Introduction
By Richard
Fidler
I first became interested in the Quebec left when I emigrated from Toronto to Montréal in 1963 in order to continue my university education. My arrival in the metropolis of Quebec culture and politics coincided with the appearance of a new publication, Parti pris, a monthly magazine published by young supporters of independence, socialism and laïceté – a philosophy reflected in the substitution of secular state control over education and social services which until then had been monopolized by the Catholic church.
Parti pris was to play a major role in the debates that swept Quebec during the “Quiet Revolution” of the 1960s. A dominant theme of its collective authors, the partipristes, was the search for ways in build a revolutionary organization in alliance with the rising and radicalizing labour and nationalist movements.
As members of the Ligue socialiste ouvrière (LSO), a revolutionary Marxist organization I helped to found in 1964, we participated in the debates and initial attempts by the Parti pris team to build what came to be called the Mouvement de libération populaire (MLP).
Recent years have seen the publication in Quebec of books on the history of the left, with particular emphasis on the post-1960s. I recommend, for example, the Brève Histoire de la Gauche Politique au Québec, by François Saillant (écosociété, 2020). However, it says very little about Parti pris and its evolution. Another recent book, Un Pays en Commun: Socialisme et indépendance au Québec, by Eric Martin (écosociété, 2017), includes a brief chapter on Parti pris in its exploration of the dialectic of socialism and independentism in the history of the Quebec left.
The current issue of the journal Nouveaux Cahiers du socialisme, however, includes what I think is the first attempt to recount the history of Parti pris and its debates over revolutionary organization for contemporary readers. Published below is my translation, with the original notes supplemented by a few of my own (asterisked).
There is now an ample and growing repertoire online of Quebec publications of the Left, a valuable resource for scholars and activists. And a complete collection of issues of Parti pris is available here: https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/resultats.
The journal Parti pris and the question of revolutionary
organization
By
Alexis Lafleur-Payment*
*Doctoral
candidate in political philosophy and lecturer at the Université de Montréal,
member of the Archives révolutionnaires collective
In
the early 1960s, Quebec was in a state of flux. The government of Jean Lesage
launched a “Quiet Revolution” marked by profound reforms in the health and
education sectors, a separation of church and state, the nationalization of hydroelectric
power, and the creation of various government corporations. Nevertheless, a
segment of the youth remained dissatisfied with these changes, which they
considered too moderate. Many called for Quebec independence and radical social
policies, the two often being linked. Thus, in March 1963, Pierre Bourgault, a
leader of the Rassemblement pour l’indépendance nationale (RIN), declared: “Independence
in itself means nothing. Independence must be accompanied by social revolution.”[1]
The Front de libération du Québec (FLQ), an organization that advocated armed
action, made the same observation in its April 1963 manifesto: “Let us acquire
the vital political levers, take control of our economy, radically rehabilitate
our social structures; let us tear down the colonialist yoke, let us expel the
imperialists who live by exploiting Quebec workers. […] Only a total revolution
can have the necessary power to effect the vital changes that will be required
in an independent Quebec.”[2]
Despite
these declarations and the growing activism, there was little theoretical space
in which to reflect on the condition of Quebec and a strategy for reinventing
it. To address this need, a group of young writers, many of whom were still
students, created the journal Parti pris in the fall of 1963. Their
objective was both analytical and political, as they stated: “For us, analysis,
reflection, and discourse are only one aspect of action: we aim to describe our
society only in order to transform it.”[3]
The journal gave significant space to literature, which it saw as a
battleground for fighting alienation, asserting itself as a people, and
formulating an emancipatory project. This project was built around the concepts
of socialism, independence, and secularism. Furthermore, the journal focused on
past and present social conflicts, as well as on the political organizations
that could bring about revolution in Quebec. Thus, under the leadership of
Jean-Marc Piotte, the team co-founded the Mouvement de libération populaire
(MLP, 1965-1966), then joined the Parti socialiste du Québec (PSQ) in the
spring of 1966. These initiatives were short-lived and their failure
contributed to the decline of the journal, which disappeared in the summer of
1968. Yet, these experiences were important for the left and remain rich in
lessons, as we wish to show in the following pages.
The
first political analyses
From
its inception, the journal Parti pris made a stark observation: Quebec
was in a state of political, economic, and cultural alienation. The authors
emphasized that Ottawa held sovereign power, that American capital dominated
Quebec industries, and that Francophone culture was being reduced to folklore.
However, these problems were destined to disappear, they argued, citing the
growing acts of popular revolt. In this context, the journal’s team envisioned
the creation of an independent and socialist Quebec, capable of resisting
American imperialism and guaranteeing the flourishing of Francophone culture.
It asserted that its contribution to this project would be twofold: to
dismantle the dominant bourgeois ideology and to express “the revolution
becoming aware of itself as it unfolds.”[4]
Initially, the journal had no specific organizational ambitions, although it
hoped for a convergence of existing revolutionary groups. By using the metaphor
of childhood to characterize Quebec’s level of development, the partipristes
called for Quebec’s maturation and self-reliance, which first requires an adult
consciousness capable of stating its goals before implementing them. To achieve
this, it was necessary to shed the stifling weight of clerical ideology, as
well as the idealism that subsumes social classes to create the illusion of
equal opportunity. Pierre Maheu, the driving force behind the journal,
explained: “To be able to invent our positivity and our nature as a father, we
first had to embrace our nature as a son, our strength of negation and revolt.”[5]
During
its first year, the journal adopted an ambiguous position regarding left-wing
political parties, which it deemed insufficiently radical, while also judging
the FLQ to be lacking in popular support. It maintained a primarily critical
stance, although the importance of cultural issues was gradually complemented
by a reflection on active political movements. For example, the journal’s sixth
issue, in March 1964, was devoted to Quebec socialism. After denouncing
capitalist exploitation and Quebec’s colonial status, most authors agreed that
the situation was now revolutionary, as confirmed by social movements and their
repression. The journal was circumspect about electoral politics but
anticipated an exacerbation of social tensions, as well as a rising increase in
direct action. In this regard, the oscillation between description and
prescription is palpable. By comparing the province’s situation to that of
various colonized nations, the Parti pris team envisaged the need
to resort to violence to emancipate the Quebec people, as in Algeria or Cuba.
Paul Chamberland, a member of the editorial board, summarized: “The national
liberation struggle requires, for its complete realization, the expulsion of
the national bourgeoisie. It is only truly comprehensive […] if it becomes the
struggle of the people themselves, determined to destroy all the forms of
servitude that bind them.”[6]
The 1964-1965 Manifesto outlined
the journal’s program, coinciding with the establishment of the Club Parti
pris, intended to serve as its organizational arm. The editors distinguished
between two fronts of struggle: the fight for independence and the fight for
socialism. They believed that achieving sovereignty was a necessary condition
for a social revolution in Quebec. The Quebec national bourgeoisie and the
revolutionaries thus shared certain common interests until independence is
achieved, after which an unconditional struggle will pit them against each
other. This step-by- step approach broke with some of the journal’s previous
discourse and drew criticism from other radical publications, such as Révolution
québécoise (1964-1965).[7]
However, Parti pris asserted that “the real battle” will be the social
revolution, which must be organized immediately. To this end, the journal
proposed three tasks that would contribute to the emergence of a revolutionary
party: research, popular education, and the creation of political structures.
Research would focus on the situation in Quebec and revolutionary movements
worldwide. Education would center on developing class consciousness, while also
fostering closer ties between intellectuals and workers. Finally, the creation
of political structures would include establishing cells and training activists
to assume roles within the future party.
In
concrete terms, during the 1964-1965 academic year, the journal continued its
publication, which included research articles and more didactic pieces, offered
courses at its new premises (located at 2135 rue Bellechasse in Montréal), ran
a publishing house, and launched the Club Parti pris. The latter oversaw think
tanks scattered across several cities, which also engaged in political action
and represented, in a way, the skeleton of a potentially more formal
organization. The partipristes wanted to establish the unity of
revolutionaries in practice and, to this end, they wanted to focus on concrete
tasks before assuming a more professional character. Pierre Maheu emphasized
that it was necessary to “establish only functional structures, that is, to
create committees only to accomplish a specific task” and “always to choose
realistic objectives, and remember that one is only truly effective within
one’s own community.”[8]
Kitchen table meetings were organized to maintain connections with broader
sectors of society, to learn about the problems of the working classes, and to
disseminate progressive thought. In April 1965, the Club served as a stepping
stone for the launch of the Mouvement Parti pris,[9]
which itself merged with various groups during the summer, leading to the
creation of the Mouvement de libération populaire (MLP).
The
Mouvement de libération populaire
In
the spring of 1965, as the Mouvement de lilbération populaire was launched,
discussions began between the journal’s team and other groups regarding
coordination, or even a merger. Working meetings brought together, in addition
to the members of Parti pris, the journals Révolution québécoise and
Socialisme 65, as well as representatives from the Parti socialiste du
Québec, the Caucus de gauche, the Group d’action populaire (GAP), and the Ligue
socialiste ouvrière (LSO, a Trotskyist group). In the end, it was the members
of Parti pris and Révolution québécoise, followed by the GAP and
the LSO, who chose to found the Mouvement de libération populaire at the
beginning of the summer.[10]
Nevertheless, Parti pris’s leadership was undeniable; the magazine’s
offices, now located at 3774 rue Saint-Denis, also housed the MLP’s
headquarters, and the movement’s manifesto, published in the fall, was
co-signed by the MLP and Parti pris, which handled its publication. The
dissolution of Révolution québécoise also encouraged its former members
to become more actively involved in the MLP. Pierre Vallières became the
movement’s first—and only—paid staff member starting in September 1965. [11]
Vallières explained: “It is with this perspective of direct action that the Révolution
québécoise team joins forces with Parti pris, less to write for the
magazine than to act within the movement it has sparked.”[12]
The
August-September 1965 issue provided Parti pris and the MLP with the
opportunity to present their 1965-1966 Manifesto, the most comprehensive
programmatic document published by the periodical. The text begins by recalling
that Quebec is subjected to economic, political, and cultural domination by
English Canada and the United States; consequently, the Quebec nation must
become independent and socialist in order to emancipate itself. The journal
also emphasizes the antagonism between Quebec workers and the national
bourgeoisie that exploits them to consolidate its position. In fact, the
authors believe that unions are better tools in the hands of workers than
electoral parties beholden to the interests of the dominant classes. But
unionism alone will not suffice: the journal advocates a “national democratic
revolution led by the working classes.”[13]
The goal is to seize power and transform the system, taking into account
Quebec’s specific circumstances, and to establish democratic governance of
society, by and for the workers. In the short term, the MLP aims to fight for
the protection of Quebec culture and the repatriation of capital to Quebec, for
genuine access to education and healthcare, for tax reform, the
municipalization of urban land, as well as for wage indexation and the
elimination of unemployment. These demands are intended to galvanize the
popular movement and lay the groundwork for truly transformative action.
The
manifesto goes on to state that Quebec is in a “latent revolutionary situation”
due to popular discontent, the radicalization of the left, and a growing
political crisis. In this context, the MLP and Quebec progressives must foster
increasingly numerous and radical movements to weaken the state and create a
situation conducive to the establishment of socialism. “The MLP’s watchword for
the coming year is precisely this: organizing the vanguard to create the
revolutionary party, the instrument for seizing power.”[14]
Drawing inspiration from Lenin, the authors of the manifesto believe that all
forms of action (armed, clandestine, open, and parliamentary) can be
considered, depending on the circumstances. They also advocate a structured and
democratic party composed of professional activists.[15]
For the time being, this organization must be built through open struggle, in
terms of recruitment, education, and action. This is why the 150 to 200 members
of the MLP organize public meetings, courses, solidarity pickets, and
demonstrations, mainly in Montréal, Hull, Quebec City, and Chicoutimi.
International ties are also developed, as shown by the visit of Cheddi Jagan,
the socialist prime minister of British Guiana – overthrown in 1964 – who gave
a lecture in Montréal in September 1965 at the invitation of the MLP.[16]
Solidarity
with striking workers, for example at the LaGrenade shoe factory and the Port
of Montreal was particularly important as it allowed the MLP to connect with
militant sectors of the working class. A Centre d’études socialistes was
established jointly with the Parti socialiste du Québec, while the MLP launched
its own newsletter, Le Militant. Finally, an MLP chapter was formed at
the Université de Montréal, bringing together about forty people.[17]
On November 2, 1965, MLP members disrupted a Liberal Party of Canada election
meeting attended by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson.[18]
On December 11, they did it again, targeting the induction ceremony of the new
rector of the Université de Montréal, Roger Gaudry.[19]
Despite this activism, some disagreements arose, notably due to the attraction
of former members of Révolution québécoise to the Front de libération du
Québec (FLQ). Pierre Vallières made contact with the FLQ and wrote several
articles for its magazine, La Cognée. While a full-time member of the
MLP, he discreetly canvassed new members to gauge their interest in armed
struggle. In the winter of 1965-1966, Vallières and his comrade Charles Gagnon
decided to go underground and found their own FLQ network, which was to carry
out a series of attacks in the spring of 1966. Although they took a small
number of militants with them, their decision to “go into action” shook the
MLP, which could then appear insufficiently radical or determined.[20]
At
the beginning of 1966, members of the MLP questioned its effectiveness. A
former member who had joined the FLQ reflected in retrospect: “Sporadic, often improvised, and usually without
follow-up, the MLP’s actions did not seem to bring activists any closer to the
day when they would see a broad mobilization unfold among the population.”[21]
However, a majority of MLP activists still believed in open action, while some
felt it was necessary to engage with the unions in order to connect with the
working class, and most of those who favored violent action had joined the FLQ.
In this context, Jacques Trudel, the PSQ’s vice-president of propaganda, called
on MLP members to participate in the March 1966 congress of the Parti
socialiste du Québec with a view to possible unification of the two
organizations.[22]
In the end, the MLP agreed to disband in favour of the PSQ, hoping to unite the
left and make its actions more effective while overcoming its financial
problems and difficulties in reaching large segments of the working class. The
editorial board of the journal Parti pris, which had retained a key role
in the management of the MLP, announced the news in its April 1966 editorial.
The
Parti socialiste du Québec
The
Parti socialiste du Québec (PSQ) had been founded in Montréal [*] in November
1963, with trade unionist Michel Chartrand as its president. It emerged from a
split within the New Democratic Party of Quebec (NPD-Q), which was accused of
not recognizing the province’s right to self-determination. The new party
included several union leaders, such as Jean-Marie Bédard and Émile Boudreau,
as well as Marxist intellectuals like Jacques Dofny and Marcel Rioux. Despite
the PSQ’s desire for rapprochement, the Parti pris team thought
the organization was too moderate and criticized it for “its opposition to
secularism and its hesitation on the national question.”[23]
Two articles from March 1964 echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that the PSQ
had to adopt uncompromising positions if it wished to play the role of catalyst
for the revolutionary left. In its 1965-1966 Manifesto, the journal
argued that the PSQ was composed “primarily of intellectuals, the progressive
wing of the neo-bourgeoisie, who claim to represent the interests of workers
but fail to truly connect with them.”[24]
The first rapprochement between Parti pris and the PSQ occurred around
the Centre d’études socialistes, which they co-directed in the fall of 1965. In
the early months of 1966, several meetings were held to negotiate the journal’s
affiliation with the PSQ, and the decision to dissolve the MLP in favor of the
PSQ was confirmed at the latter’s congress, held on March 5-6, 1966.
The
Parti pris team had re-assessed its view, acknowledging that its initial
distrust was excessive and that the PSQ was not merely a club of
self-proclaimed intellectuals. The merger was justified by the need to reach a
broader segment of the population in order to provide a foundation for a future
revolutionary party, and the PSQ was “the only one capable of playing this role
of the party of Quebec workers,”[25]
particularly due to its trade union connection. Furthermore, the shared desire
to participate in the June 1966 provincial elections, less to seize power than
to carry out a large-scale propaganda campaign, encouraged the fusion.[26]
The assertion of “tendency rights”—that is, the possibility of forming
political groups within the party and defending specific positions as long as
they did not contradict the program—was also recognized as a way to encourage
internal debate. More importantly, the priority given to building closer ties
with workers was unanimously agreed, going beyond participation in elections or
the organization of high-profile actions to which the MLP was accustomed.
Finally, the right to Quebec independence was enshrined in the PSQ platform, a sine
qua non for the partipristes. On May 1, 1966, more than 150 members
of the unified party, which now numbered around 300, gathered in Montréal to
launch their election campaign. Henri Gagnon, a PSQ candidate, declared: “Our
socialism will be a truly Québécois flower, cultivated by our own workers.”[27]
The
provincial campaign was intended to popularize the idea of socialism and
consolidate the PSQ’s activism. It was conducted primarily on an ideological
basis, while grassroots activities were concentrated in the five ridings where
the PSQ fielded candidates (four in Montreal and one in Saguenay). These
activities included organizing meetings, putting up posters, distributing
leaflets, and canvassing door-to-door. On June 5, 1966, the PSQ candidates
garnered a total of 1,267 votes, well below the expectations of party members.[28]
The Parti pris team and, to a lesser extent, the PSQ leadership
were shaken. Despite their lack of electoral experience, expectations had been
high, and the significantly better results achieved by the RIN (which fielded
73 candidates and obtained over 129,000 votes) left a bitter taste. For the
time being, the Parti pris team went silent, publishing no issues
from June to August, while its September issue finally appeared late, on
October 10. During the same period, several members of the journal distanced
themselves from political activity, including Jean-Marc Piotte and Paul
Chamberland, who decided to move to Paris to pursue doctoral studies. The
departure of Piotte, the group’s main political organizer and vice-president of
the PSQ since the March 1966 fusion, confirmed the growing disconnect between
the journal and activism.
In
their first editorial following the June 1966 election, the team confirmed: “Parti
pris is now nothing more than a journal: in black and white, a theoretical
tool at the service of those who identify with each other in the struggle for
the advent of an independent, secular, and socialist Quebec.”[29]
The publication justified its withdrawal from political action by emphasizing
its diminished resources and stating that, if it wished to properly carry out
its theoretical work, it had no other choice but to dedicate itself to it
full-time. It specified that it would no longer issue practical directives and
that it was disaffiliating itself from all political groups, including the PSQ.
This choice was explained both by the need for the independence inherent in
research and by Parti pris’s “incompetence” in organizational terms.
This latter assessment seems to stem as much from self-criticism as from a
certain degree of disappointment. While the journal had always sought to
connect with the masses and link its reflection to action, in the fall of 1966
it refocused on purely intellectual work, since “the lack of a coherent
strategy and effective political action is directly proportional to the absence
of rigorous theoretical thinking.”[30]
Along the same lines, the journal announced its preference for developing a
comprehensive analytical framework rather than focusing on case studies as
before.[31]
For
its part, the PSQ presented a less negative portrayal of its electoral
experience, believing it had succeeded in raising awareness of socialist
ideology and consolidating its organization. Nevertheless, the leadership
acknowledged that the national question seemed to generate more interest than
the social question. In fact, the PSQ’s position, which formally accepted the
independence option while focusing its discourse on class struggle, may have
been detrimental. The distrust of elections among left-wing forces is another
factor that might explain the low vote for the PSQ, especially among young
people. Alfred Dubuc, an intellectual close to the PSQ, disputed the importance
of electoralism and advocated focusing on the politicization of workers, “which
is paramount so that the forces of social progress become the foundation of a
left with popular support.”[32]
In concrete terms, he called for intervention within the labor unions to move
them further to the left. Despite efforts in this direction, the PSQ was unable
to recover from the departure of the young and dynamic members of Parti pris,
or from its internal divisions. It remained torn over the Quebec national
question and the more or less real opposition between participating in
elections, popular education work, and activism. In the end, the PSQ disbanded
early in 1968. [**]
The
final years
After
a period of depression, the Parti pris team resumed its
intellectual work in the fall of 1966. Although it no longer wished to
participate directly in social struggles, it continued its reflection on the
state of Quebec and the strategic options available to the left. Like the PSQ,
the journal advocated closer ties with the labour movement, impressed by the
movement’s politicization, particularly within the Confederation of National
Trade Unions (CSN). Indeed, the moral report of its president, Marcel Pepin, in
October 1966, entitled Une société bâtie pour l’homme, presented a
genuine socialist shift.[33]
At the same time, the partipristes viewed with suspicion those who
advocated armed struggle in Quebec, especially after the dismantling of the FLQ
network led by Vallières and Gagnon in the fall of 1966. The impasse of this
strategy seemed to them to be confirmed by the stagnation of the Latin American
guerrilla movements.[34]
Finally, the journal’s last years provided an opportunity to emphasize, more
than ever, Quebec independence, with the conviction that it was necessary to
generate public interest in a comprehensive emancipatory project. The
step-by-step approach of Parti pris was reaffirmed: “Socialism cannot be
achieved in a Quebec that is not first independent. [...] We no longer have any
doubt that independence is a prior necessity for Quebec.”[35]
The
journal generally adopted the thesis that Quebec workers constitute an “ethnic
class,” that is, a distinct group that suffers both economic exploitation and
cultural oppression based on its identity. This thesis breaks with the Marxist
approach, which posits that the fundamental contradiction in capitalism pits
the bourgeoisie against the workers, despite varying degrees of national
oppression. Thus, in addition to its interest in the labour movement, the
journal took a more favourable view of the RIN, which uncompromisingly
championed the independence project. In February 1967, a major symposium held
at the Université de Montréal brought together members of the journal Parti
pris and the RIN, leaders of the CSN, and the Communist historian Stanley
Ryerson – who was very
sensitive to the Quebec national question – and various
academics to discuss “Quebec socialism.” In the following months, the journal
supported the formation of an inter-union committee to coordinate the actions
of the different unions and propose a common strategy. This strategy was
intended to aim “towards control of the company, wherever currently possible,
through self-management models that, in certain sectors, would foreshadow the
face of the future society.”[36]
In
the summer of 1967, Parti pris still called for a united left, but
without actively participating in such a process. In reality, it increasingly
resembled a news magazine, with a particular focus on geopolitics,
parliamentary debates, the trade union movement, and cultural issues. Less
dedicated to revolutionary organizing than in its early days, the journal even
ended up offering its support to René Lévesque’s Mouvement
souveraineté-association (MSA), a group that was neither socialist nor
pro-independence.[37]
This decision shocked many readers who preferred to become involved in more
radical movements, notably the Front de libération populaire (FLP, 1968-1970).
In this context of waning momentum and a loss of direction, the journal ceased
publication permanently in the summer of 1968.[38] However,
for five years, Parti pris had played a decisive role for the
revolutionary left in Quebec, first by widely disseminating the strategic
horizon of “independence and socialism”; then by participating in the
consolidation of the radical left and in the formation of an entire generation
of activists; finally, by working towards the politicization of the trade union
movement.
Indeed,
the experience of Parti pris and its relationship to revolutionary
organization influenced the left in the 1970s, while also presenting certain
ideas that can still resonate with us today. The partipristes were quick
to understood that their theoretical reflections would gain in accuracy if
tested in practice, which is why they chose to become involved in active
politics. Avoiding the pitfall of adventurism, they attempted to build a
structured political movement capable of influencing workers. The MLP, without
achieving its ambitious goals, succeeded in establishing links with various
groups of strikers and gaining a foothold in the taxi sector. Its merger with
the PSQ in March 1966 was a wise decision to deepen its ties with the labour
movement. Unfortunately, it seems that the Parti pris team, like
the rest of the PSQ, placed too many hopes on the June 1966 election, leading
to predictable disappointment and disaffection within their ranks.
Subsequently, the team recognized the value of working within the
unions, which bring together and organize large sectors of the working class.
They worked to politicize the union movement and to coordinate among the
various federations. The importance for revolutionaries of intervening directly
in workplaces and within unions remained the best path opened by the journal Parti
pris, taken up by Marxist-Leninists in the 1970s, and continues to prove
relevant.
[2] “Message du FLQ à la nation,” April
16, 1963, in Robert Comeau, Daniel Cooper and Pierre Vallières (eds.), FLQ:
un projet révolutionnaire. Lettres et
écrits felquistes (1963-1982), Montréal, VLB éditeur, 1990, pp. 16-17.
[3] “Présentation,” Parti pris,
no. 1, octobre 1963, p. 2.
[4] Ibid., p. 4.
[5] Pierre Maheu, “De la révolte à la revolution,” Parti
pris, no 1, octobre 1963, p. 14.
[6] Paul Chamberland, De la damnation à la liberté”, Parti
pris, nos 9-10-11, été 1964, p. 86-87.
[7] See for example Jean Rochefort, “Aux
camarades de Parti pris,” Révolution québécoise no 3,
novembre 1964, pp. 12-16.
[8] Pierre Maheu, “Perspectives d’action,” Parti pris,
vol. 2, no 3, novembre 1964, p. 15.
[9] The
executive committee of the Mouvement Parti pris included Jean-Marc Piotte,
general secretary, as well as Léandre Bergeron, Mario Dumais, Andrée Ferretti
and Ludger Mercier. See Parti pris, vol. 2, no. 8, avril
1965, p. 46.
[10] Despite
their involvement in the MLP, the journal Parti pris and the Ligue
socialiste ouvrière chose to maintain their own existence until their
respective dissolution in 1968 and 1977. [***] See Jean-Philippe Warren, “Revue, club, mouvement,
parti, cercle. L’histoire du Mouvement de libération populaire,” in Gilles
Dupuis, Karim Larose, Frédéric Rondeau, and Robert Schwartzwald (eds.), Avec
ou sans Parti pris. Le legs d’une revue, Montréal, Nota
Bene, 2018, pp. 296–297.
[11] Daniel Samson-Legault, Dissident.
Pierre Vallières (1938-1998). Au-delà
de Nègres blancs d’Amérique, Montréal, Québec Amérique, 2018, pp. 115-117.
[12] Pierre Vallières, “Pour l’union de la gauche,” Parti
pris, vol. 2, nos 10-11, juin-juillet 1965,
p. 103.
[13] “Manifeste 1965-1966,” Parti pris,
vol. 3, nos 1-2, août-septembre 1965, p. 23.
[14] Ibid., p. 34.
[15]
These are the principles of democratic centralism. In this regard, see Vladimir
Lenin, “Freedom to Criticise and Unity of Action,” May 1906, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/may/20c.htm.
[16] “La Guyane britannique: une autre
victime du colonialism,” Parti pris, vol. 3, nos 3-4,
octobre-novembre 1965, pp. 77-79.
[17] Guy Kosak, “La section universitaire du MLP,” Parti
pris, vol. 3, no 6, janvier 1966, pp. 44-46.
[18] Réal Pelletier, “Le film des manifestations,” Le
Devoir, 3 novembre 1965, pp. 1-2.
[19] “La manifestation des protestataires
dégénère en bagarre,” Le Devoir, 13 décembre 1965, p. 3.
[20] On the Vallières-Gagnon network, see Fournier, FLQ,
2020, op. cit., pp. 83-101.
[21] Marcel Faulkner, FLQ. Histoire d’un engagement,
Montréal, Fides, 2020, p. 76.
[22] Jacques Trudel, “Le PSQ et l’unité de la gauche,” Parti
pris, vol. 3, no 7, février 1966, p. 52-55.
[23]Jean-Marc Piotte, “Parti pris, le RIN et la revolution,”
Parti pris, no 3, décembre 1963, p. 4.
[24] “Manifeste 1965-1966,” Parti pris,
vol. 3, nos 1-2, août-septembre 1965, p. 19.
[25] Pierre Maheu, “Pour un parti des travailleurs
québécois,” Parti pris, vol. 3, no 9, avril 1966,
p. 4.
[26]
The electoral prospect was all the more attractive as the New Democratic Party
(NDP) obtained 12% of the votes in Quebec during the federal elections of
November 1965, a score considered promising by left-wing activists.
[27] Guy Ferland, “Notre socialisme sera une fleur bien Québécoise,”
Le Devoir, 2 mai 1966, p. 2.
[28] Roch Denis, Luttes de classes et question
nationale au Québec (1948-1968), Montréal, Presses socialistes
internationales, 1979, p. 496.
[29] Paul Chamberland, “Exigences théoriques d’un combat
politique,” Parti pris, vol. 4, no 1,
septembre-octobre 1966, p. 4.
[30] Ibid., p. 7.
[31]
This theoretical refocusing is explicitly based on Louis Althusser, Pour
Marx, Paris, Maspero, 1965.
[32] Alfred Dubuc, “Le vote du 5 juin: une
revendication sociale,” Socialisme 66, nos 9-10,
octobre-décembre 1966, p. 18.
[33] Marcel Pepin, “Une société bâtie pour l’homme,”
octobre 1966, dans Le nécessaire combat syndical, Montréal, ACFAS, 1987,
pp. 15-57.
[34] Gabriel Gagnon, “Les leçons de l’Amérique latine,” Parti
pris, vol. 4, nos 3-4, novembre-décembre 1966, pp. 103-107.
The
author, despite his name, was unrelated to the FLQ member Charles Gagnon.
[35] “L’indépendance au plus vite!,” Parti
pris, vol. 4, nos 5-6, janvier-février 1967, pp. 2-3.
[36] Gabriel Gagnon, “Les voies de l’autogestion,” Parti
pris, vol. 4, nos 7-8, mars-avril 1967,
p. 71.
[37] “Parti pris, le RIN et le MSA,” Parti
pris, vol. 5, no 7, avril 1968, p. 6.
[38]
The publishing house Parti pris, for its part, continued its activities until
1984.
“After the heart-breaking election of 1966, there was no longer any determination to continue. Discussions were held with the Quebec branch of the federal NDP and its president, Robert Cliche, with a view to at least help each other out, but the circumstances were not conducive to anything but fine words. In early 1967, the party leadership tried to convene a congress to reform the structures, but a scant few dozen persons showed up. They were unable to resolve the prickly problem of finances, which reflected the lack of attraction of the party. By the end of the year, it had only 58 members. When its dissolution was announced in 1968, the same cleavages in the socialist family were still there: between nationalists and federalists, between independentist nationalists and those who still hoped to refound Canada, and in a form that was likewise a generational fracture between ‘moderates’ and ‘radicals’.” https://www.cahiersdusocialisme.org/le-parti-socialiste-du-quebec-et-la-question-nationale/. Cited in François Saillant, op. cit.
[***] In 1977 the LSO merged with the Groupe marxiste révolutionnaire, the League for Socialist Action and Revolutionary Marxist Group, to form the Ligue ouvrière révolutionnaire/Revolutionary Workers League. The LOR/RWL declined and disappeared in the 1980s.
A general comment: Readers may have noted that the very important issue of feminism was not at the time one of the fundamental themes of Parti pris. As Jacques Pelletier notes, with the exception of Andrée Ferretti and Thérèse Dumouchel, women were “busy with managerial and secretarial tasks [and] were almost absent from the editorial staff.” Pelletier reports that only 20 articles out of 600 were written by women, and “none was specifically addressed to the issue of women’s oppression. It must be acknowledged of course that at the time militant feminism based on the critique of the patriarchy, hardly existed. […] It was at the very end of the 1960s, after the disappearance of Parti pris, that radical feminism, coming from the United States, took root and became a major movement that could no longer be ignored.” Jacques Pelletier, Parti pris, Une anthologie (Montréal, Lux, 2013). Cited in Eric Martin, op. cit., p. 246.
No comments:
Post a Comment