Translated from « Le marxisme-léninisme et la question nationale québécoise », published in Le Partisan Québécois, may 2024.
The return of the national question in Quebec, with the Parti Québécois on the rise in the polls and Québec Solidaire’s pro-independence campaign taking center stage, poses a question for revolutionary movements in Quebec that claim to be Marxist-Leninist or, more broadly, socialist. On the one hand, there are those who repeat ad vitam aeternam that Quebec’s national demands must be sacrificed in the name of the sacrosanct unity of the Canadian proletariat from coast to coast, demonstrating, in our view, an abstract internationalism, and on the other, those who consider Quebec’s national independence to be part of the Proletarian Revolution in Quebec, but also in Canada and the world.
Marxism-Leninism’s position on the national question
Even in their day, Marx and Engels asserted that « a people that oppresses another cannot be free ». This was reflected in their support for the Irish and Polish independence struggles.
In a very interesting excerpt from Marx on the Irish question, during a polemic between English and Irish socialists, an answer is given to the proponents of abstract internationalism:
« Citizen Hales has portrayed the relationship between England and Ireland in a wholly idyllic light, as if the greatest harmony reigned between them. These are exactly the same relations that existed between France and England at the time of the Crimean War, when the ruling classes of both countries could not find enough words to congratulate each other, and everything breathed the most perfect harmony. But the case is quite different. There is the fact of seven centuries of English conquest and oppression of Ireland. And as long as this oppression lasts, it is an insult to Irish workers to ask them to submit to an English federal council. Ireland’s position vis-à-vis England is not that of equality, but rather that of Poland vis-à-vis Russia. What would we say if the General Council demanded that the Polish sections recognize the supremacy of the Russian Federal Council in Petersburg, or if it asked the sections of Prussian Poland, Northern Schleswig and Alsace to submit to the Berlin Federal Council? But that’s exactly what the Irish sections are being asked to do.
When members of the International belonging to a conquering nation ask those belonging to an oppressed nation, not only in the past but also in the present, to forget their specific situation and nationality, to « erase all national oppositions », etc., they are not demonstrating internationalism. They are simply defending the subjugation of the oppressed, attempting to justify and perpetuate the domination of the conqueror under the cloak of internationalism. In this case, it would only reinforce the view, already all too widespread among English workers, that, in relation to the Irish, they are superior beings and represent a kind of aristocracy, just as the whites of the American slave states imagined themselves to be in relation to the blacks.
In a case like that of the Irish, true internationalism must necessarily be based on an autonomous national organization: the Irish, like other oppressed nationalities, can only enter the International Workers’ Association on an equal footing with the members of the conquering nation, and in protest against that oppression. Consequently, Irish sections have not only the right but also the duty to declare in the preambles to their statutes that their first and most urgent task, as Irishmen, is to conquer their own national independence. » (1)
Lenin and Stalin took their reflection on the national question a step further, noting that national liberation struggles in the colonies and dependent countries play an ever-increasing role in the age of imperialism.
Lenin, who championed the liberation movements of colonized peoples and put an end to the Second International’s chauvinist attitude and lack of interest in them, did not forget the national movements within imperialist countries. On the contrary, he saw them as complementary, the latter having even greater potential for destabilizing imperialism:
« To believe that social revolution is conceivable without insurrections by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary explosions by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically unconscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against the seigniorial, clerical, monarchical, national yoke, etc., is to repudiate social revolution. It’s to imagine that one army will take up a position in a given place and say « We’re for socialism », and that another, in another place, will say « We’re for imperialism », and that it will then be social revolution! Only by proceeding from this pedantic and ridiculous point of view could the Irish uprising be unjustly described as a « putsch ».
Is it not clear that, in this respect less than in any other, we have no right to pit Europe against the colonies? The struggle of oppressed nations in Europe, capable of leading to insurrections and street battles, to the violation of the army’s iron discipline and to a state of siege, will « aggravate the revolutionary crisis in Europe » infinitely more than an uprising of far greater scope in a distant colony. With equal force, the blow dealt to the power of the English imperialist bourgeoisie by the insurrection in Ireland has a political importance a hundred times greater than if it had been dealt in Asia or Africa. » (2)
Stalin continued the consistent application of Leninism to the national question, and was the architect of the policy of nationalities in the USSR and of Soviet aid to colonized peoples. On the revolutionary potential of national movements, he said:
« Are the revolutionary potentialities latent in the revolutionary liberation movement of the oppressed countries already exhausted, or not; and if not, is there any hope, any basis, for utilising these potentialities for the proletarian revolution, for transforming the dependent and colonial countries from a reserve of the imperialist bourgeoisie into a reserve of the revolutionary proletariat, into an ally of the latter?
Leninism replies to this question in the affirmative, i.e., it recognises the existence of revolutionary capacities in the national liberation movement of the oppressed countries, and the possibility of using these for overthrowing the common enemy, for overthrowing imperialism. The mechanics of the development of imperialism, the imperialist war and the revolution in Russia wholly confirm the conclusions of Leninism on this score.
Hence the necessity for the proletariat of the « dominant » nations to support-resolutely and actively to support-the national liberation movement of the oppressed and dependent peoples.
This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every national movement, everywhere and always, in every individual concrete case. It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries came into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement. In such cases support is, of course, entirely out of the question. The question of the rights of nations is not an isolated, self-sufficient question; it is a part of the general problem of the proletarian revolution« (3)
In this last quotation, Stalin clarifies the Leninist position on national movements. National movements that weaken imperialism (we can speak today of Palestine, Ireland, Puerto Rico, Quebec, the Korean reunification movement) must be supported by communists. National movements that strengthen imperialism (Kabyle separatists, Kurds allied with the USA and Israel, Taiwanese separatists, tribalist currents undermining the pan-Africanist struggle, etc.) must be criticized.
The second half of the 20th century was marked by numerous national liberation struggles, often led by broad national united fronts led by communists, or by non-Marxist socialist forces. Vietnam, Laos, Korea, the African colonies and the countries of the Arab world are excellent examples. They vindicated Marxism-Leninism, Lenin and Stalin.
Ho Chi Minh, father of Vietnamese independence, confirmed the accuracy of Lenin’s theses:
« Marxism-Leninism has shown that national movements, if truly directed against imperialism, make an objective contribution to the revolutionary struggle in general; that national demands and national movements must be judged not only according to their narrowly local political or social character, but according to the role they play in relation to the international forces of imperialism. » (4)
Kim Il Sung, who led the Korean people’s heroic liberation struggle against the Japanese and American imperialists, expressed the same view:
« On the basis of the fundamental theses of Marx and Engels, Lenin built a scientific theory of the national question and the colonial question in accordance with the new historical conjuncture of the age of imperialism. This theory has a special place in Leninism.
Lenin highlighted the fact that the combination of the national liberation struggle of the peoples of dependent countries and the proletarian revolution is a major condition for the triumph of this revolution, and is the most effective means of liberating peoples from imperialist oppression.
The great October Socialist Revolution had a major influence on our people’s struggle for liberation. The triumph of this revolution marked a turning point in the infiltration and dissemination of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary ideas, which then accelerated.
The best patriots in Korea began to study Lenin’s doctrine in depth. Lenin’s theses encouraged and guided them in the just struggle they were waging to liberate the people. » (5)
National liberation and class alliances
Liberation movements in the colonies were, in most cases, built on inter-class alliances. Marxist-Leninists have always recognized that the petty-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie of colonized countries can be allies, but that they tend to be ambivalent and unstable in their opposition to imperialism, hence the need for proletarian leadership. In the case of dependent countries located at the heart of the developed imperialist and capitalist world, the bourgeoisie of the dominated nation has generally managed to wrest more privileges from itself than the bourgeoisie of the colonies and ex-colonies. Their advantageous position makes them even less reliable in the struggle for national independence and against imperialism. This phenomenon may partly explain why socialist liberation movements in countries like Quebec and Ireland are less insistent on the need for alliance with the national bourgeoisie. Each people must therefore make a concrete analysis of its own situation, in order to assess which alliances need to be made, with which classes and in what way, to avoid falling into the trap of leftism and adventurism, or ending up in the thrall of the nationalist bourgeoisie.
The national question in Quebec
The national question has been an issue in Quebec since the British conquest of 1760.
The Quebec nation was the bearer of a revolutionary, democratic and progressive desire for national independence, notably through the Patriotes rebellion of 1837-1838. Already at this time, Quebec patriots had an advanced sensitivity to the class question:
« Merchants, as a group, are a useful class, but not the most patriotic. The spirit of commerce is always contrary to the spirit of liberty. No matter to whom our remarks may please or displease, there is one truth that all of history demonstrates: it is that, on the whole, merchants are always inspired in their actions by sordid motives. Their main motive is the immediate interest of commerce, not the permanent interest of their country. They put more devotion into scrutinizing their books than the Constitution. They attach more importance to pecuniary independence than to political independence. They would gladly wear the most ignominious chains if they were made of gold. Equality of currency is more important to them than equality of rights, and a uniform system of exchange seems a more attractive ideal than a uniform system of freedom. To establish a sound political society, we must turn to the classes whose labor is the true source of wealth. »
« The Peasant is a member of a class on which we can rely principally for the effective and permanent defense of institutions founded on liberty, in spite of the fierce assaults to which, as can easily be foreseen, they will be subjected by rapacious traders. It is to the simple and good farmers, and to the vigorous practitioners of the mechanical arts, that we must turn our eyes to find the calm common sense and intrepidity necessary to secure the great blessing of equal political rights. » (6)
Like the Irish republican leader Theobald Wolfe Tone, the Quebec Patriotes understood that it was the laboring classes who were destined to play the vanguard role in national liberation.
After the defeat of the Patriotes and colonial repression of the Quebec people, it wasn’t until the 1860s that an independence movement took shape, led by the utopian socialist Médéric Lanctôt. Lanctôt advocated the union of workers in a large organization, founded cooperatives, supported workers’ struggles and fought for Quebec independence in opposition to John A. MacDonald’s Canadian Confederation project in 1867. This short episode in Quebec history, which did not end in revolt, remains an ideological advance for the Quebec independence movement, linking (utopian) socialism and national liberation for the first time.
The 20th century, with the Bolshevik Revolution, rekindled the flame of national movements around the world. In Canada, the Communist Party of Canada preferred to suppress the Quebec national question, an attitude that has never really changed. In the Quebec section of the Party, Henri Gagnon raised the question of self-determination for the Quebec nation and Quebecois autonomy within the Party. In the end, the Party’s english leadership preferred to expel the members of the Quebec section for « narrow nationalism ».
In the early ’60s, the tide of decolonization was blowing around the world, and the Quebec people began to identify with the anti-colonial struggles of Algeria, Vietnam and the Cuban Revolution, as did the Irish and Basques. This generation gave birth to organizations that combined independence and socialism, and sometimes armed struggle, such as Action Socialiste pour l’Indépendance du Québec, the Front de Libération du Québec, the Armée de Libération du Québec, the Armée Révolutionnaire du Québec, the Mouvement de Libération Populaire, the Comité Indépendance et Socialisme, the Front de Libération Populaire, which took part in various pro-independence, labor and internationalist struggles (FLQ members notably fought in Palestine against the Zionist occupying forces). Petty-bourgeois and bourgeois nationalist organizations also emerged, the Rassemblement pour l’indépendance nationale (RIN) and the Parti Québécois (PQ), the latter creating much debate on the Quebec left. Various currents of socialism coexisted in the independence movement at this time, including a Marxist-Leninist branch, represented by François Mario Bachand, a member of the first wave of the FLQ, of the CIS, of the FLP and a militant trade unionist. Commenting on the relationship between independence and socialism, Comrade Bachand said:
« No country has established socialism at home before gaining national independence, or if it had not done so, it did so simultaneously with socialism. A country’s independence is absolutely necessary, because the colonial yoke hinders the intellectual development of the whole of society, particularly that of the workers, who are doubly alienated. If we ever want to establish a socialist system of global participation, we need to do so concretely at every level. Today, the nation is one such level. No consistent Marxist in Quebec is against unity with Anglo-Canadian or even American workers, but there’s a big difference between two free peoples who join forces for various reasons, and us in Quebec, who have no say in the matter but have our constitutions imposed upon us without even asking our opinion. We want to decide with whom and why we will unite in the future. It’s a basic right ». (7)
After the failure of the FLQ and the first popular independence movements, the Quebec left is taking stock of the ’60s. The FLQ’s error, which had already been pointed out by Comrade Bachand, was to be spontaneous, to have no connection with the masses, and not to be organized around a working-class political formation. Two of the FLQ’s leading theoreticians, Pierre Vallières and Charles Gagnon, while agreeing that the spontaneist urban guerrilla strategy had failed, drew two different conclusions from their experience and, in the solutions they proposed, embodied the two main currents of the 1970s. Vallières believes that the Parti Québécois, which has the support of the working class, is a mass party that socialists must invest in to lead the struggle for decolonization, which is a necessary precondition for achieving socialist revolution. Charles Gagnon, for his part, believes that the PQ is destined to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie and will never confront imperialism. Gagnon believes that the main task of the proletariat and the Quebec left is to found the Proletarian Party, which alone can lead the struggle for national liberation and socialist revolution in Quebec. Charles Gagnon founded the Marxist-Leninist group En Lutte! which, from 1973 onwards, gradually abandoned the national liberation struggle and descended into leftism, promoting the abstract unity of the Canadian working class and calling on the Quebec people to sacrifice their national demands in the name of socialist revolution, thus breaking with the historical positions of authentic Marxism-Leninism.
Several self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist groups were formed in the ’70s, notably the Communist League (Marxist-Leninist) of Canada, which later became the Worker’s Communist Party. Unfortunately, almost all shared the same leftist opposition to Quebec independence, preferring to castigate independentists as « bourgeois nationalists » rather than fight for leadership of the national liberation movement. The pan-Canadian Maoists argued that the Quebec national question was a secondary contradiction, that Quebec independence would divide the workers, that true independence was not possible in the age of imperialism (thus echoing Rosa Luxembourg’s position, which Lenin had denounced at the turn of the century). The three-world theory would make matters worse, making Canada a « second-world » country that had to defend its independence against the two superpowers, the USA and the USSR.
Parallel to the pan-Canadian Maoist groups and the left that had invested in the PQ, Quebec socialists attempted to form pro-independence and Marxist-Leninist organizations. The Parti des travailleurs du Québec, which remained marginal, was one example. More influential was the Centre de formation populaire, a grouping of trade unionists, socialists (Marxist-Leninists and other left-wing currents), community groups and others.
It was within the CFP that the most accurate positions on the national question were expressed. The CFP responded to the dogmatic positions of the pan-Canadian Maoists
On the « division of the Canadian proletariat »:
« Thus, for En Lutte, « working today for Quebec independence, or for the liberation struggle of Quebec, or even of the Inuit and Amerindians of Canada, can only lead to a greater division of the proletariat in the face of the Canadian bourgeoisie ». Similarly, for the League, « the separation of Quebec would weaken the entire Canadian proletariat in its struggle for socialism ».
A closer look at this thesis reveals that it is based on self-evident statements such as « the more we are, the more united we are, the better we fight », as well as quantitative evocations to the effect that « separation would only divide the Canadian proletariat: it would deprive it of a third of its strength ». The unity of the working class is thus analyzed in purely quantitative terms. Yet numbers are not, by definition, a guarantee of strength. Unity has never resulted from a refusal to consider the reality of historical and national specificities. » (8)
« The national problem is already a manifestation of the division of the Canadian proletariat. It is the Canadian bourgeoisie that maintains national oppression; capitalism is the primary cause. The very form of its hegemony generates this national oppression, and makes it necessary to its maintenance. Discrimination is the dominant feature of capitalist exploitation throughout Canada. Immigrant workers are also constantly discriminated against. (9)
About the leadership of the national liberation movement:
« The fact that the rise of working-class political struggles takes the form of support for the PQ is not due to fundamental historical conditions (the need for a democratic stage, as in the case of the 1905 revolution in Russia and the New Democracy revolution in China) but strictly to the absence of an autonomous political organization of the working class and the petty-bourgeois leadership of working-class and popular struggles. Support for the PQ is a stage in the ideological development of the working class, but not a sign of the need for independence achieved by the bourgeoisie as a stage in the struggle for socialism. With the development of the autonomous political struggle of the working class and its political organization, the situation will be reversed, the struggle for democracy will become subordinate to the struggle for socialism, and independence will be an aspect of the victory of socialism.
The struggle against national oppression (for a solution to the contradiction between the Quebec people and Anglo-Canadian political domination), leading to national independence, is one aspect of the proletariat’s struggle for socialism, to be placed under the rubric of the proletariat’s democratic tasks (the right of nations to self-determination). Only the proletariat, as part of its struggle for socialism, can consistently – i.e., fully democratically – wage the struggle for political independence. However, it is possible for the petty-bourgeoisie to lead this struggle and achieve, albeit inconsequentially (sovereignty-association), political independence. It is a leftist position to criticize political independence as such, while refusing to see its specificity in relation to so-called « economic independence ». Thus, we must recognize the progressive character of political independence, even when achieved by the PQ, and criticize the PQ for its anti-democratic aspects, i.e., by revealing its class nature, its bargaining with the bourgeoisie, its alliance with imperialism, for which the working class will bear the brunt in the form of anti-democratic, anti-working-class union legislation. An alliance of the proletariat with the petty-bourgeoisie in the struggle for independence is not unthinkable, however, but it is wrong to think of it in terms of electoral support alone. It must take the form of an alliance between constituted and autonomous political forms, i.e., it presupposes the existence of an autonomous political organization of the working class. So, the priority task of the proletariat at the present stage is to build its autonomous political organization with a view to achieving socialism.
Revolution is unthinkable in Quebec and Canada without the proletarian movement taking charge of the national struggle. The national struggle is not common property; it belongs to the social class that seizes it in order to direct and resolve it in the interests of the masses of our people. Only a conscious and consistent proletarian movement can take charge of the content and direction of the national question and make it an inseparable part of the struggle for socialism in Canada.
The abandonment of the question by militants newly converted to Marxism-Leninism, to a dogmatized Marxism-Leninism stuffed with bourgeois conditioning, is a political stupidity that will be extremely costly if it persists any longer. This stupidity can only lead to the increasing marginalization of Marxists. History will be made without them, and even against them. If this is what they call going against the tide, they should ask themselves whether the current they oppose so fiercely is not the one Trudeau himself opposes?
(…)
The proletarian party we want to see emerge on the Canadian and Quebec political scene cannot be born of such ignorance of the national phenomenon, and such abdication to the Canadian bourgeoisie and its Quebec accomplices. To ignore the national question, to fail to take a stand now in the current situation, is no more and no less than to follow in the footsteps of the bourgeoisie, and thereby to abandon the proletariat’s allies, as well as a large fraction of the proletariat itself, into the hands of those who, out of class interest, may be led to sacrifice both the nation and its heritage and future.
The proletarian party we want must determine its attitude by analyzing concrete historical situations and advocating the solution that best ensures the development of the working class’ struggle.
We must demonstrate the superiority of scientific socialism in resolving the national question. We have to say that we can fight national oppression here and now, without shrouding the question in a nationalist veil, but by integrating it into the struggle for socialism in Canada. We must insist that the social forces that maintain this oppression for their own benefit can be rolled back now. The masses can do it if we know how to organize and mobilize them against the main enemy. » (10)
In 1980, the first referendum on Quebec independence was held. Organized by the PQ, in power since 1976, Maoist organizations called on their members not to vote « Yes ». As the majority of En Lutte! and PCO activists had originally been pro-independence in the 60s and early 70s, the organizations eventually imploded. The Maoists’ inability to resolve the national question, along with other internal contradictions, led to their own failure to become the vanguard of the Quebec proletariat. The only surviving organization of the period is the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), the CPCML, and its Quebec branch, the Parti marxiste-léniniste du Québec (PMLQ), which revised its position on the national question to support independence in the second referendum of 1995. At present, the CPCML is the only pan-Canadian party to consistently recognize Quebec’s right to self-determination.
In 1982, Canada repatriated the constitution, which was eventually imposed on the Quebec nation without Quebec ever having signed it, reconfirming once again its status as a dominated people.
The implosion of Maoist groups and their inability to grasp the national question meant that the communist movement was largely absent from both independence referendums. Yet the camps were clearly defined: on one side, the nationalist petty-bourgeoisie, the proletariat and its unions, popular groups in the « Yes » camp, and on the other, the Canadian and Quebec big bourgeoisie, the employers’ council and English-speaking colonialists in the « No » camp (with the blessing of American imperialism).
Since the 1960s, Quebec has changed. The nationalist proletariat and petty-bourgeoisie have succeeded in wresting a number of reforms and concessions from Canada, but national oppression remains. Culturally, the anglicization of the Quebec people continues to grow, allowing greater cultural penetration by U.S. imperialism, and consequently greater integration of Quebec into the fold of U.S. imperialism, since the loss of our culture and language also extinguishes our will to be independent and to fight imperialism. On the economic front, the Parti Québécois’ illusions of creating a strong Quebec bourgeoisie (the founding of Quebec Inc. in the ’80s) have gone up in smoke with the continual bankruptcies and takeovers of Quebec companies by American and Canadian multinationals. Although Quebec is at the heart of the imperialist world, it is not immune to the social misery that affects every capitalist society. The social crisis is growing in our country, while the national question is returning to the forefront of the political scene for the umpteenth time in our history. The various communist organizations will be faced with this fact, and will have to decide whether to repeat the mistakes of the past, or to finally lead the fight for the leadership of the national liberation movement. For our organization, the national liberation struggle is not just a local issue, but part of the global struggle against imperialism. Because Quebec is the Achilles’ heel of imperialism, independence is a revolutionary RESPONSIBILITY towards the peoples oppressed by North American imperialism.
Consistent Marxist-Leninists must know how to use the contradictions running through the Canadian and Quebec bourgeoisie to their advantage. The situation of national oppression serves to divide the proletariat, fostering hatred between peoples and a spirit of competition. Only by overcoming the contradiction between our two nations can the fundamental contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie be fully revealed to Quebec and Canadian workers, and true class unity achieved on a basis of equality. Stubbornly maintaining the Canadian colonialist state framework is a refusal of the movement of history, and condemns us to remain static. Quebec independence is not only part of the Revolution for the Quebec proletariat, but also for the Canadian proletariat. Quebec’s national independence will be the source of a crisis in Canadian federalism. It will destabilize the very foundations of Canadian capitalism and imperialism. Québec independence will act as a spark that will ignite the Canadian Revolution, just as Marx saw in the Irish liberation movement the salvation of the revolutionary movement of the English proletariat.
The Parti Québécois and Québec Solidaire, social-democrat parties unable to reach agreement despite the few differences between them, can temporarily ensure the leadership of the independence movement. In the event of victory for either of these parties, we would have only formal independence. It is urgent that working-class and revolutionary elements organize and win the leadership of the national liberation movement. The positions of the PQ and QS are partial, inconsistent and do not confront imperialism head-on. It’s our job to advance revolutionary ideas, to show the Quebec masses that communists are the greatest defenders of national freedom, that socialist revolution will be the only guarantee of true national independence.
NOTES:
1) L’internationale et un pays dépendant, l’Irlande – Karl Marx
2) Bilan d’une discussion sur le droit des nations à disposer d’elles-mêmes – Vladimir Lénine
3) Des principes du léninisme – Joseph Staline
4) La révolution d’Octobre et la libération des peuples d’Orient – Ho Chi Minh
5) La doctrine de Lénine est notre guide – Kim Il Sung
6) Le capitalisme et la confédération – Stanley B. Ryerson
7) Trois textes – François Mario Bachand
8) Les « M-L » canadiens et la question de l’indépendance du Québec – Centre de formation populaire
9) Comment caractériser le P.Q.? – Centre de formation populaire
10) Comment caractériser le P.Q.? – Centre de formation populaire
