uburoi at panix.com
Sun Oct 22 13:27:22 MDT 1995
As Luxemburg pointed out, movements like this, however
"anti-imperialist" or "progressive," inevitably turn out to be
mini-imperialisms of their own. Canada may be subordinate to American
imperialism, but it too is an imperialist country, and if Quebec breaks
away, then it steps on workers and native peoples. I doubt very much that
the C.I.A. is losing any sleep over the possibility of "instability"
resulting from Quebec separatism.
I have friends in Quebec who have written some good stuff about
this. They can be contacted at Demolition Derby, C.P. 1554, Succ. B,
Montreal, PQ H3B 3L2 CANADA. Their material is available in French as
well as English.
Concerning the struggles of native peoples: how does this fit
into a marxist analysis or strategy? The Mohawks have the potential to
create big problems for capital and the state on both sides of the
border, in New York as well as Quebec. But theirs is not a working-class
movement. Nor does it fit the model of "petit-bourgeois nationalism" with
a Louis Farrakhan at the helm. Demands for sovereignty by Indians seem to
be communitarian rather than class-based; indeed, they could call into
question not just capitalism but civilization itself (see, once again,
the "Ethnological Notebooks").
If Karl Marx were alive today, he would most definitely be on the
side of the Iroquois.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism