rabble.ca Canadian federal election blog

La crise et au-delà de la crise

par Pierre Beaudet and Francois Cyr*

La crise actuelle est mondiale même si elle est «visible» surtout aux États-Unis. De par la mondialisation des marchés, elle risque de «contaminer» les principaux pays capitalistes en Europe, au Japon et au Canada. Mais les impacts de cette crise seront sans doute plus dramatiques là où des centaines de millions d’humains sont déjà enfoncés dans une profonde crise qui les menace même dans leur existence. Ainsi depuis quelques mois, 300 millions de personnes de plus sont frappées par la famine dans le sillon des augmentations de prix des denrées alimentaires. On voit donc que la crise actuelle n’est pas seulement unidimensionnelle, liée aux spéculations bancaires et hypothécaires de Wall Street. En fait, il serait plus juste de parler d’une crise «globale», qui risque de précipiter le monde dans une vaste régression. À moins que …

Retour en arrière

Certes, la crise actuelle n’est pas la première dans l’histoire du capitalisme. Régulièrement, «cycliquement» disent les experts, la compétition, la course aux profits, l’exploitation des personnes et des ressources, inhérentes au capitalisme, produisent des impasses. Pendant de longues périodes de temps, ce qui avait été construit est défait. Les citoyens, les gouvernements, les entreprises ne sont plus solvables. Les plus gros mangent les gros qui mangent les moyens qui mangent les petits. Au vingtième siècle, tout cela a débouché sur la grande crise des années 1930. Face à cela, les dominants ont répondu par la violence, dont la conquête du tiers-monde et la guerre entre les principales puissances. Autrement, les dominés ont résisté et imposé, avec des luttes immenses, aux élites un compromis qui a conduit à la défaite du fascisme et au «grand compromis» qu’on a appelé le keynésianisme. Après des décennies de crise donc, le monde est ressorti de la noirceur: c’est ce qu’on appelé les «trente glorieuses» (1945-75), pendant lesquelles beaucoup de gens (pas tous) ont connu une amélioration de leurs conditions de vie dans une relative stabilité sociale.

L’érosion

Mais comme cela est toujours le cas, le capitalisme porte des contradictions qu’il ne peut dépasser. Menacées de mort si elles n’augmentent pas leurs profits, les entreprises doivent réduire leurs coûts et augmenter le taux d’exploitation. Au tournant des années 1970-80, elles ont cherché à réduire les coûts salariaux par une première phase de «mondialisation». Avec l’administration Reagan aux États-Unis, c’est le retour à la «normale», c’est-à-dire, au capitalisme «dur et pur». Ainsi, les attaques contre les droits acquis, le retour de la guerre froide, les privatisations tout azimut ont peu à peu remplacé le keynésianisme par le néolibéralisme, une nouvelle façon de réguler l’accumulation du capital. Les salaires ont baissé, les conditions de travail se sont détériorées et les grandes entreprises ont accéléré leur «cannibalisation» des petites et moyennes entreprises. Face au tiers-monde, cette politique a eu des effets dévastateurs dans le contexte d’États fragiles et soumis aux prescriptions très dures de la Banque mondiale et du FMI.

Triomphe apparent

Au début des années 1990, la guerre froide a pris fin permettant aux intellectuels de service de proclamer la victoire définitive du capitalisme. Washington a alors changé sa politique étrangère pour amorcer une nouvelle conquête du monde (sous Bush papa et Clinton). Le néolibéralisme s’est transformé en une gigantesque avancée des secteurs financiers, au détriment de l’économie réelle. Banquiers, boursicotiers, vulgaires criminels en cols blancs se sont lancés dans une série d’opérations spéculatives, créant ainsi la série de bulles qu’on a vues défiler depuis 15 ans. La bulle «techno», la bulle «bancaire», la bulle «énergétique», la bulle «des ressources» sont en fait la même et unique bulle qui représente les efforts des institutions financières, aujourd’hui dominantes, de jouer dans une sorte d’économie-casino déconnectée du monde de la production. Pour faciliter cela, les gouvernements des principaux pays capitalistes ont «libéré» ces institutions de tout contrôle, et ont même encouragé les classes populaires et moyennes de participer au «casino» en question. Tout au long des années 1990, les bulles ont éclaté à plusieurs reprises, surtout dans des États fragiles, en Amérique latine, en Asie, en Russie. Les signes avant-coureurs étaient là et bien des économistes le disaient et le répétaient, «ça va exploser».

Le règne des voyous

Au début des années 2000, l’économie américaine démontrait déjà de sérieux signes d’épuisement. Au lieu de confronter les problèmes, Bush junior et son ineffable adjoint Dick Cheney ont préféré la fuite en avant, profitant, si on peut dire, des évènements du 11 septembre 2001. On a alors assisté alors à une véritable frénésie du côté des marchés financiers. Manipulant ces évènements, les politiques ont été gelé autour de la de la militarisation du système mondial et de la reconquête du Moyen-Orient. Entre-temps, de véritables prédateurs ont accéléré leurs manœuvres empochant des milliards encore là sur la spéculation et la manipulation des marchés. Parallèlement, les États-Unis enregistraient les plus formidables déficits de son histoire. Le néolibéralisme est devenu néoconservatisme, dans un mélange terrible d’attaques contre les droits sociaux et économiques, de moralisme réactionnaire et de violences contre les classes populaires.

Une construction et non une fatalité

Les crises économiques ne sont jamais qu’économiques. Leurs conclusions reposent en dernière analyse sur les rapports de forces sociaux et politique. Le grand virage amorcé depuis les années 1980 a été le résultat d’une offensive des dominants, et non comme la propagande le proclame, le «triomphe du marché» et de la «main invisible». Aujourd’hui que le projet néolibéral et néoconservateur est sur la brèche, on constate le retour en force de certaines des prescriptions keynésiennes. Pour éviter le crash des bourses et des banques, Washington se retrouve en fait à imposer l’État au centre du système financier, alors que la «religion» du néolibéralisme de Milton Friedman apparaît comme totalement inopérante. Bien sûr, Bush cherche à socialiser les pertes, après avoir pendant des années privatisé les profits. D’où le mécontentement évident des classes populaires. «Ils nous font payer leurs crises».

Pompiers-pyromanes

Maintenant que la maison est en feu, les dominants, tels des pompiers-pyromanes, nous disent qu’il faut calmer le jeu. Le plus cynique est probablement Stephen Harper qui nous dit que tout va bien, au moment où des centaines de milliers d’emplois s’envolent en fumée et que la crevaison de la dernière bulle (celles des ressources) frappe de plein fouet la bourse de Toronto tout en menaçant sérieusement les épargnes durement mises de côté par les classes moyennes et populaires sous forme de REER. Le pire est que de manière générale, ce discours d’éteignoir est repris par l’essentiel des médias, des partis politiques et des élites intellectuelles qui refusent de remettre en question un système prédateur, générateur de crises dont les victimes ne sont jamais ceux qui les ont provoqués. Le «sauvetage» de Wall Street s’inscrit totalement dans cette approche. Dans le cadre de la présente campagne électorale canadienne, les deux principaux partis, Conservateur et Libéral, s’alignent sur ce même registre, bien que Harper s’enfonce dans le déni («la crise ne menace pas le Canada»).

Néokeynésianisme ?

Récemment, des voix dissidentes se sont toutefois élevées aux États-Unis. Les mouvements sociaux et quelques personnalités politiques comme le sénateur Bernard Sanders proposent de renationaliser les institutions financières, et non de les recapitaliser en leur laissant toute la marge de manœuvre. Il faut également mettre fin à la domination de la financiarisation, casser l’économie-casino en quelque sorte, et remettre les capitaux, sous le contrôle de l’état, au service de l’économie réelle. Par exemple, au lieu d’exporter les capitaux vers les zones de bas salaire et réimporter les produits dans le «système Wal-Mart», il faut dynamiser l’économie locale, réguler (à la hausse) les salaires, investir dans les infrastructures déficientes, revamper l’éducation et la santé. C’est en partie ce que disent ici le NPD et le Bloc québécois, mais on a l’impression que leurs propositions restent très modérées. Évidemment, le rapport de forces semble très inégal. Les dominants restent arrogants, confiants de pouvoir s’en sortir avec de nouveaux «spins».

Mais l’histoire pourrait se répéter. En fait devant nous se posent deux grandes options. Ou bien les dominants vont rester sur leurs positions, probablement en amenant le monde vers la confrontation, voire la guerre, de façon à forcer les dominés à accepter l’inacceptable. Ce serait en tout cas l’option de McCain et de Harper. Ou bien les dominés vont s’imposer, comme ils le font d’ailleurs en Amérique latine, pour imposer un nouveau «new deal». En tout cas, cette deuxième option ne viendra pas «magiquement». Elle va nécessiter une très dure et une très longue lutte.

* Ancien président de l’Union des forces progressistes, Francois Cyr est avocat en droit social et a tour à tour été président du syndicat des chargés de cours de l’Université de Montréal et vice-président de la FNEEQ-CSN.

A Sunday afternoon in downtown Montreal

by Pierre Beaudet

In an unusual way during an electoral campaign, over 10 000 people came out in the streets today to denounce Harper. The mood was festive, with lots of singers, poets, writers in abundance, including those who produced the widely popular «Culture en peril». Amongst the organizers were the coalition «Échec à la guerre» who brought together hundreds of thousands of people against the war during the war against Iraq. Environmentalists and community activists were also present, while the trade union representation was minimal.

At the end of the demonstration, various personalities came to speak, including Ghislain Picard, chief of the assembly of First nations for Quebec. Picard denounced Harper for his maneuvers to vote against the Declaration of Indigenous rights at the UN. Gilles Duceppe participated in the march but politely refused to speak to media as it was a non-partisan event.

In the meantime, polls indicate a wide margin in favor of the Bloc who apparently has recovered its original losses. At the beginning of the campaign, the nationalists were somber, afraid of a backlash against what the media describe as a «lost cause». Then several things happen. Harper revealed its true color on issues like culture and criminalization of the youth. He has denied the upcoming economic slump that has already taken lots of regions in Quebec to the brink (it does not show in unemployment statistics because people are going to work in Alberta). He has censored his own MPs and bureaucrats demonstrating his contempt for public debate and democracy. So all of this has started to undermine Stephen. Gilles Duceppe has capitalized on every of these mistakes. The irony of the matter is that the Liberals are now the second most popular ahead of the Conservatives (22 to 21%), but way behind the Bloc (33%).

But the game is not over. The conservative campaign in Quebec is run in a military fashion like what the Republicans do in the US under their rightwing genius, Carl Rove. There is no dispersion and it’s focused and controlled. In every winnable riding, a local strategy has been designed, using local themes and personalities that can make a difference. For example in the periphery of Montreal where Stephen was hoping to breakthrough, Conservatives are appealing to so called middle classes family presenting their problems as the result of «bureaucracy», «nationalism», «trade unions». Many of the conservative contenders are local rightwing municipal officials that have a base there. At the local level, Stephen is saying that voting for the Bloc is useless and will prevent Quebec to have a voice in the government, using not-so veiled threats against those electors who would vote in the «wrong side».

The Quebec Left and the federal election: Lost in translation?

by Pierre Beaudet

After years of division and conflict, the Quebec left came together when over 1000 people gathered to create a new political party in February 2006. The moment was electric, because it seemed that Quebec Solidaire could combine the good traditions of radical struggle with hard-thinking on intervention in the political sphere. A lot of this success came from the courageous initiative of Françoise David, the former president of the Fédération des femmes du Québec who had initiated back in 1995 and in 2000 the hugely popular marches of women against poverty and violence. Other creative leaders were Amir Khadir, a popular Iranian-born medical doctor well rooted in community and immigrant organizations, François Salliant, the President of FRAPRU (the most important housing network), François Cyr, former vice president of the Fédération nationale des enseignants et des enseignantes du Québec and countless others representing mass organizations and decades of struggles. During the electoral campaign in 2007, thousands more came out to canvass and organize and although the overall result was not great, at least QS showed its forces in many Montreal districts where it came second after the PQ.

Since then, the process continues. But there is alot of anxiety. At the macro level, the prospect is that the «war of position» is at this time heavily in favor of the dominants and more over, of the hard right. If ever we would have to face an unholy alliance of McCain, Harper and Charest, it would not be nice, to say the least.

Then comes another serious problem. Dispirited working and middle classes are tempted by the populist demagogy more than by our «rational» post capitalist and post neoliberal rhetoric. The battle of ideas is not easy with a growing sector of the population who believes that the PQ, immigrants and trade unions are the enemy! Of course, one has to put this in perspective. The society in Quebec is still in majority in favor of progressive ideas, but there is trend, a drift, some sort of a slippery move that escapes most of the analysis.

The list of challenges does not stop here. How to reconcile intervening in the political sphere with the consolidation of a post capitalist project? Are we not condemned to limit our pitch to some sort of a social-democratic platform, slightly left of the PQ? How can we maintain the political party «in the streets» while orienting it to electoral battles?

A positive point is that the questions are debated, which is a huge advance in comparison with the past when the «correct line» was defined in opposition to dissenting voices. But nonetheless, it does not give QS a clear direction.

Last but not least, the eternal Quebec national question. At the origin, QS decided wisely (in my view) to downgrade this dimension while integrating the sovereignty idea with social justice: Sovereignty as a means to reinvent a Quebec based on its peoples (in the plural). On this, the consensus continues although some sections, ex-Péquistes among others, would like QS to take the nationalist lead in using the PQ’s ambiguity to its advantage.

All of this seems light years away from the federal election. But it is not. The fact is that there is not a strong mobilization against the Harper threat, a sort of anything-but-Harper call of arms. Partly because of internal hesitations. Partly because of nationalist ambiguities. Party because the organization is still fragile and reserves its ammunitions for the forthcoming provincial election. It could be a serious mistake. A future Harper government will be the cornerstone of reactionary politics both in Quebec and in Canada. The most rightwing factions inside the provincial Liberal Party and the ultra right ADQ will be comforted in a big time.

Against this inertia are currently two options. One is favored by QS activists mostly outside Montreal who are arguing that social movements and QS should campaign for the NDP. I don’t agree with this because it seems an ideological, meaning non-political position. I think we should mostly campaign for the Bloc, not because we like them, but because they can oppose Harper seriously.

We will see how it goes but so far, everything is quiet on the eastern front.

The shadow of Jacques Parizeau

by Pierre Beaudet

The man that almost brought Quebec to sovereignty back in 1995 is still alive and kicking. Every week or so, he lashes left, right and center. This week, he made another splash by affirming that Quebec francophone schools were in shamble. Not so subtly, the spin was against Pauline Marois, the current head of the PQ, who had initiated before the PQ was ousted a reform in education that created a big debate. In short, Marois was siding with «modernists» who have been argumenting that the old style carrot-and-the-stick approach with kids based on «penalties» and rewards» through marking is not necessarily the best thing to do. That reform was mostly attacked by the right who said no, the same system has to continue because it distinguishes the sheep from the goat and allow the «best» students to move ahead. The untold storey was of course that the «best» students are always from middle and upper-middle class background, therefore reproducing through schooling and marking class differentiations.

Parizeau is angry not only because of «reformist» changes in the schools (he argues that it validates mediocrity and increases drop-out rates). He thinks that various «reformist» policies put forward by the PQ in the last years are a «deviation» from the «sacred cause» of independence. Another former minister of the PQ, Jacques Brassard, also came out last week attacking the Bloc for becoming a «clone» of the NDP. All of this reveals serious rifts in the nationalist family.

Back in the 1970s (the «golden era» of nationalism), Parizeau’s dream was to build an independent «normal» state well anchored in the western world, able to make its own decisions. His battle was against the Canadian domination of Quebec which subjugated the people, but also the economy and stifled its potential. Parizeau knew that no «ordinary» bourgeoisie in Quebec could confront this reality because the Anglo elite did not allow them to take their place. He would therefore «create» this bourgeoisie out of a strong public sector (from the tradition of Hydro Quebec). He would recalibrate Quebec’s capitalism through a mix of Keynesian interventionist policies. Be aware of this, Parizeau is a Keynesian, not some sort of rightwing extremist as he is presented in the Anglo media most of the time.

This by the way was the cornerstone of the PQ at that time and when in was elected in 1976, everyone thought, this is the moment. Popular and middle classes specially the organized sectors were in their vast majority agreeing with that perspective, to the exclusion of a small but active left who dreamed of moving Quebec otherwise. Exactly in the same mood, by the way, of every nations aspiring for independence as a platform for social progress and emancipation.

Well, we know that this independent-bourgeois-Keynesian state project was defeated by the Canadian state with the quasi unanimous support of the different political and social factions in English Canada. For Canadian elites, this was an unacceptable challenge. They succeeded in convincing the ordinary person in the streets of Toronto and Vancouver, including trade unionists and NPD supporters, that it was a sinister plot.

Forty years later, the show goes on but this time, the correlation of forces is much more favorable for the Canadian elite, which might explains Parizeau’s frustration. The Quebec «bourgeoisie» (in bracket) is trying, with difficulties, to incorporate itself into the «wonderful world» of globalization. But they are weak, always threatened by the big financial sharks, including those from Toronto. Nevertheless, the time is not for them to get in what they consider «political adventures» and they are happy with the promises of Harper (and Mulroney) that they will be somehow protected.

The nationalist «dream» is then fading out, at least seen from that perspective. Parizeau and others in this context have little to say. But they are against a soft of «left wing» turn that is advocated by sections of the PQ and the Bloc. They certainly do not like Duceppe’s attempt to present himself as the champion of the «anybody-but-Harper» conservative threat. They do not like the PQ flirting with anything that would make it evolve from the «normal» bourgeois independence ticket to something undefined. And in this, they are not comfortable with the debate on «identity» that has reflourished recently. «Civic» nationalism calling for the incorporation of «everyone» living in Quebec (and therefore immigrants and Anglophones) is not what they call for because they still think that «national» or «ethnic» nationalism is for them the «solution» to bring together the «real» Québécois together.

Many current PQ and especially Bloc leaders are keen to develop a new, civic nationalism. Then this creates another line of fracture. The left, including Quebec Solidaire, and social movements in general, also argue for civic nationalism. But they say that the PQ and the Bloc, even with their ««reformed» views have lost their legitimacy. They are past and have to be replaced by more affirmative, forward-looking perspectives, clearly, implicitly, straightforwardly, for a civic, republican, all-inclusive program of social and national emancipation.

For Canadian readers, the spin is to avoid two «mistakes» in perception and political attitude. Firstly, not understanding where Parizeau and the traditional nationalist project comes from is leading to a dead-end which is to consider Quebec nationalism as intrinsically somber, if not sinister. Second, not seeing the present evolution of its main trends, including its contradictions, also does not help understanding the situation. All in all, I believe that Quebec nationalism will evolve positively, but with lots of internal crisis and breakdowns. It will take time however …

Election

by Pierre Beaudet

Yesterday, with the launch of the campaign, Gilles Duceppe clearly identified the issues confronting the electorate in Quebec. “It’s a fight against the neoconservative agenda,” said the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

The Quebec-Canada confrontation has been put aside by the Nationalists. Why is that? The Harper revolution: Harper wants to accelerate a radical neoliberal transformation of Canada, already started before him by the Liberals, but to which is given an ideological spin of neoconservatism. The demise of Keynesian politics has been on the agenda of the ruling class for many years, but now it’s the time to consolidate, so they think. The neocon “package” seems appropriate to deliver, with its combination of pro-war, anti-poor, anti-immigrant and religious themes. Behind that are more structural objectives like the displacement of Canadian capitalism towards a new “Toronto-Calgary” axis along big finances and oil, which means the destruction of the manufacturing sector (mostly in Ontario and Quebec) and the acceleration of neoliberal reforms through the erosion of Medicare and the diminishment of federal transfers towards the poorest provinces. 

Opportunity

Of course, all of this is NOT accepted by the majority of the population of Canada. However, Harper thinks he can get away with it because of the dislocation of his main adversary, the Liberal Party. Like most centrist formations, the Liberals are unable to maintain the “consensus” between Keynesians and neoliberals. In the meantime, the NPD has not recovered its past bifurcations which were demonstrated mostly through the NPD-led provincial administrations. The same “window of opportunity” appears for Harper in Quebec where the centre-left nationalist PQ is in crisis. It’s not so much the distantiation from the national project that is the cause of that gap. Quasi social democrats like the PQ are drifting towards social liberalism (like in France, Spain, the U.K., etc.) and that confuses and angers popular and middle classes.

Tactical debates

Currently, social movements and the left in general are trying to rebuild an alternative project with a political translation called Quebec Solidaire. The project is just starting and difficulties abound, although the spirit of resistance that has animated social movements since the middle 1990s is still energetic, as we see in several militant strikes currently. But what to do to avoid the “worst”? For sure, a neocon onslaught would be damaging. One proposal is to support our friendly Jack who is more visible since the election of an ex-Liberal Minister in a by-election in Outremont. But for 1,000 reasons, not many people are convinced. Especially that they have not forgotten how the NPD -before Jack to be honest - supported Stephane Dion in his fury against the Nationalists after the 1995 referendum. There are not many other options. Most of the trade union leadership will support wholeheartedly the Bloc, which they assimilate to the PQ. It is true however that in the House of Commons, left-winger bloquistes like Pierre Duceppe, Francine Lalonde and many others have fought hard against harsh neoliberal and neoconservative policies, sometimes even more consistently than the NPD.

Strategic vote

I am not convinced however that the PQ/Bloc nationalist alliance is the solution. Rather I would see them as the main obstacle in front of a hesitating but militant social movement. This “problem” did not started yesterday and is not going to be resolved tomorrow either. In the meantime, it seems rational to avoid the worst and in most of Quebec (minus regions where the Anglophone minority is important), it means campaigning for the Bloc. Any weakening of the Bloc (like drifting “left” votes towards the NPD) would actually strengthen the Conservatives, it is brutal as that. It is not probably a consolation, but our situation is not unique. Voting for Obama in the USA seems to me of the same fundamental nature, I am saying that risking to offend Obama’s left-wing supporters.