jjazz at freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Sat Oct 21 22:30:02 MDT 1995
On Sat, 21 Oct 1995, Ryan Daum wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 1995, Jim Jaszewski wrote:
> > I too remember many particulars of the '70's movement -- and
> > today's is thoroughly reactionary in comparison. What we have here is not
> > the social democratic movement of yesteryear, but a completely petit
> > bourgeois attempt to cynically capture power for narrow ends...
> A) Completely petit-bourgeois is an unqualified statement.
Unqualified? That Bouchard the chevalier in shining armor was a
Conservative cabinet minister in the government of the Yankee stooge and
traitor Mulroney? Think the leopard has changed his spots? That Parizeau
is a fat, hedonistic bourgeois economist with obvious rightwing
authoritarian tendencies? How about LeHire and the Conseil du Patronat du
Que'bec? I suppose they don't qualify as petit-bourgeois...
I don't see Gilles Vigneault, Diane Dufresne and Robert Charlebois
leading the working masses of Montre'al Est, with a thousand Fleurs de Lys
flying, down Sherbrooke Est to any humungous rallies at the Ar`ene Claude
Robillard or Stade Olympique on Pie IX...
Jesus Christ, but these cynical bastards are running this LIKE A
PROVINCIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN!! Excuse me, but when a people want
independence, it's _pretty damned clear_ that they do! Most people can
barely be bothered to be interested! Even if they win, they will never be
able to declare a clear victory... Nothing but Evil will come of this..!
> leadership is barely even social democratic anymore, there are real
> reasons why, for example, the Quebec labour movement is behind the
Maybe because they're stupid? How about: they're as bureaucratic
and conservative as the union leaders who support the NDP mis-leadership
in the rest of Canada??
Louis Laberge would be proud...
I don't support their policy, and wish they'd put their voices
> behind a more left wing campaign for self-determination, but it is true
> that they see themselves as getting nothing out of federalism but Paul
> Martin's Neo-Liberalism, English Canadian AND American imperialism.
Like they're ever going to get away from that.
> believe, and I think rightly, that a nation state under the control of
> Quebecois will jar the North American market and provide an opening for
> a struggle against neo-liberalism -- at least in Quebec.
I think you are dreaming in technicolor. More likely the IMF and
a SAP in the future of an independent Que'bec under the leadership of
these businessmen. God help the rest of us...
> Already the PQ/BQ has been forced to promise the working class certain
> things after the referendum. It has promised better labour laws, lower
> taxes, and maintenance of social programmes.
As I've mentioned earlier: I myself didn't just fall off the
turnip truck, and I wouldn't put much `truck' in such obvious *lies*. How
come you're so credulous..?
> This is a hell of a lot more than the federal government has offered.
Hey -- I'll promise you anything too if you'll vet MY ascension to
power..!! (I've got a bridge over the Fraser, and one over Burrard inlet
too, if you're interested -- the one over the Bow I'll throw in for free)
> > This time around, my main concern is for the Rights of the
> > aboriginal peoples in that geographic area -- and the present leadership
> > of Que'bec shows every sign of heading to a confrontation with disastrous
> > results. I have _NO_ faith in Parizeau or even Bouchard (a former
> > Conservative minister under the odious Mulroney)!! Those in the
> > leadership who maintain the `vision' of Le'vesque are being accused of
> > being spies for the French government!
> I respect your concern for the rights of aboriginal peoples -- I think
> this is the _key_ issue, and they reason why we _can't_ support the
> PQ/BQ. But it is no reason not to support independence and
> self-determination as principles, as powers, for the Quebec working class.
And what makes you think I don't support that? Or maybe you have
trouble hearing me through your rose-colored glasses...
> You _cannot_ counterpose the two peoples without getting yourself into
> hot water.
Like I said -- we are going to Hell in a hand-basket...
> What we need is a regrouped and restructured left in Canada and Quebec
> which does not subordinate the rights of the Quebecois to any agenda. It
> does not say: oh, wait, hold on, Quebecers, we need socialism first. Nor
> does it say: oh, please don't separate, we need you to fight American
> imperialism. It would say: let's be comrades against capitalism, and
> being comrades, I respect your right to self-determination and
> independence and I hope you respect the rights of natives in that process.
I'm all for the above -- but that isn't what's going on here.
> > The Prime Mover in this case being the same kind of petit
> > bourgeois nationalism you'll find in any squalid east-european country...
> The Prime Mover here is, like everywhere else, resentment against
> neo-liberal policies, against capitalist globalization, exploitation,
> de-industrialization. We cannot abstractly say: independence is wrong
> because its leadership is wrong. The independence movement is not
> socialist or social democratic because a) the socialist movement
> worldwide is in shambles, and cannot even be conceived of as an
> alternative for more people -- it is our duty to fix that by getting
> together! and very important: b) the "socialist" movement in Canada has
> more than often made stupid statements like the CPC article that came
> over here, and demanded that Quebecois subordinate their interests to the
> "higher purposes" of popular front Canadian nationalism. (i.e. support
> for "loyal capital" in the case of the NDP's policies)
I agree that the CPC is full of stupid people...
| OCTOBER 16 - 22 : TV TURNOFF WEEK |
| Jim Jaszewski <jjazz at freenet.hamilton.on.ca> PGP Public Key available. |
| http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html |
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism