This paper examines the ideological transformations within Franco-Ontarian youth movements from 1936 to 1970 through a Marxist lens. Using Antonio Gramsci’s theories of cultural hegemony and organic intellectuals as well as Nicos Poulantzas’ theories of the new petty bourgeoisie and class alliances this paper will argue that within the Franco-Ontarian youth movement, there existed a struggle between what Poulantzas calls the “new petty bourgeoisie” and a working class to determine the ideological basis for their collective action. This struggle saw a first wave wherein a “new petty bourgeoisie” affirmed a hegemony over the ideological direction of the broader youth movement, asserting that to fight and advocate for Franco-Ontarian struggles, youth organizations must focus their efforts on expanding the role of Franco-Ontarians within the existing societal structures. The class antagonisms become clear during a second wave where Franco-Ontarian working class interests begin to take the forefront of the ideological direction of the broader youth movement, highlighting the systemic injustices that exist within the current social order, and focusing the collective action of young Franco-Ontarians on the creation of dual-power institutions and demonstrating a movement of counter-hegemony detached from the interests of the new petty bourgeoisie. Finally, by 1970, these class antagonisms culminate in two rival ideological directions. The first, rooted in a working-class critique of ingrained economic injustice, results in a class alliance with progressive factions of the new petty bourgeoisie. The second remains a purely petty-bourgeois push for institutional reform within the existing system.. This Marxist analysis of the ideological transformations within the Franco-Ontarian youth movements provides a crucial understanding of the unique class-based struggles that occur within broader social movements and displays how a Marxist analysis of Franco-Ontarian history is crucial in understanding how material conditions come to form the basis for ideological change.
To begin, the theoretical foundations for the creation of the new petty bourgeoisie hegemony within the Franco-Ontarian youth movement must be explained to understand the motivations of the different class dynamics at play. Gramsci’s theory of hegemony argues that the ruling class of a society uses not only force to suppress the subordinate class, but also through a coercive force based on the hegemony of a dominant conception of reality, conceived by the ruling class, which influences the thoughts and behaviour of the subordinate class.1 Gramsci contends that hegemony is acquired through the ways that the institutions of civil society, such as Churches, schools, unions, private organizations, etc., permeate the cognitive understandings that humans have of the world around them and thus how they understand and react to social reality.2 Gramsci would argue that for a mass movement to truly be effective, its leadership must be made up of organic intellectuals, those who have lived among the oppressed and understands the issues facing the proletariat because they have first hand experience.3 Expanding upon the Gramscian definition of class and hegemony, Nicos Poulantzas explains the emergence of the new petty bourgeoisie as a distinct class over the course of the 20th century through the increased professionalization of western civil society. Poulantzas explains how capitalism, in its ever changing nature, produced the conditions for the development of a new class made up of “non-productive wage-labourers” – non-productive meaning labour that does not produce surplus-value – who exercise a distributed authority and ideological domination over the working class, such as administrative and professional personnel in civil services as well as in the expanded bureaucracy of most western states.4 It is important to identify the distinct class-differences and class-interests between the middle-level salaried workers and the working class because this distinction will help to identify the fractions within the Franco-Ontarian youth movement.
As will be demonstrated, the early leaders within the broader youth movement are made up of university students, journalists, and future professionals, all of which are archetypes of the new petty bourgeoisie as Poulantzas explains. The position of these leaders in society is dependent on salaried work within the existing societal structures, such as the Church, education and civil service, thus predisposing them to concern themselves with solutions and actions that seek to expand Franco-Ontarian influence within the existing structures because it is these structures in which they are employed. What will manifest are ideological leadership positions within the Franco-Ontarian youth movement held by Gramscian “traditional intellectuals” that propose top-down solutions to Franco-Ontarian struggles and top-down leadership methods within the youth organizations, indicative of their new petty-bourgeois class status and their inexperience in organically connecting with the experience of the Franco-Ontarian masses.
Jeanine Garneau’s 1936 column titled, “ Ce qu’elle doit être,” presents a clear synthesis between a Catholic faith and the idea that self-emancipation should occur within the existing sociopolitical order. We see in Garneau’s writing that in defending the modernity of the jiciste, she argues that the role of a young catholic woman is to, “communiqer aux autres ce Dieu qu’elle aime, car la charité peut seule saiver le monde du désarroi.”1 Garneau asserts that the role of young women in society should be to act as conduits for the teachings of Catholicism and of the word of God, bringing it into the forefront of society and their social lives. This demonstrates an ideology of bringing what Garneau sees as “charité” or in other words the teachings of God into existing societal structures. Garneau, and the broader JICF movement she represents, thus views the agency of Franco-Ontarian youth from a top-down perspective of authority. The agency of the social movement comes not from the young women themselves, but from the teachings of the Catholic religion which is passed along in a top-down manner to the members of the JICF who then descend into society to spread charity. This ideology demonstrates a desire to reinforce the status quo but with the insertion of Catholic teachings and an expanded role of women. The JICF’s focus regarding the role of young catholic woman in the modern world is their active participation within the confines of the current social order to spread the word of God and catholic teachings. This goes hand in hand with a petty-bourgeois perspective on the world which is focused on filling spaces within the current social order, and the background of the JICF as an organization for middle-class young women reinforces the petty-bourgeoisie class-interests as Garneau is attempting to push the confines of the professional and university-based workplaces to include women. Garneau therefore represents what will become a recurring theme among the following sources, that of a class of new petty-bourgeois serving as the intellectual and ideological leaders of the Franco-Ontarian youth movement, aligning perfectly with what Gramsci theorized as the “traditional” intellectuals who, while making up what Poulantzas sees as the new petty bourgeoisie managerial class of modern capitalist economies, do not necessarily hold a ruling class worldview, but often compromise with it due to their financial and institutional pressures to conform with the status quo.6
Finally, by analyzing the intersectionality between communism and the struggle for liberty and freedom, Soren Mau’s definition of communism can be seen as the logical progression from De Gouges’ Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen and Mill’s On Liberty. In De Gouges’ Declaration, she argues that the emancipation of women from the domination of men requires the destruction of the prevailing institutional inequalities in order to be free from oppression. De Gouges stresses this point in her 16th article wherein she explains that a society that does not guarantee the rights of all members within it, its constitution is invalid because the majority of society must take part in its creation (1791/2016, p. 51). This democratic principle fits impeccably within Mau’s framework De Gouges identifies that without the masses’ participation in political decisions, structural inequalities and the disrespect of rights will necessarily persist. This also echoes the themes presented by Marx and Engels, which form the basis for Soren Mau’s communism, as she addresses the need for the whole of society to have agency and self-determination over their own livelihoods in order to protect their inalienable rights, which goes hand in hand with the notion of class antagonisms between the few bourgeoisie and many proletariat and the call for the emancipation of class exploitation in order to create a less unequal society in the Communist Manifesto.
Mill’s On Liberty continues to fit within Mau’s communist framework. Mill’s harm principle can be applied very congruently with the emancipatory potential of communism as explained by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Weber and further Mau. By arguing that a person should have the liberty to do anything they please, except to inflict harm upon others, Mill is in a position not far from the idea espoused by Mau’s communism of democratic control over the parts of the human experience that are shared by members of a society. Mill explains that the infringing upon the rights of others and by doing harm against them is a morally reprehensible action because it strips the victim of their duty to themselves of self-respect and self-development (1859/2008, p. 87). Thus, with this understanding of the harm principle, does communism not fit within its confines? If communism is to be understood as the increase of democratic control over the aspects of human life which are shared by a community, this goes hand in hand with the idea of not infringing upon an individual’s right to self-determination because it replaces private control, which inherently harms through exploitation, with democratic control, which requires the collective consent of all. Following this, it can be argued that capitalism breaks the harm principle because it removes the inalienable right of a person’s agency over their own development as a human through the exploitation of labour as explained by Marx and Engels (1848/1978). Therefore, in the arguments for human liberation from oppression presented by De Gouges and Mill, Mau’s communism proves to be an encompassing movement for the progression towards a society in which humans are able to experience the most democracy and freedom.
The inherent contradictions of capitalism have produced the polycrisis, marking a fundamentally flawed system. These crises are not temporary failures, but signs of a dead end requiring an alternative. This paper has argued that Soren Mau’s definition of communism – as the effort to establish institutions that maximize individual freedoms through democratic control of the collective aspects of humanity – is not only a viable alternative, but one that is necessary. Through Marx and Lenin, it has been demonstrated how the inherent structure of capitalism acts against genuine democracy and equality through the exploitation of labour and centralization of power in few hands. Through Marx, Engels, and a nuanced reading of Weber, this paper has demonstrated communism’s emancipatory potential to create a society that prioritizes the democratization of the human experience rather than oppressive bureaucratic control. Finally, in placing this vision in dialogue with De Gouges and Mill, communism can be seen as the logical continuation and culmination of the historical struggle for liberty. The choice, therefore, is not between capitalism and totalitarianism, but between a failing system that produces crisis and a democratic, collective control over the shared human existence. Communism, as defined by Mau, is thus not rooted in a utopian fantasy, but is the practical alternative needed to solve the crises inherent to our current system.
ADELFNO, « Manifeste », [février 1964], 2 p., Archives de l’Université de Sudbury, Fonds Collège du Sacré-Cœur, boîte 33 : « Association d’étudiants », dossier : « ADELFNO 1964-1966 ».
AJFO, « Le Canadien français dans son pays », 22 octobre 1955, 3 p., CRCCF, FAJFO, C9/2/5.
Barrette, Estelle, « La jeune fille à l’Université », La Rotonde, 15 décembre 1953, p.8.
Marx, K. (1978). Crisis Theory. In R. C. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader (pp. 443-465). W. W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1863).
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1978). Manifesto of the Communist Party. In R. C. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader (pp. 469-500). W. W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1848).
Mau, S. (2023, July 18). Communism is Freedom. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/en-ca/blogs/news/communism-is-freedom.
Mill, J. S. (2008). On Liberty. In J. Gray (Ed.), On Liberty and Other Essays (pp. 1-128). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1859).
Weber, M. (with Dickie-Clark, H. F.). (1967). Socialism. Durban. (Original work published in 1918).