cokeheads (Boisclair), Mike Harris-clones (Jean Charest), and neo-Duplessistes (Dumont) over the forces of the anti-authoritarian left are good for much of anything, let alone being masters of their own destiny.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:00 am
Maybe I just have trouble putting nationalism and the unity of the working class in the same category.
And yet you don't seem to have that trouble with Canadian nationalism....."We're far from socialist, but we're at least of a more left bent than America. I can talk about communism and anarchism without getting my head lopped off and sacrificed to a Reagan shrine."

History shows the only way for communists of the oppressing nationality to advance class unity - is to fight for the rights of the oppressed nationality. Including the right to self-determination.

"Can't we all just get along" doesn't cut it. You have to show in the strongest possible way that you reject the Canadian bosses' nationalism, and side with the oppressed. Or Quebecois workers rightly are not going to have any trust in you.

[Question everything]

Quebecistan :lol: not this again. Right now Democratic Action party looks strong, anyone else hear of them, they sound like they're french nazis :( If they win, then Quebec can fuck off.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

We're far from socialist, but we're at least of a more left bent than America. I can talk about communism and anarchism without getting my head lopped off and sacrificed to a Reagan shrine."

Where did I say that I am a Canadian Nationalist? Never, I just stated that the culture is more left-wing. That's quite a stretch towards implying that I have any sort of love for any nation at all.

How large is the anti-authoritarian left current in the Separatist movement? I know the FLQ was Marxist, but I disagree heavily with mixing ethnic nationalism and Marxism.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 21, 2007 08:35 pm
Quebecistan :lol: not this again. Right now Democratic Action party looks strong, anyone else hear of them, they sound like they're french nazis :( If they win, then Quebec can fuck off.
Action Democratique/Equipe Mario Dumont?

It's basically a coalition of the far-right and of libertarian-capitalists.

There is ample evidence that they are scary as fuck:

1. They support destroying the Quiet Revolution welfare state.

2. Their base of support is from the old Union National heartland. The Union National was a far-right clerical party known for its corruption, its extreme authoritarianism, its ability to rig elections, its abuse of orphans under the care of its Papist buddies, its ties to Hitler and Mussolini, its use of padlock laws to prevent communists and labour unions from organisaing, and its propagation of French Canadian chauvinism and nationalism while secretly selling off Quebec's natural resources to Les Anglais and Les American for next to nothing.

3. Many party supporters have expressed solidarity with policies implemented by the European far-right. (The party hides this to prevent it from tanking even further in the poll.)

4. Mario Dumont has the same initials as Maurice Duplessis, the fascoid megalomaniac who was Premier of Quebec during the aforementioned UN years (1936 - 1939 and 1944 - 1959 when he died suddenly, easily Quebec's finest moment.).

[Comrade_Scott]

i have a question.. if quebec got independence wouldnt that screw over a majority of the people of quebec and put power in the hands of the few elite? wouldnt it also cause economic strife mabey resulting in heavy job losses? from what i have heard and read its not about nationalism but rather the few wanting a bigger share of the pie... please correct me if im wrong cause im not sure :blush:

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:16 am
i have a question.. if quebec got independence wouldnt that screw over a majority of the people of quebec and put power in the hands of the few elite?
That's how things are now in Canada and other capitalist countries.

Whether an independent Quebec would remain capitalist - will be settled in the course of struggle. It would certainly take a mass struggle to win independence from Canada.

The Quebec nationalist movement is supported by most of the working class movement in Quebec; its dynamic, historically, is to ally with movements for social progress there.

[Question everything]

(Question everything @ February 21, 2007 08:35 pm)
Quebecistan not this again. Right now Democratic Action party looks strong, anyone else hear of them, they sound like they're french nazis If they win, then Quebec can fuck off.


Action Democratique/Equipe Mario Dumont?

It's basically a coalition of the far-right and of libertarian-capitalists.

There is ample evidence that they are scary as fuck:

1. They support destroying the Quiet Revolution welfare state.

2. Their base of support is from the old Union National heartland. The Union National was a far-right clerical party known for its corruption, its extreme authoritarianism, its ability to rig elections, its abuse of orphans under the care of its Papist buddies, its ties to Hitler and Mussolini, its use of padlock laws to prevent communists and labour unions from organisaing, and its propagation of French Canadian chauvinism and nationalism while secretly selling off Quebec's natural resources to Les Anglais and Les American for next to nothing.

3. Many party supporters have expressed solidarity with policies implemented by the European far-right. (The party hides this to prevent it from tanking even further in the poll.)

4. Mario Dumont has the same initials as Maurice Duplessis, the fascoid megalomaniac who was Premier of Quebec during the aforementioned UN years (1936 - 1939 and 1944 - 1959 when he died suddenly, easily Quebec's finest moment.).

thanks, I got it saved I might print this off and distribute it...

[RNK]

Quebec is an oppressed nation.

All I had to read was this to realize you're delluded about the role of a "sovereign" Quebec.

I for one do not understand how the concept of creating yet another state has any founding in Marxist principle. We should be eradicating states, not making new ones. The entire concept of a sovereign Quebec is nothing but a nationalist's wet dream. It will not benefit the proletariat of Quebec, it CERTAINLY will not benefit the Natives who live in Quebec, and it will not benefit the world proletariat.

Again, focusing on the nationalistic concept of a sovereign Quebec does nothing but hurt the proletarian revolution. If you want to liberate Quebec from oppression, fine -- I have no problem with the opening of a Quebec front to fight the federal and provincial establishment. But if your goal is simply to replace Canadian federal oppression with Quebecois national oppression then you have no support from me. State oppression comes hand-in-hand with a State. Simple as that.

[Guerrilla22]

There is no Marxist reasoning for seperation really. Like I sais, previously its about the people of Quebec maintaining their unique cultural identity and independence from the English speaking majority. This is very similar to the case of the Basque.

[Question everything]

There is no Marxist reasoning for seperation really.

Tell that to the MLPC...

(wikipedia)

Its slogan in the 2004 federal election was "Annexation no! Sovereignty yes!"

[RNK]

Both the CPC and the CPC-ML are confusingly wrong about their support for sovereignty. Of course, the CPC and CPC-ML are also reformist, so I guess we shouldn't expect any credibility from them whatsoever when it comes to other areas. They may support sovereignty, but atleast they'll never do anything but try to vote for it!

[VukBZ2005]

I do not support nationalism, but I am supporting the ability of Québec to make its own decisions without complete interference from Ottawa. Self-determination and Nationalism are two different things.

Nationalism is the ideology of the small capitalists in regions that are under the domination of a more powerful bourgeoisie, in that it is a ideology that says there should a separate nation-state for that people in which they would be able to rule in their own name. Of course, as you know, that is a lie, it is really a tool to empower the local bourgeoisie to become the dominate power in that region and it is a tool for them to effectively exploit their own people.

Self-determination essentially says that the people of a particular region should have to right to determine their own destiny without being exploited by a foreign power. Despite the similarity that exists between this and Nationalism, it does not necessarily imply Nationalism as it is essentially the concept of the majority. It only becomes a form of Nationalism when the concept of Nationalism and the class that is leading the struggle for independence inflitrates the more predominate working class movement for independence. That is what happened in Québec when the PQ became a powerful political party in the 1970's, robbing the concept of independence from the working class population of Québec.

There is a reason behind my thinking on this, and it is because these two opposing concepts of "Québecois Nationalism" and "Canadian Nationalism" are concepts that have put workers in Canada into two sides for almost the last 50 years.

So what if Québec stays apart of Canada? Do you think that the situation of the workers would improve as well? As it is, people like Jean Charest have been out to destroy the reminants of the social welfare state that developed with the Quiet Revolution in the 1960's. And that is being used as a weapon by the separatist parties to convince Québecois workers to support the cause of Québecois independence. And even though the last two referendums have stated that no, the people of Québec do not want Québec to become independent, the number of those who said yes are increasing; in 1980, it was 40%. in 1995, it was 49.9% and it was extremely close to making Québec a indepedent nation. Most likely, the number of those voting for independence will increase should there be another referendum, despite the Clarity Act, which was demonstrated by the incident with the Gomery Commission, and it looks like the PQ could be elected with the first homosexual premier in Québec and would hold a referendum within the next two years.

Thus, I feel that fighting the bourgeois in Ottawa means attacking this issue, it means shattering the illusions of both concepts of Nationalism for both Québecois et Canadien (Quebecer and Canadian). There is no way this can happen by asking Québecois workers to be united as one with the workers of Canada right now, due to the strength and the constant re-validation of which that strength originates, of the concept of Québecois independence. In other words, the concept of the Québecois being their own people is too strong, even for people who are not separatist. So I feel the shattering of this illusion can only happen if Québec becomes independent from Canada. Plus, it would put all the pressure of labor unions and the working class in Québec upon Québec City, so it can be something that could be effectively used for working class revolutionary purposes, because then, the people would not be under this stupid, ridiculous and self-imposed delusion of nationalism solving Québec's problems; and because then, Canadian workers could be more easily persuaded to realize their position as working class people and the importance of working class revolution in Canada.

I know some of you disagree with me on this; but this is my position on the solution to the national question.

[Cheung Mo]

The fact that Boisclair is gay is less relevant than the fact that he's a neo-liberal cokehead.

[RNK]

When it comes down to it, the entire sovereigntist movement is 100% controlled by Quebec bourgeoisie who are acting in natural competition with Canadian bourgeoisie. It is the Quebec upper class who will benefit the most, not any of Quebec's workers and lower-class. While the concept of sovereignty from Ottawa's capitalist regime seems like a good cause, what leftist seperatists fail to realize is that they will only be replacing Ottawa's oppession with Quebec City's oppression.

I support the liberation of the geographical area known as Quebec from bougeois domination, but I do not support the seperation of Quebec's bourgeoisie into it's own independant bourgeois democratic state.

[Guerrilla22]

UPDATE:


OTTAWA (Reuters) - The separatist party seeking independence for Canada's French-speaking province of Quebec looks headed for a historic defeat in the March 26 election, largely because its leader has failed to connect with voters.


A Leger Marketing poll on Friday put support for the Parti Quebecois at just 29 percent, with the ruling Liberals on 36 percent, figures that strongly suggest that the pro-Canada Liberals will stay in power.

The poll was the latest in a series of blows for Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair, 40, who was elected in November 2005. At the start of last year, his party enjoyed a 16 point lead over the Liberals.

"The trend has been systematic -- Andre Boisclair's leadership has been catastrophic for the PQ," said Jean-Marc Leger of Leger Marketing. The PQ's worst showing in a provincial election is the 33 percent it won in 2003.

The PQ says that if it wins, it will quickly move to hold another referendum on breaking away from Canada. Similar votes in the province of 7.5 million people failed in 1980 and 1995.

But polls show fewer than half of Quebecers favor the idea of independence and critics say Boisclair has focused too much on the referendum and not enough on how he plans to run the province.

"People can't identify with Andre Boisclair, that's the root of the problem," said Leger. "It's difficult for people to stick an image, an accomplishment, an idea or a theme to Andre Boisclair."

Boisclair brushed off questions about his leadership on Friday and said he had no plans to change his campaign. He attacked Liberal leader Jean Charest for what he said were the premier's lies about the poor state of the health care system.

"The only people who are in danger now are the victims of Jean Charest's broken promises," Boisclair told reporters in Granby, a town east of Montreal, saying he was confident of winning the election.

"We're in the middle of running a campaign where we're not going to allow ourselves to be distracted... Let the people who produce polls and analyses do their work."

Another problem for Boisclair is the strong showing for the smaller right-wing Action Democratique de Quebec (ADQ) party, which is now at 25 percent. Party leader Mario Dumont does not support a referendum on independence for Quebec.

Some political observers say the ADQ's strength could result in a minority Liberal government, which would be the first time in Quebec's history that a party has not won a majority. Charest shrugged off the poll.

"All that we know about polls teaches us that they have to be taken with a big grain of salt. The margins of error are big," he told reporters.

Pollsters generally agree that the demographics of Quebec mean the Liberals need to be five or six percentage points ahead of the PQ to be assured victory.

Boisclair, who is openly gay and admitted to using cocaine when a minister in the previous PQ government, has also had to deal with an attack on his sexuality.

A radio host in the central Saguenay region this week referred to the PQ as "un club de tapettes" (a fags' club) and said factory workers would not vote for a homosexual. Both Dumont and Charest were quick to condemn the comments.

[Cheung Mo]

Boisclair refuses to discuss his plans for Quebec beyond holding a referendum because he is a staunch supporter of A Manifesto for a Clear-Eyed Québec (Manifeste Lucide), a policy document supported by both liberal and conservative factions of the bourgeoisie that calls for a redoublement of the aggressive neo-liberal policies favoured by all Liberal and PQ governments since the mid 1980s, particularly those of Lucien Bouchard (its principle endorser) and Jean Charest (the current premier of Quebec).

Boisclair and the PQ are trying to hide the reactionary agenda they share with their ADQ and Liberal opponents because they realise that diddling people of the same gender and snorting coke does not automatically make one a socialist or even a left-liberal. Thus, they are scared that telling the truth would cause honest social democrats to abandon the PQ and work with the far-left in Quebec Solidaire.

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2006/07/07/559/

[Cheung Mo]

As sad as it sounds, I genuinely hope Dumont wins: The PQ (especially under Bouchard) and the PLQ (especially under Charest) have pretended to be social liberals and social democrats so as to not scare people away from their neo-liberal and rightist social and economic policies ($5 a day day care is trivial compared to all that the PQ has given to the bourgeoisie.).

Dumont is not that much more right-wing than Charest (French Mike Harris) or Boisclair (who endorsed the Bouchard-coauthored Clear-Eyed Quebec Manifesto, a call for even more radically neo-liberal policies than those proposed by Dumont and the ADQ) and his party is neither misogynist nor homophobic in the liberal sense of the words (Along with openly backing American foreign policy, adopting such positions is among the easiest ways to throw yourself into the political quagmire in Quebec.), a fact that is often ignored becaue it is the most right-wing party in Quebec.

So why do I want Dumont to win? He and his party are perceived as bonafide conservatives, unlike Charest or Boisclair. In spite of this fact, many Quebeckers who are not particularly conservative will cast their ballots for the ADQ in the hope that they fix the bullshit of recent PQ and PLQ governmenta. But when they realise that electing a 3rd party that does the same shit that the PQ and PLQ do will not improve their fortunes, the people of Quebec will realise that the Quiet Revolution and the (relatively) progressive policies of the Lesage and Levesque governments, rather than having gone too far as the conventional bourgeois-fed wisdom tends to accept, were not enough and gravitate towards a truly leftist solution.

If Quebec Solidaire can reject the relevance of the national question in its current framework to the interests of the Quebec proletarian and move away from being PQ Left, they may be the solution for the eventual liberation of Quebec (A socialist Quebec in a reactionary Canada will have to declare independence eventually, but not before Quebec has progressed so far that revolution is ineveitable and not for the reasons that a large faction of the bourgeoisie in Quebec wants independence today. Thus it is not worth discussing the national question one way or the other until these goals have been achieved.). Otherwise, a new movement to genuinely represent the interests of the proletarian will have to rise.

[RNK]

The old "bait the people with the opposition, so that once they bite down, they'll see how full of shit it is" technique, eh?

Personally, I'd rather see outright revolution, but hey, I'm old fashioned. I suppose it doesn't matter. PQ, ADQ, PLQ -- different letters (barely), same agenda. Though I want Dumont about as much as I want Harper, or Bush, for that matter. Along with the fact that he'd like to butcher universal healthcare, he'd also like to set limits on accomodation for minorities. Quebec-wide Herouxville?

Unfortunately I don't share any sort of optimism for Quebec Solidaire. They're about as proletarian as the NDP. Which isn't much. Hell, even their "far-left" component, the Communist Party of Canada (or rather, its little lemmings, the Communist Party of Quebec) are continuing down their path towards political centrism and social democracy, going so far as to claim that revolution in Canada "is not on the agenda" and that the focus of their efforts should be on gaining support by watering their leftism down to bring them more in line with NDP-Liberal support. I'm thinking of petitioning them to drop the name "Communist Party of Canada" so that a more appropriate and revolutionary-minded organization can take it's place. Although I'm not a supporter of the Marxist-Leninist Party, I'm sure they'd love to grab the name.

In any case, I don't mean to 'advertise' the party I support, but a new movement has already arisen. See my sig? The "Revolutionary Communist Party". They essentially denounce the ol' "let's vote for revolution!" strategy (which hasn't worked for 80+ years) for good ol' "let's agitate and unite the proletariat and prepare for war with Canada's parliamentary bourgeoisie!", as well as call for proletarians across these ficticious "national" and linguistic lines to unite against thou who oppresseth us all; the bourgeoisie (whether they are French or English rulers, they are rulers). We're Maoists, but mainly only insofar as adopting an uncompromising revolutionary line that calls for a mass movement to abolish the shackles of bourgeoisie democracy, coupled with highly critical analysese (?) of past and present movements.

If "popularity" is any indication I think the RCP may be the new wave of the new new left. If that makes sense. But numbers speak for themselves! In February, ye "Grand Olde Communist Party of Canada" managed to accumulate an astounding 65 people for it's national convention, where they celebrated 85 years of.. er.. miserable existence. In contrast, the RCP's 2nd ever public Congress gathered about 100 supporters, after only 6 years of existence. Of course it's too early to tell, but things are lookin' up!

Anyway, as for Dumont and your stance... it's unfortunate that things have gotten so bad that all we can do is shrug and shake our heads at this sham of a political institution, and hope that the worst guy will win so that people will see what an ass he is, and start heading the other way (towards the left, that is). It's pretty much the only realistic approach. It's not like we can cross our fingers and hope that somehow the Quebec Solidaire comes from behind (they currently have, what, less than 5% support?) and annihilates the right-wingers and carries Quebec into the golden age of democratic socialism. What we can do, though, is put that all behind us, and federalism be damned, head down the path of true proletarian revolution.

Not to offend, but I have to wonder if you see the irony in what you just posted, and your sig...


The greatest sin of all is to cede the high ground to your enemies when you are in the right.

Do so, and the powerful will be able to oppress you at their leisure.

All the more reason to adopt a critical stance against the bourgeoisie, even if it means rejecting their fraud electorals.

[Whitten]

Quebec is an Imperialist nation, along with the rest of Canada. What would "national liberation" accomplish in Quebec? An independent imperialist capitalist state? And one with more nationalist tendencies than a united Canada, I would think. These arn't things we should support.

[Cheung Mo]

RNK:

Let me put it this way: I'm not going to renew my NDP membership this year. Things have changed. I have changed. I can no longer even entertain the idea of supporting a party that would not as a minimum support Canada's withdrawl from NATO. Any secular non-fascist party that supports withdrawl from NATO is inherently more progressive than the NDP, even if it places itself on the right of the political spectrum. Furthermore, even when the party does take a correct line (Hey, even Hitler knew that the sky is blue.), its reasons for being so are roundabout or half-assed as to make it as pitiful as taking a wrong one. Is there any information about joing the RCP on the site? And as for the Congress, where did it take place?

Whitten:

At this point, a sovereign Quebec would merely represent a power transfer from one faction of the bourgeoisie to the other. As such, it is not worth pursuing, and as a theoretical matter should be opposed on grounds that transferring power from one faction of the bourgeoisie to another would give the illusion of change and delay the onset of any revolution (The exception would be in a pre-capitalist society in which the bourgeoisie has not become the ruling class. Obviously, a bourgeois-liberal revolution must predate a proletarian one. Furthermore, if the local bourgeoisie becomes subservient to a foreign aristocracy, there must be a revolution against this aristocracy. I believe that Hugo Chavez is trying to accomplish both of these revolutions with as little space in between as possible. That's my interpretation: I may be batshit crazy here...Who knows?...But back on topic, as the bourgeoisie in Quebec and in the Rest of Canada are entertwined to the point of being one and the same, these arguments are irrelevant to Quebec.). If, on the other hand, Quebec were anywhere near a revolutionary situation and the rest of Canada remained too reactionary and subservient to the bourgeoisie for co-existence, ties between Quebec and Canada would inevitably be severed given that the Quebec and Canadian bourgeoisie are one and the same and it would be logically impossible for Quebec to simultaneously overthrow the bourgeoisie and remain within a political entity under its rule.

[RNK]

At this point, a sovereign Quebec would merely represent a power transfer from one faction of the bourgeoisie to the other.

Exactly. This is exactly what a lot of Quebecois leftists do not understand. They will blindly follow the call of sovereignty, believing it is a progressive move to 'liberate them from English oppression', while failign to realise that they are being led out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[Cheung Mo]

Do you feel that the Quiet Revolution was a necessary precursor to any subsequent proletarian revolution or do you believe that the Quebec bourgeoisie already controlled the means of production under Duplessis?

Or in other words: Prior to the Quiet Revolution, was the Quebec bourgeoisie subservient to a foreign aristocracy as opposed to being an equal partner within the imperialist bourgeoisie?

And in general, do you think that the establishment of a liberal state by the bourgeoisie within a political entity a necessary step prior to a revolution?

Leaving Quebec and heading to Ontario: Members of the bourgeoisie who are fully cognisant of their social class, its significance, and its privileges acknowledge the existence and the validity of Marxist theory ("If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning." -- Warren Buffet). Many small business owners who have moved beyond being petty bourgeois (i.e. They employ a couple or a handful of workers) are not fully cognisant of their privileged social class and its implications, and as such may frequently support the liberal and social democratic left. Did the Progresive Conservative governments of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves intentionally keep the minimum wage supressed for 10 years so that when the reformist left's push for a raise becomes too powerful to ignore (i.e. The idea of a "living wage" has now garnered the support of a sizable majority of the proletarian), small business owners would cry "Ruin!"and side with the more cognisant components of the bourgeoisie?

And in general, do you think that the establishment of a liberal state by the bourgeoisie within a political entity is a necessary step prior to a proletarian revolution, or do you believe that such a revolution can occur under different material conditions (i.e. an entity in which peasants represent the dominant component of the working class)?

Does the presence of high-ranking Soviet officials within all factions of Eastern Europe and Central Asia's bourgeoisie (including rightist organisations) indicate that there was a bourgeois class ruling the Soviet Union and its satellites?

[RNK]

Why do I feel like I'm being graded? Lol


Do you feel that the Quiet Revolution was a necessary precursor to any subsequent proletarian revolution or do you believe that the Quebec bourgeoisie already controlled the means of production under Duplessis?

Or in other words: Prior to the Quiet Revolution, was the Quebec bourgeoisie subservient to a foreign aristocracy as opposed to being an equal partner within the imperialist bourgeoisie?

I think the "quiet revolution", and the nationalization of Quebec businesses, was probably a good thing, mainly because the Quebec bourgeoisie is most likely weaker than its larger Canadian and foreign counterparts, if only because of its smaller influence and power.

I don't know about Quebecois bourgeoisie subservience. I wasn't alive, and it's not something I've looked into. I'd imagine, though, given the relative ease and rapidity that Quebec bourgeoisie took over most business in Quebec, that they were already well-established. I know that Quebec was dominated by Canadian business, but I don't think they were subservient to it.


Leaving Quebec and heading to Ontario:... Did the Progresive Conservative governments of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves intentionally keep the minimum wage supressed for 10 years ...

I don't know. I'm not familiar with Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, or the economic reality of Ontario, for that matter. Though it seems natural that most business owners would fight against any attempt to force them to raise wages for their employees.


And in general, do you think that the establishment of a liberal state by the bourgeoisie within a political entity is a necessary step prior to a proletarian revolution, or do you believe that such a revolution can occur under different material conditions (i.e. an entity in which peasants represent the dominant component of the working class)?

I don't think it's necessary. At this stage, I don't see seperation making much difference when it comes to the material conditions of Quebec and its "vulnerability" to a proletarian revolution.


Does the presence of high-ranking Soviet officials within all factions of Eastern Europe and Central Asia's bourgeoisie (including rightist organisations) indicate that there was a bourgeois class ruling the Soviet Union and its satellites?

I think so. The speed at which the former Soviet states adopted a capitalist private-based economic system and the ease at which their new bourgeoisie suddenly sprang up from cracks and crevices of the party's top heirarchy is undeniable.

Why the 21 questions?

[Cheung Mo]

I was just curious.

Fuck! Apparently, Opus Dei members are running for the ADQ. I guess Mario Dumont and Maurice Duplessis have more in common than just their initials and their base of support.