Log in

View Full Version : What do People know about the FLQ?



ellipsis
22nd October 2007, 04:57
I am currently writing my senior thesis on the Front de Libération du Québec. I am almost done (in terms of time before it is due not progress on the actual paper) but I was wonder if anybody else on revleft is interested in this group or is currently involved in a Québec social movement? Vive le Québec libre!

Lynx
22nd October 2007, 05:10
I'm an anglo-Quebecker. What I know of them is not positive. What have you learned so far?

ellipsis
22nd October 2007, 07:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:10 am
I'm an anglo-Quebecker. What I know of them is not positive. What have you learned so far?
how much time you got? i think very positive things of them

Lynx
22nd October 2007, 16:03
I check the forums nearly every day :)

ellipsis
23rd October 2007, 02:33
well i guess the biggest thing is that the FLQ had a much bigger impact on the future of quebec than i had previously thought. for example, after 1970, the year that the FLQ's actions culminated 700,000 anglo-quebeckers emigrated to other parts of canada.

ellipsis
23rd October 2007, 02:40
you can check out my blog posts about the FLQ (http://therevolutionscript.blogspot.com/search/label/FLQ)

Lynx
23rd October 2007, 04:55
A lot of anglophones left during the 70's and the exodus continues to this day, although in smaller numbers.
I'm surprised the FLQ had marxism as their platform, some of them later joined the PQ, which is a nationalist party. I understand they were inspired by the revolutions in Algeria and Vietnam.
The Quiet Revolution following the FLQ changed several things in Quebec. The English anglophone bourgeoisie who ran big business were replaced by a francophone bourgeoisie (thereby fulfilling the slogan maitres chez nous). Our hydroelectric resources were nationalized and Quebec became a secular society with a social democratic tradition.
But what happened to marxism and worker's rights?
Once the anglo rulers were thrown out, the Felquistes were satisfied being nationalists :(

Interesting data in your blog about how the FLQ were able to obtain the weapons and explosives they needed. The 60's were another era. I'm too young to have memories from that time.

ellipsis
23rd October 2007, 06:36
for sure the quiet revolution has huge, but i feel like the FLQ kicked things into high gear. although they were socialists, or they wanted a socialist state of quebec, they were also nationalist first and for most, québécois nationalists. isn't kinda wierd how quickly things turned around and it seems that the anglophones are the oppressed minority in quebec. i wish i knew more about québec 1970-present, but unfortunately it is beyond the scope of my paper.

Lynx
23rd October 2007, 08:28
Before the FLQ, Quebec was ruled by Maurice Duplessis (Union Nationale) and the Catholic church. Nothing changed during his reign so yes the FLQ got the ball rolling and only afterwards did change finally come from politics.

1970-present has been dominated by nationalist politics with two referendums on Quebec independence. We even have some of the original politicians still active. I don't see nationalism as being an ally for leftists. We are more social democratic than say, Ontario.

ellipsis
23rd October 2007, 16:15
yah social democratic nationalism won out, as opposed to socialist nationalism. i knew about the two referendums. i heard that the PQ lost some power in the last election. a sign of things to come? btw it good to have a real canadian to talk to about this, well any outlet other than my thesis

Lynx
23rd October 2007, 17:40
The PQ lost part of the vote in the last election, while the ADQ got increased support. We have a minority government in Quebec now, with the Liberals heading the government.
A sign of things to come? Nationalism is not dead, its just that there is disagreement on socio-economic policy. The ADQ can be considered right-wing, the Liberals centre-right and the PQ centre-left. But they are all nationalists.
The conservative government in Canada seems willing to give the provinces the power they want, which is hurting the sovereignty movement in Quebec. Liberal and ADQ nationalists would be happy to stay in Canada - all they want is power.
We have to fill out two income tax returns because of the damn nationalists :(

There are a number of Canadians on RevLeft :)

lvatt
23rd October 2007, 19:10
From what I know, the FLQ were bent on fighting capitalist exploitation. In their point of view, the English language itself was a symbol of oppression with the example of minimum wage machinist workers who spoke only French and their rich exploitative bosses who spoke only English. Their propaganda pieces talked of workers unions, of hungry families, of capitalist exploiters, etc. As far as I know, their "hate" of the English speakers was just a side effect of their true orientation. I believe there were actually native English speakers in their ranks, who saw hand in hand not in any idea of "superiority" if the French language but rather in fighting the powerful commercial entreprises. As far as I know, the Black Panthers were also in good terms with the FLQ.
I think the "nationalist" side of the FLQ was overblown by Rene Levesque, who cashed in on the workers union bandwagon and used the FLQ as a tool for his own agenda, effectively betraying them.
Then again, I never studied that stuff in depth so I'm just remembering the bits and pieces I collected through the years... I may be completely off, lol.

ellipsis
24th October 2007, 03:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:10 pm
From what I know, the FLQ were bent on fighting capitalist exploitation. In their point of view, the English language itself was a symbol of oppression with the example of minimum wage machinist workers who spoke only French and their rich exploitative bosses who spoke only English. Their propaganda pieces talked of workers unions, of hungry families, of capitalist exploiters, etc. As far as I know, their "hate" of the English speakers was just a side effect of their true orientation. I believe there were actually native English speakers in their ranks, who saw hand in hand not in any idea of "superiority" if the French language but rather in fighting the powerful commercial entreprises. As far as I know, the Black Panthers were also in good terms with the FLQ.
I think the "nationalist" side of the FLQ was overblown by Rene Levesque, who cashed in on the workers union bandwagon and used the FLQ as a tool for his own agenda, effectively betraying them.
Then again, I never studied that stuff in depth so I'm just remembering the bits and pieces I collected through the years... I may be completely off, lol.
no you got everything right, best i can tell except that it was not the black panthers but another militant black-power group in the use. also it is not clear if the people who gave them dynamite were actually FLQ members or simply sovereigntists. i am glad for the abundance of canadians on revleft, i myself am a canadian-america. my mother was born in toronto but mostly grew up in vermont, but her mom's family lives in ottawa.

Prairie Fire
26th October 2007, 01:12
The FLQ were nationalists, straight up (which TheRedson seems to be drooling over.).

They may have had some Marxist/socialist aspects to their programm, but in the sixties, who the hell didn't ? The fact of the matter is they acted in an adventuristic way, rather than mobilizing the masses towards revolution. You can blow some shit up and kidnapp a few oppressers if you want to, but it won't mean shit unless these actions are part of a larger revolutionary offensive.

theRedson:


yah social democratic nationalism won out, as opposed to socialist nationalism.

"Socialist Nationalism", eh? Is that the same thing as National Socialism ?

You seem to be more interested in the ethnic nature of this struggle rather than the Class nature of the fight for Quebec soveriegnty.

Also, while Lenin did emphasize that all nations must have self determination, up to and including right of secession, theredsons fixation on the nationalistic aspect of this movement could be harmful. Here are a few gems:


well i guess the biggest thing is that the FLQ had a much bigger impact on the future of quebec than i had previously thought. for example, after 1970, the year that the FLQ's actions culminated 700,000 anglo-quebeckers emigrated to other parts of canada.

I've heard this type of Balkan-style rhetoric before from Serb nationalists. You are not proud that anglo-Quebecois Bourgeoisie left Quebec; you are proud that all anglo-Quebecois, regardless of age, gender and (especially) class, evacuated.

You seem to dispensing with class war, in favour of Balkan style ethnic-nationalist war.


although they were socialists, or they wanted a socialist state of quebec, they were also nationalist first and for most, québécois nationalists

Yes they were...that's the problem. If people want a nationalist party, they can join the conservatives, or some other bourgeosie oppresser. the people need SOCIALISM first and foremost.

While it may have been positive for the Quebecois to fight a national liberation struggle, such a struggle would require an internationalist character and unity with their fellow workers in english Canada (and elsewhere). Also, more often than not Quebecois nationalism amounts to Quebec Chauvenism, as they claim total cultural hegemony over the entire land mass of what is now Quebec, completely ignoring all aboriginal nations within that space.

Nationalism is a REALLY dangerous tool to weild, especially in the name of socialism. Many have tried, and been consumed by it. When you get to the point where you are advocating "uphold the glorious motherland" above "unity of all world workers", then your movement has been thoroughly infected with nationalism, and such decay quickly brings about capitalist regression. Look at China, and most ex-socialist countries for examples.

rebelworker
26th October 2007, 03:48
The FLQ was more of a product of the quiet revolution than anything,much like black power was a product or extension of the civil rights movement (same can be said for the IRA).

Rich English quebecers left, the poor stayed, there was no exedus from point St Charles, the Irish hated the english just as much as the french did. Verdun, NDG and Cote des Neiges didnt empty out ether...

The what s left of the FLQwent in a very reactionary direction, "how to kill an anglo woth a hammer" article appreaed in their paper in the early 90's, around the time of the Second cup bombings and the fights with Johnson and the English rghts dummies...
Socialism was defenitly a big part of their program in the early days, but like the IRA they were doomed to move towards neo liberalism as the nationalist came to power.

Guess im just rambling here...

Do you have any specific questions about the FLQ?

ellipsis
26th October 2007, 05:23
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:12 am
The FLQ were nationalists, straight up (which TheRedson seems to be drooling over.).

They may have had some Marxist/socialist aspects to their programm, but in the sixties, who the hell didn't ? The fact of the matter is they acted in an adventuristic way, rather than mobilizing the masses towards revolution. You can blow some shit up and kidnapp a few oppressers if you want to, but it won't mean shit unless these actions are part of a larger revolutionary offensive.

theRedson:


yah social democratic nationalism won out, as opposed to socialist nationalism.

"Socialist Nationalism", eh? Is that the same thing as National Socialism ?

You seem to be more interested in the ethnic nature of this struggle rather than the Class nature of the fight for Quebec soveriegnty.

Also, while Lenin did emphasize that all nations must have self determination, up to and including right of secession, theredsons fixation on the nationalistic aspect of this movement could be harmful. Here are a few gems:


well i guess the biggest thing is that the FLQ had a much bigger impact on the future of quebec than i had previously thought. for example, after 1970, the year that the FLQ's actions culminated 700,000 anglo-quebeckers emigrated to other parts of canada.

I've heard this type of Balkan-style rhetoric before from Serb nationalists. You are not proud that anglo-Quebecois Bourgeoisie left Quebec; you are proud that all anglo-Quebecois, regardless of age, gender and (especially) class, evacuated.

You seem to dispensing with class war, in favour of Balkan style ethnic-nationalist war.


although they were socialists, or they wanted a socialist state of quebec, they were also nationalist first and for most, québécois nationalists

Yes they were...that's the problem. If people want a nationalist party, they can join the conservatives, or some other bourgeosie oppresser. the people need SOCIALISM first and foremost.

While it may have been positive for the Quebecois to fight a national liberation struggle, such a struggle would require an internationalist character and unity with their fellow workers in english Canada (and elsewhere). Also, more often than not Quebecois nationalism amounts to Quebec Chauvenism, as they claim total cultural hegemony over the entire land mass of what is now Quebec, completely ignoring all aboriginal nations within that space.

Nationalism is a REALLY dangerous tool to weild, especially in the name of socialism. Many have tried, and been consumed by it. When you get to the point where you are advocating "uphold the glorious motherland" above "unity of all world workers", then your movement has been thoroughly infected with nationalism, and such decay quickly brings about capitalist regression. Look at China, and most ex-socialist countries for examples.
Wow,
Cold up there in Alberta? Let me clear some things up:

While I am a nationalist, I am not "drooling" other the FLQ. their brand of nationalism, nationalism in general, terrorism, anti-angloism or anything else that you seem to be accusing me of. I am approaching the FLQ from an ACADEMIC standpoint , I only seek to DESCRIBE them, not defend them.
You don't seem to really understand the facts of the FLQ, but you do have valid points. how can you promote socialism but not vanguardism. they were attempting to get the stagnated revolution going, not carry it out by themselves.

to your points

socialist nationalism is not national socialism. speaking academically, socialist is modifying nationalism, describing what kind of nationalism it is. and you and I both know that national socialism had very little to do with socialism.

In this situation, culture and class were closely related. I don't really understand what you are accusing me of. "harmful fixation with nationalism?"

In terms of my "balkan style rhetoric," I was just stating a fact and saying that it was significant, not making any value judgement. i do not support cultural segregation. I am not "proud" of it at all, I am not from quebec what would have to be proud of, even if i supported it? again i am NOT anti-anglo-canada or anti-anglo-canadians. I am not dispensing with class war or promoting balkan nationalism, or any nationalism besides vermont nationalism.

Your critique of the FLQ and nationalism is valid, your attack on me is not.

Cheers,
The Red Son

Spartacus2002
1st November 2007, 15:32
The Flq were far to fixated with nationalism to be marxist. Patriotism and all that crap is just a way to divide working class people.

RNK
2nd November 2007, 00:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:10 pm
From what I know, the FLQ were bent on fighting capitalist exploitation. In their point of view, the English language itself was a symbol of oppression with the example of minimum wage machinist workers who spoke only French and their rich exploitative bosses who spoke only English. Their propaganda pieces talked of workers unions, of hungry families, of capitalist exploiters, etc. As far as I know, their "hate" of the English speakers was just a side effect of their true orientation. I believe there were actually native English speakers in their ranks, who saw hand in hand not in any idea of "superiority" if the French language but rather in fighting the powerful commercial entreprises. As far as I know, the Black Panthers were also in good terms with the FLQ.
I think the "nationalist" side of the FLQ was overblown by Rene Levesque, who cashed in on the workers union bandwagon and used the FLQ as a tool for his own agenda, effectively betraying them.
Then again, I never studied that stuff in depth so I'm just remembering the bits and pieces I collected through the years... I may be completely off, lol.
You are.

ellipsis
5th November 2007, 00:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:16 pm
You are.
how so? or in what way? i mean i know where he got some facts wrong, but i am curious as to what you mean

RNK
6th November 2007, 12:45
It's already been mostly explained in this post but I'll elaborate.

The FLQ was a nationalist entity, not a progressive, pro-worker or anti-capitalist entity. Their targetting of English corporate assets in Quebec show only their recognition of the fact that foreign corporate assets are the most visible and tangible form of "outside control" -- their aim was not to attack capitalism but simply to attack what they saw as the means for "Anglo" control over Quebec.

So in my view, they are reactionary, for several key reasons. First, the act of targetting foreigners (and they didn't limit themselves to English Canadian targets) goes against the "international" aspect of anti-capitalism. Second, their actions served only to strengthen the national Quebec bourgeoisie who were, at the time, in the process of supplanting Canadian bourgeoisie and who successfully called upon workers of Quebec to support them, promising them freedom and the usual package of bullshit that national bourgeoisie give to workers they are trying to manipulate. Have the lives of workers in Quebec benefited from English companies suddenly being replaced with French companies? Are their lives better now that a French bank prints out their slave wages rather than an English bank?

In my view the FLQ epitomize the problem with Quebec seperatism which still occurs today even in left-wing circles: they are attempting to replace a mix of Anglo and Franco exploitation with pure Franco exploitation and expect this will somehow free them, when in reality it does nothing but further divide workers and further divide the movement. We're supposed to be eradicating the bourgeois state, not creating new ones.

lvatt
6th November 2007, 19:05
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:45 pm
It's already been mostly explained in this post but I'll elaborate.

The FLQ was a nationalist entity, not a progressive, pro-worker or anti-capitalist entity. Their targetting of English corporate assets in Quebec show only their recognition of the fact that foreign corporate assets are the most visible and tangible form of "outside control" -- their aim was not to attack capitalism but simply to attack what they saw as the means for "Anglo" control over Quebec.

So in my view, they are reactionary, for several key reasons. First, the act of targetting foreigners (and they didn't limit themselves to English Canadian targets) goes against the "international" aspect of anti-capitalism. Second, their actions served only to strengthen the national Quebec bourgeoisie who were, at the time, in the process of supplanting Canadian bourgeoisie and who successfully called upon workers of Quebec to support them, promising them freedom and the usual package of bullshit that national bourgeoisie give to workers they are trying to manipulate. Have the lives of workers in Quebec benefited from English companies suddenly being replaced with French companies? Are their lives better now that a French bank prints out their slave wages rather than an English bank?

In my view the FLQ epitomize the problem with Quebec seperatism which still occurs today even in left-wing circles: they are attempting to replace a mix of Anglo and Franco exploitation with pure Franco exploitation and expect this will somehow free them, when in reality it does nothing but further divide workers and further divide the movement. We're supposed to be eradicating the bourgeois state, not creating new ones.
Well while they were definitively a nationalist entity, they did have some elements of marxism although they were probably not true communists. They openly praised Castro, Guevara and Marx after all.

Fidel Castro is obviously not a nationalist, but there were strong elements of patriotism in the Cuban revolution. The way Fidel Castro saw his nation, Cuba, as a serf to the imperialist United States is reminiscent of the FLQ's position against English Canada and Great Britain although the FLQ did IMO express some views inherently incompatible with communism.

Being an Italian immigrant to Canada, what I know about the FLQ is obviously limited because I was not here to see it. But as far as I can tell, beyond their obvious racism, there does seem to be a brand of marxism in their writings. For example, their published manifesto that was read on television:

http://english.republiquelibre.org/Manifesto-flq.html


Once, we believed it worthwhile to channel our energy and our impatience, in the apt words of René Lévesque, into the Parti Québécois, but the Liberal victory shows that what is called democracy in Quebec has always been, and still is, nothing but the "democracy" of the rich. In this sense the victory of the Liberal party is in fact nothing but the victory of the Simard-Cotroni election-fixers (8). Consequently, we wash our hands of the British parliamentary system; the Front de Libération du Québec will never let itself be distracted by the electoral crumbs that the Anglo-Saxon capitalists toss into the Quebec barnyard every four years. Many Quebeckers have realized the truth and are ready to take action. In the coming year Bourassa is going to get what's coming to him: 100,000 revolutionary workers, armed and organized! (9)

Yes, there are reasons for the Liberal victory. Yes, there are reasons for poverty, unemployment, slums, for the fact that you, Mr. Bergeron of Visitation Street, and you too, Mr. Legendre of Ville de Laval, who make F10,000 a year, do not feel free in our country, Quebec.

Yes, there are reasons, the guys who work for Lord know them, and so do the fishermen of Gaspesia, the workers on the North Shore; the miners who work for Iron Ore, for Québec Cartier Mining, for Noranda know these reasons too. The honest workingmen at Cabano (10), the guys they tried to screw still one more time, they know lots of reasons.

Yes, there are reasons why you, Mr. Tremblay of Panet Street and you, Mr. Cloutier who work in construction in St. Jérôme, can't afford Le Vaisseau d'or (11) with all the jazzy music and the sharp decor, like Drapeau the aristocrat, the guy who was so concerned about slums that he had coloured billboards stuck up in front of them so that the rich tourists couldn't see us in our misery (12).

Yes, Madame Lemay of St. Hyacinthe, there are reasons why you can't afford a little junket to Florida like the rotten judges and members of Parliament who travel on our money. The good workers at Vickers and at Davie Shipbuilding, the ones who were given no reason for being thrown out, know these reasons; so do the guys at Murdochville that were smashed only because they wanted to form a union, and whom the rotten judges forced to pay over two million dollars because they had wanted to exercise this elementary right (13). The guys of Murdochville are familiar with this justice; they know lots of reasons. Yes, there are reasons why you, Mr. Lachance of St. Marguerite Street, go drowning your despair, your bitterness, and your rage in Molson's horse piss. And you, the Lachance boy, with your marijuana cigarettes...

Yes, there are reasons why you, the welfare cases, are kept from generation to generation on public assistance. There are lots of reasons, the workers for Domtar at Windsor and East Angus know them; the workers for Squibb Ayers, for the Quebec Liquor Commission and for Seven-up and for Victoria Precision, and the blue collar workers of Laval and of Montreal and the guys at Lapalme know lots of reasons.

The workers at Dupont of Canada know some reasons too, even if they will soon be able to express them only in English (thus assimilated, they will swell the number of New Quebeckers, the immigrants who are the darlings of Bill 63).

Lynx
24th November 2007, 20:06
So where is the FLQ today? The English masters have largely been replaced by francophone masters. Where is the outcry against exploitation now?

Modern Quebec is more social-democratic than the old Duplessis era of subjugation to the Catholic church. But that's about it, as far as socialism is concerned. The current political trend, with parties like the ADQ, is not promising.

RNK
26th November 2007, 09:11
There's very little substantial basis to comparing Fidel's Cuba with FLQ's Quebec. While at the beginning Fidel was not so much a socialist as a pro-nationalist, his movement bore the resemblence of a working-class movement; he did not solely target Americans, but any and all people on the island who cohorted with American capital. This is very unlike the FLQ, who only targetted Francophones who they saw as traitors and collaborateurs -- not in an economic sense but more a social sense. To use an analogy... Fidel fought against capitalism and recognized the US as the pinnacle of what he fought; the FLQ fought against the English language and saw in economics the focus of their fight.

Anyway, Quebec politics are retarded; it is dominated by two polar opposites representing far-right ideals (such as in the ADQ) and leftish ideals (such as in the PQ, the Bloc, and Quebec Solidaire) and the much more massive illiterate middle-ground who don't seem to give a fuck about either. It is still probably the most progressive and active (in a worker's sense) area in all of North America; it's almost like a little piece of Europe stuck in the clusterfuck of America.

freedomofspeech91
29th November 2007, 20:32
The LFQ cause was a very justified cause. The Canadians of British desent if not trying to destroy the French languege, definetly ingnored it and disliked it.

Personaly, I really like the LFQ.

If you are intrested check out the October crises. The October Crises is probably the largest act by the LFQ.

RNK
3rd December 2007, 12:23
I guess on that note, you also really like the Jewish terrorists who bombed and killed British and Muslims in Palestine in order to secure the dominancy of their people.

Yay for countering oppression with oppression!

ellipsis
27th March 2009, 23:58
So where is the FLQ today? The English masters have largely been replaced by francophone masters. Where is the outcry against exploitation now?

Modern Quebec is more social-democratic than the old Duplessis era of subjugation to the Catholic church. But that's about it, as far as socialism is concerned. The current political trend, with parties like the ADQ, is not promising.

But the ADQ just lost power to the Liberals and the PQ in the last elections.

Many former-FLQ members still living in Quebec. I visited the cafe in Montréal owned by October crisis participant Jacques Lanctot. I think that it is closed now. But the cafe was definitely being watched by the RCMP who attempted to question me... Watch out for those mounties! Also Francois Schirm(sp?) and other can be found listed in Quebecois phonebooks.

Anyways its been a while since I posted this and have since finished the thesis, available here (http://therevolutionscript.googlepages.com/theflqandtheglobalstuggleagainstglobalca). A selection below:

This project has two main objectives: first, to combine previously separate schools of thought to create a theoretically informed definition of a “transnational urban guerrilla movement.” Second, to use the FLQ as a case study for the possible existence of this phenomena and to further elucidate its nature. Although the focus is on FLQ, a significant amount of attention will be paid to the groups with which the organization shared transnational links, namely militant Black Power movements in the United States, North African and Middle Eastern “terrorist” groups, and anti-authoritarian movements in the South America, primarily Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. A complete historical analysis of these movements would be both impossible and impractical for the purposes of this project. Rather I will seek to prepare the reader for the comparative analysis of these movements in the body of this paper by reviewing and locating relevant literature.

Talk of separatism has lingered on the fringes of Québécois politics, particularly nationalism since 1760 when the English defeated the French at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, thus conquering New France . There it remained, a virtual non-issue (at least for English Canada) until 1960, when a formerly conservative nationalism was turned into a more liberal and increasing separatist brand of nationalism. Traditionally, Québécois nationalism had a federalist tendency, which promoted the interests of Québec within the political framework of the Confederation of Canada. Canadian sociologist Leon Dion attributes the rise of this new form of nationalism to two things: first the election of Jean Lesage to the office of Premier of Quebec and the widespread electoral success of the Liberal party in 1960 elections; second, and most relevant to the purposes of the paper the rise to power of independence movements in Africa and Asia following the end of World War II, which lead the Québécois to wonder “why not us?” . This brand of nationalism, which Dion refers to as “nationalism of growth” promoted provincial autonomy from Ottawa and the modernization of the province’s economy and economic infrastructure and establishment of state-owned industrial projects.

Lesage’s election ushered in the so-called Quiet Revolution, a transformation of the government and subsequently the society of Québec. This movement was characterized by rapid secularization of a province previously administered by the Catholic Church, the creation of a welfare state, and the rise of nationalism among the Francophone population. Until this point, two forces, English capitalist interests and the French Catholic Church, had controlled Québec. The Church was given authority over the education system and administration many other sections of society, “a virtual hegemony over the lives of French Canadians .” Because of this, and many other factors, including a categorical refusal to assimilate, the Québécois people remained socially, culturally and economic separate from English.
Not surprisingly, separate did not mean equal. Statistically speaking, before the Quiet Revolution, the Québécois people formed an economic underclass and the means of production lay in the hands of either English Canadian or foreign (mostly American) capitalist interests. In his book, Negres Blanc d’Amérique (White Niggers of America) the intellectual leader of the FLQ Pierre Vallières develops a material-driven, Marxian analysis of the history of les habitants, the ancestors of modern day Québecois and their constant antagonistic relationship to the English economic elites and the Church. It is a story that is reminiscent of that of indigenous people is Latin America; the habitants were given to worst land in an attempt to develop the province, but much of the land was so infertile that farmers could not even grow enough food to feed their family. While les habitants, the equivalent of the proletariat in Vallières’ analysis were starving, the non-French Canadian elites controlled of the most fertile land for wheat production and other goods to be exported .
Eventually the Québécois gave up on working the frozen, rock-filled land and moved to the city in search of jobs as the province became ever more industrialized. Both Dion and Fenwick see the move to the city, the struggle for economic equality and the rise of the Québécois middle-class as the causes of increased popularity of leftist nationalisms in the province. But nationalism in Québec should not be seen as a monolithic movement with one vision and one methodology. Even within separatism, a fringe of nationalism itself, social pluralism and ideological diversity factionalize the movement . Vallières and Charles Gagnon, another writer and member of the FLQ were part of a nascent intellectual movement within Québec during the 1960’s. The nature of the discourse highlights the factionalized the nature of the political actors ; it focused on the “proper ways of associating separatism with socialism; on the roles of violence in achieving an independent and socialist Québec; on the kind of socialism best suited for Québec, on the proper ways of “decolonizing” Québec; on the conditions of the class struggle in Québec, and so on .” Dion’s analysis focuses on the two largest branches of separatist nationalism, social-democratic and socialist. The former has found expression in the Partí Québécois (PQ) and the Bloc Québécois, successful contemporary political parties representing Quebec at the provincial and federal level, respectively. The latter found its most extreme manifestation in the FLQ and other militant groups in the 1960’s, the fringe of a social and political movement already on the left-hand fringe of the Canadian politics.

I of course welcome any critique of my ideas and any constructrive critisisms.