The link between reform and revolution is eminently dialectical: no revolution takes place ex nihilo. In the same way, no revolutionary transformation of society springs from a demand alone, however radical that demand may be. Sometimes, however, apparently simple demands carry within them the seeds of this social transformation — much more so, indeed, than the ostensibly radical demands of wannabe revolutionaries in search of a spotlight. In Quebec, the contrast between the student movement of 2012 and that of 2015 is a perfect illustration of this.
In the former case, we have a clear and precise demand: the freezing of tuition fees. In the latter, a demand at once more radical and more nebulous: no to austerity and “fuck everything.” In the former case, we have an organized and united movement — the result of years of negotiations and preparation. In the latter, a shallow and ill-conceived spontaneous uprising. Key demonstrations in 2012 were peaceful and garnered vastly more attendance than analogous ones three years later. One last point of comparison: in 2012, the movement was able to gain the support of the unions, while three years later, the students alienated organized labour by declaring a “strike” months before the strike of the public sector, which was then directly engaged in a struggle against the Couillard government’s austerity policy.
Indeed, beyond their form — a student strike — very few elements unite the two movements. In the end, the “reformist” movement of 2012 was more dangerous to the ruling class than the “radical” movement of 2015. This illustrates how social change does not come from slogans or direct actions, but rather from the ability to create broad unity and militancy.
The 2015 movement constructed itself in opposition to the 2012 movement, as though the latter had been a failure. In doing so, it paved the way for its own marginalization from the labour movement, its descent into sectarianism, and ultimately its collapse. These dynamics were particularly clear in the case of the Printemps 2015 committees, which mistook the student movement for a revolutionary movement, something it has never been.
Obviously, the 2012 struggle wasn’t perfect. But those who consider it a failure forget one thing: the student movement can’t bring about social transformation on its own. It must first constitute itself as an ally of the trade union movement, because only the latter is in a position to confront both the production and the realisation of surplus value.
More fundamentally, the problem in 2012 was neither a lack of radicalism, nor the lack of participation of students in technical sectors — who would rather benefit from joining the struggle in their unions once they have been trained — nor an absence of militancy in the trade union movement. What was missing is simple: the political extension of the struggle. Even the most “independent” unions end up falling in line for the cause of social democracy — a death sentence for any movement. Others bet on Quebec nationalism with little success, as the Marois government nominally cancelled the contested tuition hike but indexed the cost of education to inflation.
What conclusions should one draw from all this? The student movement has never been more subversive to the ruling class than when it was constituted as part of a long-prepared anti-monopoly alliance that brought together unions, student associations and the various democratic and popular movements around a political perspective independent of the ruling class. The fightback of 2015 was built precisely against this spirit of anti-monopolist unity, and the Printemps 2015 committees did everything in their power to isolate the student movement not only from the unions, but from its own decision-making bodies.
Today, at the dawn of a recession and in the context of ruling class attacks on workers, socio-economic issues are back at the heart of the struggle. Students must be prepared for this kind of decisive battle. This is where Young Communists must make an impact.