1. The debate on the voting formula occurred in a context in which there was no mass (or even modest) anticapitalist party running, which is essential nevertheless to respond adequately to the economic and ecological crises, and in which the two “lesser evil” parties were both social-liberal, one Canadian nationalist and the other Quebec nationalist, that is, in the last analysis they support, through greater state interventionism, their respective national capital.

2. In this context, for the people of Quebec, an oppressed nation, the thoroughly unattractive choice could only be to vote in terms of resistance to oppression. English-Canadians conscious of the crucial distinction to be made between the nationalism of the oppressed and that of the oppressor could only indicate their agreement with that option by voting for the only lesser-evil solution that was available to them, while expressing the necessary reservations.

3. In this election, there were only two versions of the “lesser evil” for “progressives”, and nothing else: a left-wing one explained above and a right-wing one, “defeat the Conservatives”, which opened the door to voting sometimes for the other party of the bourgeoisie — an unacceptable option for the left.

4. The crucial response to the debate on the voting formula was not the demobilizing (and in the case of Quebec, divisive) voting formula as such, but the mobilization in the streets for the demands most capable of rallying the masses in the specific context of the election campaign, this mobilization being very often in response to the reactionary discourse of the Conservatives.

5. The Quebec people modestly mobilized but their mobilization found little response from the English-Canadian people. Moreover, in terms of the vote itself, the Quebec people resisted the Conservative offensive, at the same time not choosing the alternative party of the bourgeoisie. In a general context of demobilization in Quebec, as in English Canada, the people of Quebec rose to the task and averted the election in Canada of a Conservative majority government, whatever the illusions that this situation creates.

6. A summary examination of the distribution of the vote shows that [the vote of the] Quebec people was partially relayed — too often in favour of the Liberals — by the Acadian, Newfoundland and indigenous oppressed peoples, by the Franco-Ontarian national minority and by the minorities of colour and other minorities in the pockets of the major urban centres. Hats off, therefore, to the oppressed nations and nationalities of the Canadian state.

7. In Quebec, the majority of the anticapitalists, all tendencies of the left and even some “progressives”, opt for the independence of Quebec. As for the anticapitalists, and in particular the revolutionaries, given this reality, which has been consistent for a generation, should they conclude that the weak link of the bourgeoisie in the framework of a revolutionary strategy for the Canadian state is the Quebec national question, there is no choice but to defend publicly and clearly the demand for the independence of Quebec while welcoming the English-Canadian mass organizations that publicly demand the right of self-determination of Quebec.

[And my response]

Marc,

The first six points of your reply we have already discussed between us; we are in agreement on most of them and may have disagreement on others, albeit on relatively small points of difference. On your point 7, however, which seems to be the crux of the disagreement between us, I want to clarify one thing.

You argue categorically that if Quebec’s oppression is the weak link in the Canadian bourgeoisie’s state structure and system of rule, as you and I agree, revolutionary socialists in the oppressor nation, as well as the oppressed, must make their main demand the independence of Quebec. I say that the importance and prominence of the demand for Quebec independence in the agitation of socialists in English Canada is contingent on (a) the degree to which the Québécois have made this their own demand, and therefore (b) the degree to which our fundamental support for the right of national self-determination of the Québécois can be expressed in the form of the demand for Quebec independence.

Recognition of the right of self-determination, the principle for revolutionary socialists in both nations, does not automatically and directly translate into strategic support for independence in either the oppressed or the oppressor nation, in the abstract, particularly in the case of an “internal nation”, that is, an oppressed nation within an existing state that is not exactly a colony.

In the case of Quebec, with its own territory as well as common language, etc., the struggle against national oppression has manifestly taken the route of national independence. But generally speaking, the axis of agitation by socialists in the ROC must be defence of the right of the Québécois to make their own choice free of interference by the federal state: its government, military and police, parliament, courts, etc. This does not preclude propaganda in favour of Quebec independence, of course; that will take the form primarily of conveying and defending the ideas of the independence movement of the Québécois to working people in English Canada.

When you exhort me to support Quebec independence you are of course preaching to the choir. As early as 1964, while a student living in Montréal, I wrote a lengthy document addressed to my comrades in English Canada arguing that our demands as revolutionary socialists should include the concept of “dissolution of Confederation” as a concretization of the right of self-determination. That is to say, this demand would illustrate our understanding that the state structures, the Constitution, violated Quebec’s right of self-determination and that any relationship between Quebec and the ROC must be determined by the Québécois themselves. At that time, in the early years of the Quiet Revolution, Quebec independence was still the demand of only a small minority of Québécois. In 1970 the organization to which I then belonged, the League for Socialist Action/Ligue socialiste ouvrière (LSA/LSO, later the Revolutionary Workers League, or RWL/LOR) voted overwhelmingly for a document I authored entitled “For an Independent and Socialist Quebec”. By then it was clear to us that independence was the political form that self-determination was taking in Quebec.

In practice, however, while Quebec independence was a central component of our program as a binational organization, in English Canada the axis of our defence of Quebec remained self-determination in all of its aspects — from support of Quebec’s language legislation (Bill 101) to support of the “yes” vote in 1980 on a sovereignty-association referendum that fell somewhat short of independence but was nevertheless the rallying point of all supporters of independence in Quebec in opposition to the federalists. Contrast that with the record of other organizations on the far left, including (I believe) the one you were in at the time.

So why do I think the debate among ostensible socialists in Quebec on a voting formula in this federal election is of interest to socialists in English Canada, my primary audience? For the simple reason that it demonstrates anew that unity with the Quebec working class and Quebec socialists will be achieved only on terms of defence of Quebec’s right to self-determination, and that the NDP’s failure to defend that right is a major obstacle to unity, as recognized even by — or especially by — those Québécois who defend a vote for the NDP. We can bemoan the fact that this debate occurs in a lesser-evil context where there is no class or independentist option that can politically be supported. Perhaps in contrast to some of my comrades here in English Canada, I don’t believe that a vote for the Bloc Québécois was necessarily excluded in principle; however, I find it of interest that those who rejected the Bloc on grounds of seeking a pan-Canadian alternative were inclined to give critical support to the NDP. There are lessons in this for socialists in both nations. But I’ll leave it at that, for now.

Richard
October 25, 2008

1. Le débat sur la consigne de vote se faisait dans le cadre où il n’y avait pas de parti anticapitaliste de masse en liste, même modeste, ce qui est pourtant essentiel pour répondre adéquatement aux crises économique et écologique, et où les deux partis “le moins pire” étaient sociaux-libéraux, l’un nationaliste canadien et l’autre nationaliste québécois, c’est-à-dire qu’en dernière analyse ils soutiennent, par davantage d’interventionnisme étatique, leur capital national respectif.

2. Dans ce cadre, pour le peuple du Québec, nation opprimée, le choix tout à fait inintéressant ne pouvait être que de voter en fonction de la résistance à l’oppression. Pour le peuple canadien-anglais conscient de la distinction cruciale à faire entre le nationalisme de l’opprimé et celui de l’oppresseur, il ne pouvait que signaler son accord à ce choix tout en votant pour la seule solution du moins pire qui s’offrait à lui en faisant les réserves nécessaires.

3. Dans cette élection, il n’y avait pour les “progressistes” que deux versions du “moins pire” et rien d’autre, une de gauche expliquée ci-dessus et une de droite, “battre les conservateurs”, ce qui ouvrait la porte, inacceptable pour la gauche, de voter parfois pour l’autre parti de la bourgeoisie.

4. La réponse cruciale au débat sur la consigne de vote n’était pas la démobilisante (et dans le cas du Québec, divisive) consigne de vote proprement dite mais la mobilisation dans la rue pour les revendications les plus rassembleuses dans la conjoncture de la campagne électorale, très souvent découlant du réactionnaire discours Conservateur.

5. Le peuple québécois s’est modestement mobilisé mais a été peu relayé par le peuple canadien anglais. De plus, au niveau du vote, il a résisté à l’offensive Conservatrice tout en ne choisissant pas le parti alternatif de la bourgeoisie. Dans un contexte général de démobilisation au Québec comme au Canada anglais, le peuple du Québec a été à la hauteur et a évité au Canada un gouvernement majoritaire Conservateur quelque soient les illusions que cette situation crée.

6. Un examen sommaire de la répartition du vote montre que le peuple québécois a été partiellement relayé — trop souvent en faveur des Libéraux — par les peuples opprimés acadien, terre-neuvien et autochtones, par la minorité nationale franco-ontarienne et par les minorités de couleur et autres des noyaux des grands centres urbains. Chapeau donc aux nations et nationalités opprimées de l’État canadien.

7. Au Québec, la majorité des anticapitalistes, de la gauche toutes tendances et même des “progressistes” optent pour l’indépendance du Québec. Étant donné cette réalité qui ne se dément pas depuis une génération, pour ce qui est des anticapitalistes du Canada anglais, particulièrement des révolutionnaires, s’ils arrivent à la conclusion que le maillon faible de la bourgeoisie dans le cadre d’une stratégie révolutionnaire pour l’État canadien est la question nationale québécoise, il n’y a pas d’autres choix que de défendre publiquement et clairement la revendication de l’indépendance du Québec tout en saluant les organisations de masse canadiennes-anglaises qui revendiquent publiquement le droit à l’autodétermination du Québec.