[FR] Le 2 mai, une victoire prévisible pour la bourgeoisie

Article paru dans le deuxième numéro du journal Partisan:

Au moment de mettre sous presse, la campagne électorale fédérale vivait ses derniers jours. Malgré l’embellie rapportée par les médias bourgeois pour le Nouveau parti démocratique (NPD), il est à peu près acquis que le Parti conservateur formera le prochain gouvernement. De toute manière, peu importe le résultat final, on sait déjà qu’il n’en sortira rien de bon pour les travailleuses et les travailleurs. La seule inconnue, s’il en est, c’est de savoir si la chute spectaculaire du taux de participation à laquelle on assiste depuis une vingtaine d’années se poursuivra ou si la campagne de propagande menée par les partis et les médias bourgeois aura réussi à l’endiguer.

Comme à l’habitude, à part quelques promesses dont on sait ce qu’elles valent (rien!), la campagne électorale a surtout pris la forme d’un concours de popularité où un peu comme dans une émission de télé-réalité, les électeurs et électrices sont appelés à choisir celui ou celle qui leur semble le plus sympathique. Il y a longtemps que la forme a remplacé le fond dans ce système qu’on nous vante pourtant comme le plus «démocratique» qui soit.

L’élément le plus nouveau de cette élection, et certainement celui qui représente le plus d’espoir pour les travailleurs et les travailleuses, c’est la campagne de boycott que les supporters de ce journal ont appuyée. Organisée à l’initiative du Parti communiste révolutionnaire, cette campagne a rassemblé des militantes et militants du Québec, de l’Ontario et du Nouveau-Brunswick. Pour la première fois, le mot d’ordre de boycott des élections a retenti à l’échelle pancanadienne.

Contrairement à ce qu’ont prétendu ceux et celles qui l’ont dénigrée, cette campagne fut tout sauf une manifestation d’apathie par rapport à la manière dont les choses sont organisées dans la société canadienne. En s’abstenant massivement de participer au scrutin, les millions de travailleurs et travailleuses, de jeunes et de membres des Premières nations expriment, chacun à leur façon, leur rejet d’un système qui n’en a que pour les riches et dont ils et elles sont exclues. La campagne de boycott que nous avons menée visait notamment à transformer ce boycott passif en un boycott actif, en favorisant l’expression de notre volonté de vivre dans une société où le pouvoir sera exercé par la majorité laborieuse.

Cette campagne a suscité des réactions opposées et parfois vives dans certains milieux. Sur la rue, dans les lieux de travail et les écoles où elle s’est déroulée, elle n’a laissé personne indifférent. Des centaines, voire des milliers de commentaires ont circulé sur Internet, allant d’un soutien enthousiaste jusqu’à une condamnation pure et simple: certains ont même ouvertement souhaité nous faire taire, au nom du respect des «valeurs démocratiques» (sic), ce qui en dit long sur ce qu’elles sont réellement.

À Toronto, le Comité prolétarien d’action révolutionnaire (Proletarian Revolutionary Action Committee - PRAC) a fait connaître la campagne de boycott en distribuant des tracts et en posant des affiches dans plusieurs quartiers populaires. Le comité a également organisé trois événements publics, dont deux à l’Université de Toronto les 19 mars et 27 avril et l’autre à la librairie Accents le 30 avril, et ses porte-parole ont donné quelques entrevues dans les médias. Cela a permis aux militantes et militants de base d’en savoir plus sur la campagne, d’émettre leurs critiques et suggestions et de discuter de leur implication dans la campagne elle-même et dans la lutte à plus long terme pour l’organisation d’une démocratie directe.

Les gens qui vivent et travaillent dans les quartiers prolétariens où nous avons fait campagne ont exprimé à maintes reprises leur insatisfaction à l’égard du système en place. Les discussions ont été vives et nombreuses quant à la nécessité d’une démocratie populaire réelle et d’un autre type de gouvernement, qui ne mettrait plus l’accent sur les profits d’une poignée au détriment du bien-être de la majorité.

Il en est ressorti que loin d’être apathique, la classe ouvrière est mécontente d’un système qui représente les intérêts des riches et n’offre rien de mieux que quelques miettes. Plusieurs personnes ont exprimé leur colère par rapport au discours pour «la loi et l’ordre», repris désormais par la totalité des partis. On nous aussi a parlé avec véhémence de la brutalité policière vécue quotidiennement dans certaines communautés et du fait qu’il est virtuellement impossible de se tenir dans un endroit public sans être harcelé par la police.

Bien des gens ont exprimé leur dégoût quant au fait qu’aucun des principaux partis ne soit prêt à réaffecter les sommes prévues pour les dépenses militaires à des projets susceptibles d’aider la communauté. Les réductions d’impôt supplémentaires consenties aux capitalistes suscitent clairement la colère, d’autant que rien n’est prévu par les divers partis pour offrir des jobs aux travailleurs et travailleuses actuellement sous-employés et marginalisés; de fait, c’est comme si tous ces bonzes n’avaient aucune considération pour le désarroi qui anime les masses, qui rêvent d’un avenir meilleur pour leurs enfants. Plusieurs personnes ont encouragé les militantes et militants du PRAC à continuer le combat, sachant qu’il n’y a pas d’avenir dans ce système failli et corrompu.

À Ottawa, nos camarades ont là aussi fait activement campagne en faveur du boycott. Après avoir organisé un lancement le 6 avril, les militantes et militants se sont littéralement répandus dans les rues et endroits publics. Les quartiers prolétariens et les terminaux où transitent les travailleurs et travailleuses ont été ciblés afin rejoindre le plus grand nombre de gens durant la courte période de temps qu’a duré la campagne.

La réponse des travailleurs, des travailleuses et des membres de la communauté a été positive; plusieurs nous ont affirmé n’avoir jamais voté et n’avoir surtout pas l’intention de commencer à le faire! Ces gens-là comprenaient très bien le message véhiculé par la campagne.

Interrogé sur la réceptivité des personnes rencontrées, un militant nous a rapporté que «la plupart des gens étaient très favorables» au boycott. «Bien sûr, il y en a qui s’y opposaient, mais cela changeait radicalement dès qu’on quittait les campus et les quartiers plus aisés; la classe ouvrière comprend vraiment qu’il n’y a pas d’avenir, pour elle, dans le système bourgeois. La réceptivité des masses vis-à-vis la campagne m’incite à penser que nous avons adopté une ligne correcte. Nous souhaitons utiliser la campagne comme tremplin pour construire une plus grande présence dans les secteurs ouvriers d’Ottawa et des environs.»

À noter qu’il est arrivé fréquemment que spontanément, lorsqu’on les abordait, les gens nous répondaient ne vouloir rien savoir des élections. Puis, lorsqu’on leur précisait qu’il s’agissait de les boycotter, ils se retournaient et tendaient la main en disant: «OK alors, je vais en prendre un!» Une réaction significative, s’il en est.

Au Québec, où l’identification au gouvernement fédéral est moins forte que dans les autres provinces, la campagne de boycott a généralement été bien reçue. Dans la vieille capitale, les militantes et militants qui ont diffusé le premier numéro de Partisan ont rapidement écoulé les quelque 500 exemplaires qui leur avaient été confiés. Ils et elles nous ont rapporté que la réception fut particulièrement bonne parmi la jeunesse prolétarienne. Il faut croire que les appels à la mobilisation faits par l’humoriste Rick Mercer n’ont pas vraiment eu d’impact dans ce coin de pays…

À Montréal, en plus de la diffusion de Partisan, du journal Le Drapeau rouge et de la déclaration initiale de la campagne, des milliers d’affiches ont été posées dans les quartiers populaires, sur lesquelles apparaissaient ses principaux slogans: «Le pouvoir est dans la rue! Pas de démocratie sans pouvoir populaire!» Plusieurs événements ont été organisés à la Maison Norman Bethune, ainsi qu’un grand rassemblement de fin de campagne dans le quartier Centre-Sud.

La campagne de boycott des élections a également été intégrée à la mobilisation en vue de la manifestation du 1^er Mai, organisée par la Convergence des luttes anticapitalistes (CLAC-Montréal). Cette manifestation, qui en est cette année à sa quatrième édition, vise précisément à permettre aux prolétaires et aux opprimées d’exprimer leur rejet du système dominant, dont le cirque électoral est parti prenant.

De manière générale, nous avons constaté un accueil bien différent dans les milieux prolétariens, à comparer aux secteurs de la gauche traditionnelle (syndicats, groupes communautaires, partis…), que l’on croit à tort «plus politisés». Ceux-ci ont encore énormément d’illusions sur l’État et le système bourgeois, ce qui n’est pas nécessairement le cas des travailleurs et travailleuses les plus pauvres, qui savent très bien qu’ils doivent se battre simplement pour survivre.

Comme le disait la Coalition ontarienne anti-pauvreté il y a quelques années: «On ne peut nier l’importante signification politique du fait qu’un nombre croissant de personnes ne voient tout simplement plus de raison d’aller voter. Contrairement à ce que prétendent certains snobs, le large groupe d’abstentionnistes n’est pas constitué de moutons stupides et apathiques. On parle ici de pauvres et de travailleurs et travailleuses qui font quotidiennement de lourds sacrifices et travaillent très fort pour combler les besoins de leurs familles. Ces gens, en réalité, sont capables d’agir de façon extrêmement vigoureuse lorsque quelque chose se produit qui leur apparaît significatif et important. Le processus électoral, toutefois, les laisse complètement froids. Ils et elles ne voient pas de raison d’appuyer tel ou telle candidate, parce qu’en ce qui les concerne, aucun d’eux ne mettra fin aux injustices qui les assaillent. Derrière le sentiment d’indignation un peu passif qui recouvre ce rejet des élections se cache en fait un profond sentiment de colère et de mécontentement. Et lorsque ce sentiment prendra le dessus, il ne prendra certes pas la forme d’une campagne de lettres adressées aux députés...»

[EN] On May 2nd: A Predictable Victory for the Bourgeoisie

Taken from the second edition of Partisan newspaper:

As the federal election campaign comes to a close, we write knowing more or less the results already. Despite the upturn reported by the corporate media for the New Democratic Party (NDP), it is almost certain that the Conservative Party will form the next government. Anyway, whatever the final outcome, we already know it won’t bring anything good for us workers. The only thing we don’t know is whether the dramatic decline in the participation rate will deepen, or if the propaganda campaign waged by the bourgeois parties and the media has managed to contain it for now.

As usual, except for a few promises that we knows are worth nothing, the campaign looked like a popularity contest on a reality TV show, where the voters were asked to choose the guy who looked the most sympathetic. In this system some praise as “the most democratic ever,” the form has long ago replaced the content.

A new element in this election campaign, and certainly one that represents a new hope for workers, is the boycott campaign that supporters of this newspaper have waged. Organized at the initiative of the Revolutionary Communist Party, the campaign brought together activists from Québec, Ontario and New Brunswick. For the first time, the slogan of boycotting the elections has resounded across the country.

Contrary to the claims of some who tried to denigrate it, this campaign has been anything but a manifestation of apathy over how things are going in Canadian society. By massively abstaining, millions of workers, youth and indigenous people will be expressing, each in their own way, their rejection of a system that runs only for the rich. One of the objectives of the boycott campaign was to transform this passive boycott into an active one, by expressing our desire to live in a society where power will be exercised by the working majority.

This campaign has generated strong and sometimes opposing reactions in some quarters. On the streets, in workplaces and schools, it left no one indifferent. Hundreds, even thousands of comments circulated on the Internet, ranging from enthusiastic support to outright condemnation: some have even openly wished to silence us, in the name of respect for “Canadian democratic values” (sic) —which says a lot about what they really are.

The Proletarian Revolutionary Action Committee (PRAC)-Toronto has promoted the boycott campaign through flyering and postering campaigns in several proletarian neighbourhoods across Toronto. The PRAC also organized three public events about campaign (two at the University of Toronto on March 19 and April 27 and one at Accents Bookstore on April 30) and have been interviewed about the campaign by a number of media outlets. These events provided a space for local organizations and activists to learn more about the campaign, voice any suggestions or criticisms and find out how they could get involved in spreading the messages behind the campaign and organizing for direct democracy over the long term.

People, like us, who are living and working in these proletarian neighbourhoods have welcomed the campaign and repeatedly emphasized their dissatisfaction with the democratic system to those who were flyering. Campaign organizers and community members keenly discussed and debated the need for a real people’s democracy and a different kind of government that no longer emphasizes profits over people.

There was common agreement that the working classes are not apathetic, but are in fact disaffected by an electoral system that represents the interests of the rich and throws us a few crumbs to fight over. In particular, people expressed anger at the law-and-order agenda of all the electoral parties and vociferously spoke about being victimized as communities by police brutality, and that they could not simply stand in the streets where they lived and worked without being harassed by the police.

They were disgusted that none of the parties were willing to invest dollars earmarked for defense spending into community infrastructure instead. Communities were furious that further tax cuts were being promised to the capitalists, while none of the candidates were discussing the expansion of better job possibilities for underemployed and marginalized peoples, nor did any of the parties share their feeling of dismay that the future did not look any better for their children. They encouraged members of PRAC-Toronto to keep organizing and mobilizing, as they knew that there was no future in this bankrupt corrupt system.

Comrades in Ottawa have also been actively promoting the 2011 Federal Election Boycott Campaign. After hosting a campaign launch on April 6, our activists hit the streets in force. Proletarian neighbourhoods and terminals, such as bus stops, were targeted with the campaign and this newspaper in order to reach the highest number of working class people possible in the short campaign period.

The response from workers and community members was positive, with many remarking that they had never voted, didn’t intend to start, and understood what the campaign was attempting to draw attention to.

“For the most part people have been pretty supportive,” said one activist when asked about the responses that had been received. “Of course there are some that are against it, but as soon as you move off the campuses and away from the richer parts of Ottawa, the working class really understands that there’s no future in bourgeois politics. The positive attitude of the masses toward the campaign shows me that we adopted the correct line in this case. We’re looking forward to using the campaign to build a bigger presence in working class parts of Ottawa.”

One repeated occurrence saw people rejecting any material or discussion to do with elections, until they saw or heard boycott’ associated with it. “Boycott the elections?!” and then, “Gimme one.”

In Québec, where the identification with the federal government is obviously weaker than in other provinces, the boycott campaign was generally well received. In Québec City, activists who circulated the first issue of Partisan quickly exhausted the 500 copies they asked for. They reported that reception was particularly enthusiastic among the proletarian youth. One should believe that calls for “Youth Vote Mobs” made ​​by comedian Rick Mercer did not have a big impact in that part of the country...

In Montréal, in addition to distributing Partisan, The Red Flag newspaper and the initial statement of the campaign, thousands of posters were placed in popular neighbourhoods, on which appeared its main slogan: “Vote With Your Feet! No Democracy Without Peoples’ Power!” Several events were held at the Norman Bethune Bookstore and a large rally was held in the Centre-Sud district.

The boycott campaign was also part of the mobilization for the May 1^st demonstration organized by the Anti-Capitalist Convergence. The event, which is in its fourth anniversary since its resurrection, is intended to enable proletarians and oppressed people to express their rejection of the ruling system, including the electoral circus.

In general, the campaign was received quite differently in proletarian milieu than within the traditional left, mistakenly believed to be “more politicized.” So-called leftists in this country still have a lot of illusions about the state and the bourgeois system, which is not necessarily the case for working poor who are struggling just to survive.

As the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty once said a few years ago: “It is impossible to deny that the vast and rapidly growing portion of the population that sees no reason to go to the polls is a matter of huge political significance. Contrary to the notions of some political snobs, this massive chunk of the population is not made up of stupid and apathetic sheep. They are poor and working people who make sacrifices and work hard to provide for their families. They are capable of acting very vigorously when they see something as meaningful and important. The ‘electoral process’, however, leaves them cold. They see no reason to support a candidate because, as far as they are concerned, ‘none of the above’ will deal with the injustices that beset their lives. Beneath the passive indignation that underlies this rejection of elections is a huge sense of grievance and anger. When it comes to life, it will not take the form of letter writing campaigns to MPPs.”

Reflections on the Election Results

The 2011 Canadian Federal Elections are now over and we, the working classes, are finally done watching the latest spectacle akin to the shuffling of deck chairs. The newspaper headlines and political pundits scream about a Harper majority and a Layton surge, the collapse of the Bloc and the Liberals, in desperation to make it sound like that last night was “historic” however, none speak about how little has actually changed. It has been demonstrated time and again in the last six weeks that the NDP, Liberals and the Conservatives differ very little in political program or vision, whether it be on the budget, military spending, law and order etc. The NDP has had to admit that it has in fact adopted the Liberal Party’s platform and have simply rebranded it with the buoyant smile of Jack Layton.

This simply marks a further shift to the right for all of the parliamentary parties, and demonstrates that even basic aspects of a radical program can be won. It simply demonstrates that the parliament exists to protect the interests of corporations and the ruling classes and it is our duty as revolutionaries to continue to show our rage at this system in the streets and organize in our workplaces, schools, and neighborhoods as to build our vision of democracy and society. If in fact these elections do tell us anything it is that working classes of Quebec completely and thoroughly reject the bourgeois nationalist project of the Bloc Quebecois.

Once again after so much ado, little has changed and this is reflected in the polls, which demonstrate that despite the “historic” nature of these elections that 38.6% of registered voters chose not to go to the polls. This is indeed a negligible 2.6% increase in voter turnout since the last elections, which continues to indicate that a large section of Canadians still remain dissatisfied with their options at the ballot box despite all of the media hype about an ‘historic election’ and a ‘NDP surge’. We recognize that the 38.6% of registered voters who did not vote did not also actively boycott the elections as we had called upon them to do, however, we do believe that we have been able to use to campaign to take the first steps in the building of a new revolutionary proletarian movement. - Boycott Sympathizer

POST MAY DAY REFLECTIONS ON THE BOYCOTT [English]

by JMP

Originally posted on MLM Mayhem.

The federal elections are almost upon us and soon voters will be lining up to participate in a ritual that has replaced democracy. It is telling that elections day follows closely upon the recent royal wedding in Great Britain: the people who avidly followed that spectacle––cheering on a family of anachronisms that should have been guillotined centuries ago––will doubtless be the same people excitedly voting for one of this country's bourgeois parties. And on the day following the elections business as usual, with perhaps a new face, will continue: the poor will remain poor, the peripheries will remain exploited, occupation both here and abroad will persist, and democracy will vanish from the radar until the next sacred rite. So I feel that now, close to the onslaught of ballot-casting fury, it is appropriate for me to conclude this series about the boycott campaign with reflections of my experience with the elections boycott.

Hopefully this will be a more sober and introspective entry than my last post in this series which might have been, at least according to some, more irate than productive. Today, at the May Day march I attended (put on by the hard-working and amazing people of the M1M Coalition), I helped distribute newspapers and flyers connected to the boycott campaign, spoke about the elections with a variety of people, and engaged in a variety of discussions––many of which were similar to the discussions I've been having about this campaign since its beginning. This last round of interactions, due to their proximity to the elections and the context of the march, helped clarify my final reflections of this year's rushed and manic boycott campaign.

As an aside, it is worth noting that the M1M organizers were supportive of our small PRAC contingent. Although the organization as a whole did not endorse the campaign, some of its members were sympathizers and many others were supportive, rather than openly dismissive, of the campaign's possibilities. Indeed, though the campaign was not openly endorsed the organizers included the "vote with your feet" slogan as one of the march's main slogans––on their signs and in their speeches––and at the last second even politely offered us room to speak on their stage. Despite any possibile disagreements, I want to note that the M1M folks, along with the good folks at Basics, have been more supportive of this campaign, even if they have not always been entirely certain of its worth, then many of the organizations and individuals in the Toronto mainstream left.

In any case, I want to spend the rest of this entry discussing the final criticisms levelled at the campaign, as well as my own reflections about the possible limitations of this campaign, to conclude this series. At least for this year: since the boycott movement is growing, and has now stretched beyond Quebec, there will hopefully be another series about future campaigns in the years to come.

1. Your boycott is about political purity and demonstrates your leftist elitism.

This criticism popped up time and time again, in different forms, right until today when one of my comrades was confronted with an arrogant undergraduate activist, when the M1M march merged with the No One Is Illegal march, who declaimed those of us who participated in this campaign––from the RCP-PCR to our small little coalition in Toronto––as elitists. According to this man we were intellectual elitists who had no idea what "the people" wanted (though apparently he knew), and he even went so far as to accuse my comrade of being nothing more than an inveterate "PhDer" and that PhD-types were ignorant because they spend all of their time talking about Foucault. (A strange accusation to level at a Maoist… but it was funny when my comrade, who actually does not spend much time talking about Foucault, pointed out that Foucault probably did more for activism than the activist levelling the accusation! Oddly enough, this same young man once verbally assaulted my partner for wearing a social democrat button [that was part of her job], telling her that she shouldn't vote, several years ago. We argued then that voting for social democrat parties was important, though should never be the focus of one's politics, unless there was a boycott movement. At that time there was no boycott movement and he refused to vote; now there is a boycott movement and he was arguing that we should vote.)

I have been troubled by this criticism regarding elitism for a long time; in fact, it was this sort of critique that prompted by irate fifth post in the "Vote With Your Feet" series. I want to be clear that we did not begin this campaign by attacking other members of the mainstream left who disagreed with our position. True, we mentioned that part of its aim was to draw a line amongst the self-proclaimed left, but this was a line intended to highlight the problem with parliamentarianism, demonstrate what the RCP-PCR has called "a gap between leftist theory and practice" (where we argue that parliamentarianism won't end capitalism but we expend so much energy convincing people to vote), and break our fascination with elections. Really, many of us did not care if people disagreed with us or critiqued our position––in fact, we wanted to have these discussions. Some of my good friends and comrades engaged in these discussions and brought up good points (which I will discuss below), and I think that contributed to critical discussions amongst certain sectors of the left. Others, however, attacked us rabidly, called us "elitist", attributed a "purity" that didn't exist to our position (without even bothering to read or listen to what we were saying), and entered into the discussion with wild accusations and bizarre insults. Hence that controversial post that, I'll admit, probably just fanned the flames: not only did it confirm the conspiratorial suspicions of those who had straw-personed us from the beginning, it ended up unintentionally insulting others who were actually interested in having the discussion––and for that I apologize.

Still: the charge of "purity" and "elitism" is an empty charge, one that speaks more to the political sentiments of those attacking us, than anything else. Take the recent New Socialist post about voting for the NDP, for example, where the authors deride the boycott campaign for its supposed puritanism around politics. Despite the comments written by myself, comrades who support the campaign, and comrades who do not support the campaign but our supportive of its intentions, the authors are apparently still under the impression that the fact that millions watched a debate is indicative of working-class politics, thus participating in the election and backing the NDP is good revolutionary behaviour. Well… millions watched the royal wedding but does that mean we should organize around the monarchy?

Generally I have started to feel that these attacks about the campaign's supposed "purity" and "elitism" are due to a fear of principled politics and an actual elitism. The former problem is translated into a complaint about "purity" in the same way that [usually the same] people equivocate political commitment with sectarianism. I want to reemphasize that we were never telling people that they were not "authentically" socialist/communist/radical by joining the boycott: strangely enough, though we never made that claim, so many people started to ascribe that thinking to us. Did they suddenly feel convicted by our position and, for lack of a better response, decided to accuse us of making insults we never made? Perhaps. Or maybe we are so terribly messed up by bourgeois ideology that we simply assume the worst about our possible comrades.

The problem regarding elitism is also rather telling. Returning to the story about the young man who attacked my comrade today––the same arrogant young man who attacked my partner several years ago––I want to point out the massive problem of an undergraduate student declaiming a boycott movement's supposed elitism, mocking them all as "PhD" people divorced from the masses, without any clear understanding of the movement's aims, who and for whom it communicates to, and who created the movement in the first place. The aims were always organizational, the people we spent most of our time talking with in person (but obviously not on the internet!) were NOT the mainstream left but people on the street in poor neighbourhoods who already didn't vote and probably didn't give a shit about this young man, and the group that originated the boycott (RCP-PCR) is predominantly composed of people who are NOT university students. But no: he knew more than us, could call us elitists only because we had more university education than him, and not critically consider even one of our arguments. This is the height of elitism. I am tired of intellectuals, who possess a certain amount of privilege denied to the majority of the population, attacking intellectualism. I am also tired of arrogant young undergrads, who weren't even in highschool when I was an activist, suddenly thinking that they know more than everyone else and using the charge of "armchair activism" or "intellectual elitism" as an ad hominem hammer to bludgeon their way through a debate. If an undocumented migrant worker accused me of these charges I would listen… but I will not take them seriously if they come from someone who is also involved in the academic game and is only using them as a pitiful rhetorical tool.

In any case, how exactly were we elitist when this boycott movement was designed with the concept of the mass-line involved? The argument was always: the majority of people do not vote, they are sending us a clear signal, we should use that as an opportunity to talk to them about democracy outside of the bourgeois game. In other words, we were responding to a boycott already in existence––the attempt, as we emphasized over and over again, was to try and make the implicit explicit. Which leads me to the next category…

2. How is the boycott campaign a good organizing tool?

This was the best and most critical question we received. Some of the people who raised it would agree that they would never organize people to vote, that they agreed that voting was useless and that all the parties were already drifting too far to the right (now the NDP is really no different from the Liberals), but that they did not see any reason to waste time and resources on a boycott campaign. One even raised a very good and very critical point: if peoples' focus on parliamentarianism is a problem (and he agreed that it was), then by focusing on a boycott campaign we were also focusing on parliamentarianism.

Personally I think this critique is one that requires more discussion and more reflection. I do not want to dismiss it out of hand and so I am wary of discussing it here. But generally (and this should not be taken as a dismissal), I think it can be answered by an appeal to political directness. As many have pointed out (most recently William Upski Wimsatt), during federal elections everyone has politics on their mind: it is a concretization of the politics that are usually invisible in our lives. Now some people (like Upski Wimsatt) will argue that we should use this as an opportunity to campaign for some liberal or social democratic party to break the hold of the conservatives. We argue that it is an opportunity to talk about radical politics, to talk about the possibility of breaking parliamentarianism altogether, with people who will probably never talk with you about politics otherwise.

Listen. In the manic and forshortened period of this campaign we were on the streets and putting up posters about the campaign. People actually came up to us and wanted to talk about radical politics. They would even listen to and engage with discussions about communism. The federal elections puts democracy on the mind of people who are the most excluded from bourgeois democracy and who, because they feel the disempowerment of this exclusion, want to talk about politics, about how they will never vote because they hate the government no matter how it appears. These are the people who get blamed by the middle-class for every right victory because of their lack of interest in electoral politics; these are the people who have this lack of interest because the left offers them nothing except electoral circuses. The point the RCP-PCR made from the beginning was that there was an implicit boycott and that there was a reason for this boycott: by going out and advertising a campaign in those neighbourhoods that refuse to vote, we are communicating to a deeply felt disaffection.

While I agree that organizing cannot simply be around a boycott, I have to admit that I was surprised by the strategic advantages of this campaign. In all my years of activism I have never, upon putting up a poster in a neighbourhood, been approached by so many people who suddenly wanted to talk about politics. Never. Again: there already is a boycott, and there are reasons for this boycott, we were only trying to make it explicit. And, to speak to the previous point, it would be nice if the left in general recognized that this was a fact rather than writing peons to the bloody NDP.

Clearly there are limitations around this method of organizing but we never argued that we were only interested in organizing boycott campaigns. The resolutions that were passed and adopted at the Canadian Revolutionary Congress were not simply resolutions about a boycott campaign: we never agreed to just work on this issue, suddenly appearing at every federal or provincial election but ignoring everything else in the meantime––this was always understood as part of a larger strategy.

And the larger strategy was about boycotting the bourgeois state, the campaign around the federal elections being a coherent and concrete method utilized to bring the already existing boycott of the elections into contact with the idea of boycotting the state in general. Going into communities with the slogan of "boycott the bourgeois state", however, and especially when there were no federal/provincial elections on the immediate horizon, is by itself rather ludicrous. Again: people want to talk about politics at election time because politics––especially bourgeois politics––are everywhere. The point was to reject the bourgeois political approach and use this period as an opportunity to discuss boycotting the state.

Perhaps the greatest limitation to this approach, though, was the foreshortened period in which we could agitate. As one frustrated and disenchanted woman on the streets complained: "you should have started talking about this months ago." Unfortunately none of us expected an election to be called this soon and, just after adopting the resolution at the Canadian Revolutionary Congress, along with other resolutions, we were hit with the prospect of a spring election. A very short time to work on this issue, with only the germ of a coalition in Toronto, is not entirely useful for organizing. If there were fall elections and we started now the campaign might have generated more results: several weeks of talking with people, and trying to push community events when most of these people did not know who we were, is an uphill battle. The campaign demonstrated its possibilities as an organizing tool but all it really did, due to the short time period and the limited human power, was show us that the hill we needed to climb existed.

3. Rejecting all reformist politics wholesale is ultra-leftism.

I briefly critiqued this argument, an argument that claimed we were being un-nuanced and ultra-leftist by rejecting bourgeois freedoms altogether, in my first post. And yet the argument was consistently raised––a fair argument because I've made it before and will probably make again in other contexts. Personally, I do not believe that this campaign is about some "drop-out-of-society-and-live-on-a-commune" approach to politics. At the Congress one of the speakers argued that "we should use bourgeois freedoms but not in a bourgeois manner"––this was the spirit behind the boycott.

But what does that mean exactly when we are demanding that the bourgeois freedom of electoral politics should be rejected? Simply that we do not think that, at this juncture of history and in this society, that it is even a bourgeois freedom that is worthwhile using in a non-bourgeois manner. Especially when every party is moving more to the right and, if you really start comparing the current NDP to the Liberals point-by-point, you will realize that there is no real difference between the two. Someone at the May Day rally today even argued with us that the NDP occupation of Afghanistan would be better because it would look significantly different––although he could not say how an occupation could be better, or how it would look significantly different, or why we should be arguing about what government had a better approach to neo-colonialism in the first place. Point being: if the NDP is now no different than the Liberals, and could probably comfortably merge as the Reform/Alliance did with the Conservatives years back, then should not all the leftists who are arguing that voting for the NDP is a "lesser evil" really, if they want to be realistic, start agitating for the Liberals? And yet they would never go that far because still, for some bizarre reason, people still imagine that the NDP is the party of the working-class. Never mind the fact that they have consistently demonstrated, whenever they have taken provincial power, very anti-worker policies.

The aforementioned New Socialist article, and the defensive comments by the authors, tries to make the exact same point: vote for the NDP because it is a vote for reform and that is worthwhile to pursue while we also pursue the business of revolution. That's all fine and good if the left was actually pursuing revolution, but are we doing that? Are we organizing around politics that appeal to the most disenfranchised and angry? And if the boycott is not the most worthwhile approach––and this is worth debating of course––then what approach should we suggest? But the only approach on the table seems to be: vote for the NDP and then march at some demo or other as we always have done.

What is entirely surreal about the New Socialist article is that one of its authors, Alan Sears (who, by the way, I respect), once wrote an article about how the demand for gay marriage deradicalized the demands of the queer movement. But I would argue that fighting for gay marriage, despite its limitations, could be an instance of using bourgeois freedoms in a non-bourgeois manner. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not see how one could severely critique the gay marriage movement for being bourgeois and commodified, and yet apparently refuse to make the same argument about the rite of voting. The latter, in my mind, does not in any way, unlike gay marriage (though limited like any reform), promote human self-determination.

I would go further and argue that I would fight for anyone discriminated against in this society to have the right to vote… and then I would also argue that they should boycott the bourgeois elections: I do not see this as a contradiction––in fact, I see this as utterly democratic. Moreover, I think this boycott speaks to the fact that a large sector of workers, who are undocumented and lack citizenship, can never vote, will never be given the right to vote because they will never be given citizenship, and should be organized against the entire cancerous system.

If anything, this manic and foreshortened campaign has caused a debate amongst the left while, at the same time, demonstrating untapped possibilities of organizing. In retrospect, I am inclined to argue that we should have foregone the debate with the established left altogether, ignored the rude and insulting attacks (I should not have written that fifth post in this series perhaps), and just spent all of our energy on the streets, day after day, talking with people. At the same time, however, I do think it is important to push this debate within the circles of the established left because the line drawing––not a line drawing intended to be elitist or sectarian but to put principles back on the table and, if anything, to produce thoughtful discussion––is necessary in a time where we consistently water down our politics and get mad at anyone that complains about the watering-down for not being a good sport.

In less than 48 hours this country will have a new government and, even this government because of some miracle happens to be the NDP, things will not change too much. Public services will still be cut, imperialist wars will still continue, and the people who will never vote because they cannot see a difference will still be evicted and beaten by the cops. And if there is a miraculous NDP victory, and we on the left expended so much energy arguing that the NDP somehow represented our interests, what are we going to say when we demonstrate against them? What are we going to tell those same people we told to vote for them when we suddenly appear on the streets in protest? The Obama movement south of the border was faced with the same problem: it killed entire sections of the left. Even if we cannot agree that the boycott campaign is the best strategy we have to at least, as those comrades whose critiques have been helpful and supportive have understood, recognize that there is no point in backing "the lesser evil" in even the most minuscule manner.

"Fuck the vote!" will be a main rallying cry for activists in a Kingston May 1 march. This is just one more sign that growing numbers are rejecting the parliamentary system altogether in the realization that real change is only possible when we organize on the streets!


For information about the upcoming event - as well as other boycott-related events in Ontario and Québec - please see the "Events" tab.

NDP: Part of the Imperialist System

Taken from the first edition of Partisan newspaper:

The New Democratic Party (NDP) promotes itself as the option for the left in Canada. But just like the Conservatives and Liberals, the NDP is steeped in imperialism, in which Canadian business and political elites exploit and impoverish already poor countries for the benefit of Canadian companies.

One of the most visible ways the NDP is pro-imperialist is its support for wars in the Middle East. Certainly no self-proclaimed leftwing parliamentary party is going to go so far as to advocate national wars, but the NDP goes to war none the less. When it does war -the NDP initially supported Canada's involvement in the US invasion of Afghanistan and currently supports the NATO invasion of Libya- it is framed as a humanitarian intervention, like a 'no-fly zone', or a human development initiative like 'aid' and 'rebuilding'.

On Libya, NDP leader Jack Layton said in late March that Canada should "draw a lesson from the war in Afghanistan and give parliamentarians a surveillance and oversight role." He neither challenges the imperialist motives of both wars, nor criticizes the conspicuous militarization of Canada.

The reason NATO countries including Canada are occupying Afghanistan is not to advance democracy but to secure access to the country's vast mineral resources and control pipelines that bring natural gas and oil from adjacent countries to the Arabian sea and Caspian sea basin. The US military expressed surprise in 2010, when it Afghanistan's untapped mineral wealth was estimated at $1 trillion, but the surprise was phony: geological surveys conducted in the 1970s and 1980s revealed Afghanistan was a gold mine (as well as a mine of several other minerals including copper, bauxite, lithium and uranium).

Well aware that an advanced military is required for ensuring cheap access to natural resource in foreign countries, the NDP supports Canada's increasing militarization. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives reported that Canadian military spending is 54% higher than it was before 2001. The NDP has promised not to cut military spending, but to keep it at the $26 billion proposed in the most recent Conservative budget. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ranks Canada the 6th largest military spender within NATO's 28 state membership, and 13th in the world. In Nova Scotia, the provincial NDP government contributes to this militarization by funding Lockheed Martin, the biggest military contractor in the world.

If we demand from our government social security from exploitative economic forces, how can we settle for a solution financed by the exploitation of foreign people? Do we not become the exploiters if our governments provide services that are paid by the conquest of other peoples and we do not fight for a solution that would put people before corporate growth?

In Canada, we may not see the suffering and devastation caused by imperialist wars. Instead we see only a trickle of migrants and refugees fleeing poverty and wars that are the direct result of policies and military intervention by imperialist powers. Fortunately for Layton, he has a solution for these victims of imperialism within Canada's borders: on April 6, he announced his party would fund 2,500 more cops.

Boycott des élections: le point de vue de la classe ouvrière

Article paru dans le premier numéro du journal Partisan:

La campagne que les supporters de ce journal mènent pour le boycott des élections rencontre un écho favorable en milieu ouvrier. De fait, tout porte à croire que plus de la moitié des travailleurs et des travailleuses n'iront pas voter le 2 mai prochain.

Ce phénomène, on l'observe immédiatement dans les circonscriptions à forte concentration prolétarienne, où le taux de participation est généralement inférieur à la moyenne nationale. Quand on tient compte du fait que des centaines de milliers de prolétaires, qui vivent et travaillent sur le territoire canadien, n'ont pas droit de vote parce que résidents permanents ou sans statut, l'abstention ouvrière dépasse largement les 50%.

Outre celles qui proviennent des partis bourgeois eux-mêmes, les réticences les plus fortes que l'on rencontre envers le boycott viennent de cette gauche qui espère encore que le système bourgeois puisse faire preuve de «compassion» et adoucir les horreurs dont il est pourtant responsable. Il faut dire que beaucoup de gens parmi cette faune (militants syndicaux, salariéEs de groupes communautaires, etc.), dont les intentions sont par ailleurs sans doute honnêtes - là n'est pas la question - sont eux-mêmes liés par mille et un fils à l'appareil d'État. Ce système, ils vont apparemment y croire encore toute leur vie...

Ces gens-là nous disent qu'il faut aller voter parce que sinon, on aura le gouvernement qu'on mérite et qu'il sera trop tard ensuite pour se plaindre de ses décisions. Mais depuis quand la légitimité de notre colère et de nos revendications dépend-elle de notre bulletin de vote? En fait, ce sont ceux qui participent au système électoral qui vont conférer une légitimité au prochain gouvernement. Qui donc sera élu le 2 mai prochain? Harper, vraisemblablement. Ignatieff, peut-être. L'un ou l'autre, c'est sûr.

Comment peut-on imaginer que le vainqueur appliquera un autre programme que celui de la grande bourgeoisie canadienne? Et de quoi auront donc l'air nos valeureux «démocrates de gauche» au lendemain de l'élection? Espérons qu'ils ne ressortiront pas leurs pancartes où c'est écrit «J'ai jamais voté pour ça» parce que de fait, ils auront voté pour ça: pour un gouvernement bourgeois qui pourra se réclamer d'un mandat populaire fort et légitime, élu avec à la complicité d'une gauche servile.

Certains nous disent que cette fois-ci, c'est différent, que Harper est plus dangereux que les autres et qu'il faut tout faire pour freiner la «montée de la droite». Le problème, c'est que le durcissement du pouvoir bourgeois auquel on assiste effectivement, qui par ailleurs n'est pas un phénomène strictement canadien (ça se passe aussi dans la plupart des pays capitalistes que l'on dit «avancés»), touche tous les partis et tout l'appareil politique dominant. Quand c'est rendu que le principal parti «de gauche», le NPD, vote en faveur du déploiement militaire canadien en Libye et promet l'embauche de 2 500 flics supplémentaires et le maintien des dépenses militaires à leur niveau actuel s'il est élu, on peut douter sérieusement de sa capacité à freiner la droite - si tant est qu'il en ait la volonté.

Les travailleurs et les travailleuses ont bien raison de se désintéresser du cirque électoral qui se déroule sans elles et eux. Boycotter les élections, c'est commencer à cesser de penser comme nos ennemis; c'est un premier geste de rupture, le début d'une réappropriation de notre identité comme prolétaires.

Our Voices Are Our Fists!

This message is from a supporter of the Boycott the Elections 2011 campaign in Central Ontario:

On May 2nd the capitalists will have their so-called election. We as Communists will never support such an obvious attempt at securing power for the wealthy ruling class. They produce mass amounts of propaganda about how we must vote in order to exercise our so-called democratic right. What we must do is resist everything that the ruling class tries to do. We must fight with out voices and our fists...

This system needs to be shattered with no mercy. In order to do this we must boycott this phony election. They want us to vote, we will vote with out feet and our fists; we will show them just how sick we are of all their shit. The time for talking is over, no longer can the working class support the mistakes of the wealthy. We must make them pay for all of their faults, for everything they have done to the working class in this country.

Instead of voting on May 2nd, march on May 1st! Our voices are our fists and we must make every fist we have a weapon. In this struggle we are vastly outnumbered, however we have a few things that the ruling class will never have and that is Pride, Honour and Anger... We cannot fail and we will not fail. Our goal is simple: The destruction of the ruling class and its system! On May 2nd don't prop up this system by voting, show it your frustration by voting with your fists!

Hans Pedersen

Nos poings sont nos voix!

Message reçu d'un supporter de la Campagne 2011 pour le boycott des élections du centre de l'Ontario:

Le 2 mai, les capitalistes tiendront leur prétendue élection. Comme communistes, nous n'appuierons jamais cette tentative évidente de renouveler le pouvoir de la richissime classe dominante. Les capitalistes nous assènent une propagande démesurée pour nous convaincre d'exercer notre soi-disant droit démocratique. Il faut résister à ces manœuvres. Nous devons nous battre avec nos voix et nos poings...

Il faut briser et détruire ce système injuste! Boycotter cette élection bidon, c'est un pas dans cette direction. Les capitalistes veulent que nous votions, mais nous allons voter avec nos pieds et nos poings; nous allons leur montrer à quel point on n'en peut plus de toute leur boulechite. Le temps des discussions est terminé, la classe ouvrière n'en peut plus de subir les erreurs des riches. Nous devons leur faire payer pour tout ce qu'ils nous ont fait subir, pour tout le mal qu'ils ont causé à la classe ouvrière de ce pays.

Au lieu de voter le 2 mai, nous allons marcher le 1er Mai! Nos poings sont nos voix, on doit les utiliser comme une arme. Dans la lutte âpre et certainement difficile qui nous oppose aux capitalistes, nous disposons d'un certain nombre d'atouts que la classe dirigeante n'aura jamais - la fierté, l'honneur et la colère... À terme, nous vaincrons. Notre objectif est simple: c'est la destruction de la classe dirigeante et de son système! Le 2 mai, n'apportez pas votre soutien au système avec votre bulletin de vote; exprimez votre frustration en votant avec vos poings!

Hans Pedersen

[EN] Other forces are campaigning for abstention
Common Cause in Ontario and “Union Communiste Libertaire” in Québec are officially campaigning for abstention in the May 2 federal election. They launched a common website (www.genuinechange.info) that includes some material explaining why they consider “genuine change can only come from ourselves.”

Meanwhile, Montréal “Reconstruction Communiste Canada” officially endorsed the 2011 Boycott Elections Campaign. These comrades are helping flyering and postering in the areas where they are active.

[FR] D’autres forces se rallient au boycott
Depuis quelques jours, l’Union communiste libertaire et son pendant ontarien Common Cause font officiellement campagne pour l’abstention en prévision de l’élection fédérale du 2 mai. Les deux groupes ont lancé un site Web conjoint (www.levraichangement.com) où ils expliquent que «le vrai changement ne peut venir que de nous-mêmes».

Entre-temps, un groupe montréalais appelé «Reconstruction communiste Canada» a annoncé son appui à la Campagne 2011 pour le boycott des élections et participe à la diffusion du matériel à divers endroits de la métropole.

Our comrades in Ottawa put together this powerful video in response to a Rick Mercer report that encouraged young people to vote in support of this whole, rotten system. Check it out!

RADIO INTERVIEW [English]

On Radio Basics in Toronto, Louise Jones and Joshua Moufawad-Paul were interviewed about the campaign.  Several members of the community called in and produced a thoughtful discussion.

Listen to the interview here.

Direct download available in the Materials section.

Don't Vote, Fight!

[English]

Originally posted on M-L-M Mayhem

by JMP [ENGLISH]

"Fighting" through the electoral process in this social context, and generally in the context of the imperialist centres of capitalism, is a rigged game and a waste of our time as leftists who speak of revolution on the one hand and then, when it comes to our activism, hide our politics by sublimating them in reformist organizations.  I know I've wasted time and energy in these types of coalitions, convinced that official trade union politics represent the beating heart of proletarian consciousness and willing to suspend my theoretical communism in order to work alongside social democratic labour activists.  This is the gap between theory and practice that was critiqued at the Second Canadian Revolutionary Congress I attended in December: we argue that capitalism cannot be defeated by bourgeois parliamentarianism, we understand why theoretically, and yet our activism often gravitates towards the very parliamentarianism we philosophically reject.

Therefore, the elections boycott is motivated by two central concerns and aims to cognize the distance between leftwing activists and the masses they claim to support: 1) leftwing activists who understand that revolution does not come from voting often waste their time trying to claim electoral space and concessions; 2) possibly 60% of the Canadian masses do not vote.  The point of the proposed boycott movement is to clarify the distance between these two concerns.  In my mind it represents what Alain Badiou calls a philosophical situation––that is, a "situation [that] involves the moment in which a choice proclaimed – a choice of existence, or a choice of thinking."  And the "proper task is to make the choice clear." (Badiou, Polemics, 4)  The event on March 19th that has started, at a micro-level, to stir up some controversy is designed to make our choices clear, to draw a line, to demonstrate not only the gap between theory and practice but also the gap that still exists between leftwing activists and the vast majority of the working and non-working poor.

Again, the event is not aimed at social democrats who already believe that change can only come through the electoral process and that our current system determines the parameters of reality.  Nor would any boycott movement be aimed at the population they represent: the liberal middle class, the concerned ex-hippies, the conscientious objectors.  Their position in this debate is already clear, they have never pretended to be anything but social democrats, and we know from the very beginning that they would be horrified by anything that insults their understanding of democracy where change can only come through voting in the most socially democratic and reformist party.  And yet there are many of us who claim to reject the philosophy of social democracy but still act according to socially democratic ideals––and we reject the possibility of a boycott movement for various reasons, some of which I will attempt to demystify below.

1.  While it is true that bourgeois democracy will not usher in the revolution, the masses aren't ready for anything but reforms so they need to vote for these reforms.

This is the main justification for working in social democratic and ultimately reformist coalitions/institutions for those who theoretically believe that reformism is not the same as revolution.  Since the possibility of revolution is set beyond the horizon of the foreseeable future, as if this can be predicted through a social-science crystal ball, then the best we can do is agitate for reforms by trying to vote in the most socially democratic party (in Canada this is the New Democratic Party [NDP]).  Then the masses, once they see how we have helped win them reforms, will be ready for revolution.  Or, at the very least, their lot in life will be better.

Except that the masses have already spoken by not voting, demonstrating that there is an implicit boycott already in affect.  So if the masses have spoken, and you claim to represent the masses concerns, it is insulting to say that they aren't ready for anything other than voting for reforms.  Clearly they are not willing to vote for reforms and to argue that this is because they are stupid or not even ready to vote is just rank pessimism.  They are not voting because voting does not communicate to their material existence and no party apparently represents their interests: we need to figure out what this means rather than waste our time, again and again, trying to get them to vote and then complaining that they are apathetic or dumb when they don't listen.  Besides, the social democratic parties have enough of their own resources and loyal followers to agitate for this on their own––so why do we waste time agitating with them when the hard left is strapped for resources as it is?

Moreover, if we waste all our time in reformist pursuits, how can we build a militant left movement that can actually challenge capitalism?  Why do we refuse to speak of a strong anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism?  Why do we say that we need an anti-capitalist organization and yet build nothing more than social democratic coalitions, secretly imagining that they will one day magically transform into revolutionary parties and organizations when "the masses are ready"?  So when will the masses be ready in a context where we are always fostering the ideology that they are not ready?

2.  Rosa Luxemburg argued that social reforms, though not an end goal, are necessary to support because they alleviate the suffering of the poor.  And Lenin once argued, in the case of England, that it was "ultra-leftism" to allow the reformist-electoral spaces to be claimed by liberals.

The problem is that when these arguments are made they are both made out of historical context.  Both Luxemburg and Lenin were speaking of social democratic parties that were far more radical than the social democratic parties of the North American context where it is difficult to even call the NDP (in Canada) "social democratic" anymore, and impossible to call the Democratic Party (in the US) "social democratic" even at its inception.  Luxemburg was speaking of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (where we get the in-leftist slur "social democrat"), which was still motivated by a defanged marxism, and Lenin was speaking of the Labour Party in Britain that, at that time, was filled with unionists who were arming themselves (and the Labour Party in England now is a far cry, all Tony Blair imperialism, from the Labour Party of Lenin's day).

Then there was the fact that Luxemburg was speaking, in her article, of building a revolutionary party that was not reformist––something we are not doing in our context––and her ultimate argument was that those who call themselves "revolutionaries" should not be wasting their time in reformist organizations.  It is also interesting to note that the voted-in Social Democratic Party of Germany was not able to stop the Nazi rise to power, even collaborating with the Freikorps to crush the Spartacist Uprising and have its leaders, Luxemburg included, murdered.  And again, the SDP was far more to the left than the supposedly "social democratic" parties in the North American context.

Furthermore, Lenin was actually proved wrong about the Labour Party.  As one of my good comrades never tires of reminding me, Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism: an infantile disorder," a piece that is often used to justify entryism, was probably one of Lenin's weakest pieces.  Not because he was wrong about some of the theoretical positions he argued but because the concrete tactics he supported in Britain––that were rejected by Sylvia Pankhurst––actually failed.  And yet this tract is still treated as dogma by some leftwing groups who would prefer to ignore everything Lenin wrote about "opportunism" and spend most of their time insulting everyone who does not want to be a social democrat as "ultra-left."

3.  We need to work hard to vote in a social democratic, or at least liberal, government because of the swing to the right and the rise of conservative parties.  Fascism is a real danger.

This argument seems reasonable on the surface but, concerned only with appearance, fails to even engage with essential questions about fascism.  Fascist movements are generally populist movements that begin outside of the electoral process by disaffected masses manipulated by a monolithic capitalism.  If and when they come to power through parliamentarianism this demonstrates two things: 1) the election is only the end point of something larger; 2) bourgeois parliamentarianism is often sympathetic to fascism.

Look at the rise of the Tea Party in the US, accompanied by open fascist policies, and the danger of fascism is clear.  Moreover, this is a danger that happened both in spite and because of leftists wasting their energy on social democratic pursuits (if you can even call it that in the American context).  The movement that cohered around Obama, raised against the weak fascism of Bush, did nothing but waste the energy of the left: capitalism is still being protected, imperialism is still alive and well, and in response to this election a fascist movement is growing.  And those who sublimated their energies and beliefs in the Obama election are proving incapable of combating this movement; their blunted revolutionary politics, their inability to communicate with the deep-seeded disaffection of the poor, neutralizing them in the face of contemporary fascism.  What would have happened, we need to rhetorically ask, if the US left had not wasted all of its time in getting a Democrat elected and instead concentrated on building a parallel movement?

Fascism lurks at the threshold of the bourgeois parliamentary process and we render ourselves incapable of dealing with this danger the more we hide ourselves within this process and deny that the threat is coming from those spaces in which we fail to organize.  And these spaces are not primarily the privileged spaces of unions because we live in a context where the majority of the most exploited labour is non-unionized, oft-times migrant, and subordinated to the threat of a massive reserve army of the poor and deportation.  This is not to say we should ignore union spaces, and the resources these spaces possess, but that we need to start thinking outside of the traditional "this-is-the-proletariat" box––a box that is often the box of the labour aristocracy.

And if the terrifying conservatisation of our society is a warning of the dawn of real fascism, then we need to ask ourselves why we have failed to prevent conservatism in the past with all of our voting power, all of our mobilization, all of our attempts to prevent these anti-human politicians from winning the ballot.  We keep arguing that we need to vote in some social democratic government to end the rise of the right and yet our arguments have been proved, time and time again, completely wrong.  In the US Obama's election is not preventing the right from gaining power, state by state, from gaining both popular and electoral support.  In Canada we keep getting the Harpers and Fords elected.  Then we blame the poor who do not vote for spoiling our social democratic fantasies, imagining that they are stupid rather than asking why they don't vote in the first place.

Meanwhile, imperialism, settler-colonialism, and capitalism continue.  So many of us lock ourselves in reformist and/or trade union contexts and complain that there is nothing powerful enough to challenge actually existing capitalism and yet do nothing to change this state of affairs.

Let us be clear: the electoral space in these centres of capitalism is a moribund vehicle for change and our participation in this space has done nothing to prevent enemy forces from growing.  Moreover, and this is very important, social democratic electoral parties continue to move to the right: conservatisation is not limited to the conservative parties but is currently part of the entire process of electoral politics.  And this despite every attempt on the part of a left that should know better to fight for social democratic spaces in parliament.

As the RCP Canada argued in 2004:

No election in the framework of bourgeois democracy will transform the army, the police and justice to put them at the service of the exploited.  We have to prepare for this confrontation, not with unarmed pro-bourgeois parties, which the State can easily ignore.  We must prepare by finally building a revolutionary party serving the oppressed that will not be afraid to say: the bourgeoisie will never abandon its power by itself!  The majority has to seize power by the force of its numbers and defend it by every means necessary!  Against elections, let's prepare the revolution!

Bourgeois democracy, the Parliamentary system and workers power

“Instead of worrying about bourgeois organs of power, we should be busy constructing our own proletarian organs of power.”

Read this extensive post from the Social Revolution Party, an Ottawa-based communist group.

Les étapes de la formation du parti unique de la bourgeoisie canadienne

Article ayant été publié quelques jours avant le déclenchement de l'actuelle élection fédérale, qui trace à grands traits les caractéristiques des trois grandes étapes qui ont marqué la formation par la bourgeoisie canadienne de son parti unique:

On saura dans quelques semaines si une élection fédérale aura lieu ce printemps. Si c’est le cas, on vous annonce dès maintenant que le parti unique de la grande bourgeoisie canadienne va reprendre le pouvoir! Ses deux ailes, le Parti libéral et le Parti conservateur sont, parmi tous les partis bourgeois d’Occident et du monde impérialiste, au nombre des cinq ou six partis, tout au plus, qui ont construit les liens les plus durables, qui ont assis leur longévité sur l’implantation dans les milieux capitalistes et la défense des intérêts communs à toute la bourgeoisie, parmi les plus solides que l’on puisse trouver à travers tous les parlements bourgeois.

Lire la version intégrale sur ledrapeaurouge.ca.

Des mots qui tranchent et qui ne véhiculent aucune illusion:
Boycottons les élections!

En politique, la langue des bourgeois est maintenant une langue vieillie, pétrifiée, qui n’a plus de sens, et que de moins en moins de travailleurs et de travailleuses écoutent avec respect et soumission. Le prolétariat a besoin plus que jamais de parler et d’agir par lui-même. Et en l’espèce, aujourd’hui, il est écœuré de voter pour le «parti unique» de la bourgeoisie.

Que ce «parti unique» soit bicéphale ou tricéphale, qu’il se compose d’un gros corps obèse et totalitaire libéralo-conservateur et de deux flancs: un flanc gauche et un flanc droit plus ou moins visible ou discret selon les époques et les circonstances, cela importe tout compte fait assez peu. Ce qui compte vraiment, c’est que les mêmes intérêts (ceux des capitalistes) règnent à la fois au gouvernement et dans l’opposition, si bien que quand la représentation parlementaire change d’une élection à l’autre (et elle doit changer pour que l’édifice tienne), la nature du Parlement, elle, reste la même.

La société bourgeoise actuelle cherche son souffle, cela est évident. Mais une chose est certaine, c’est qu’elle a beaucoup de peine à trouver ce souffle supplémentaire du côté de la démocratie. Son parlementarisme apparaît de plus en plus une œuvre du passé, déconsidéré dans le présent, et dépourvu de toute utilité pour l’avenir.

Les militantes et les militants d’aujourd’hui aspirent à renouveler la participation des pauvres et des exploitéEs à la transformation radicale de la société. C’est ce qu’on appelle la révolution. En boycottant les élections, ils et elles nous disent clairement deux choses. D’abord: qu’il n’y a pas de pauvres ni de travailleurs ou de travailleuses révolutionnaires dans les parlements, et qu’il est inutile de les y chercher. On y retrouve certes des bourgeois, des petits-bourgeois et des labour lieutenants, mais pas de pauvres ni de travailleurs ou travailleuses révolutionnaires.

Cela en soi est significatif. Mais plus significative encore est la deuxième chose qu’ils et elles nous disent, à savoir que les pauvres et les travailleurs et travailleuses révolutionnaires ne cherchent surtout pas à entrer au Parlement! Leur politique va plutôt dans le sens de le détruire et avec lui, de détruire les autres appareils de l’État bourgeois qui sont, considérés dans leur ensemble, les moyens de la domination de classe de la bourgeoisie sur les travailleurs et les travailleuses.

Lisez la version intégrale de cet article sur ledrapeaurouge.ca.