Special Guest, John Clarke joins Host Jessa McLean to give a proper (hostile) send off to Brian Mulroney, Canada's Prime Minister from 1984 to 1993.

Frustrated by the Parliamentarian/respectability politics that saw the leader of the workers' party give a glowing tribute to a man that was a sworn enemy of the working class, they go through the true 'legacy' of the man who ushered in an unchecked era of heightened exploitation.

Throughout the episode the audience is also given a crash course in exactly what neoliberalism is and why its entrenchment in Canadian politics is nothing to honour.

Here is our previous episode with John Clarke, Making Mass Actions Count. December 2022.

________

All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support us: Patreon

Follow us on Instagram

Resources:

• Follow John Clarke on Twitter (X)
• CBC: Mulroney Tried to Cover Up Cash Payments
• Did Mulroney really ‘lead the fight’ against apartheid? – Canadian Dimension

Greetings friends. My name is Jess McLean and I'm here to provide you with some blueprints

of disruption. This weekly podcast is dedicated to amplifying the work of activists, examining

power structures and sharing the success stories from the grassroots. Through these discussions,

we hope to provide folks with the tools and the inspiration they need to start to dismantle

capitalism, decolonize our spaces and bring about the political revolution that we know

we need. Not a bit of good, not a bit. I'd put a stick through her heart and garlet around

her neck to make sure she never come back. Isn't that a pretty horrible thing to say when her

funeral's going on right now? Too bad, too bad. Welcome back, John. In case folks missed your

last episode, can you reintroduce yourself to our audience? Yeah, I'm John Clark. I was a

long time organizer with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty for some 28 years, actually.

I'm currently hold the position of Packer visitor in social justice at York University. Although

with the strike going on, there's going to be some issues there as well. And that's basically

my background, long time anti poverty activist and an organizer. I called you on today because

you were actually the first person that popped to my mind when I wanted to hash about the

death of Brian Mulrooney. Yeah, I have had a little time to get over the grief. So I'll

be okay. I didn't think he needed much space for that. I kind of... When he died, the other

thing that came to my mind was that video clip of an old woman under an umbrella being asked

about Thatcher's death. And I... Don't be surprised if that actually ends up the intro to this

episode, because not only did it validate the ability to speak ill of the dead, because we'll

do that and justify that, but... It was also a funny clip to watch. And normally I think

people try to be a little bit more reserved about their criticisms. But I think when you

have figures like Mulrooney, there really is no space afforded to these folks in terms of

glorifying their reigns. Even the most progressive articles I've read still give him a lot of

room to appear as a great statesman. So I think he's getting his dues all around. We're not

gonna really worry about that here. This will be a heavy critique of Mulrooney, but also

of neoliberalism. So John's also gonna help us unpack neoliberalism because we use that

term a lot on the show to describe the politics of the day. We even call the NDP neoliberals.

And I'm hoping folks will have a better understanding of just what we mean by that when we finish

this episode and why Mulrooney was pivotal here in Canada. and his comrades in the UK and the

United States. So before I started recording, I asked John, what do you want to talk about?

And he went right to the entrenchment of neoliberalism. Why is that the most pivotal thing about Mulrooney

for you? Well, I think that Mulrooney came in at a time when you had seen the very sharp

attacks that had been led by people like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and of course,

not to forget their chum in Chile, Augusto Pinochet, who had sought to go about implementing what

we'll define in a minute, but the neoliberal agenda, which we can just in shorthand at the

moment call a period of greatly intensified exploitation. And so Mulroney made, I think,

distinct contributions to that, in some ways that are a little complicated, but really quite

decisive. The whole idea, of course, of the agenda is to substantially reduce the role

of the state in social provision. And Mulroney made enormous contributions to that with his

cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, further assorts on unemployment insurance, a whole series of

social spending measures. I would have to acknowledge, however, that he was a little more stealthy

than Reagan and Thatcher in that regard. In fact, I remember at the time the term. austerity

by stealth was being banded around. So he was a little more cautious and a little more incremental

on that front than the real neoliberal dragons. Especially if you contrast that to the rhetoric

Thatcher and Reagan used outwardly, the phrases most famously coined by that, you know, there

is no society and pulling folks up by their bootstraps. I mean, it was really overt that

kind of hatred of the social safety nets. Yes. I mean, I would say that Reagan was fronting

an operation and probably wasn't that decisive a figure in his own right, but his presidency

was very significant. Thatcher was an ideologue of the most reactionary kind, a very determined

and forceful individual. And yes, she was ideologically zealous, as were the people behind Reagan.

Mulroney was a bit more concerned about his meal ticket and popularity and such like, and

was not quite the warrior that they were. But he still, during his period, made significant

contributions to dismantling of the social infrastructure in this country and set the stage for the decisive

moves that were actually made by the liberals following that under Chretien and Martin. So

he was very much part of that process. But of course it was in the area of free trade, that

other great element of liberalism, of deregulating as much as possible, removing all restrictions

on the flow of capital. And so the weakening, not the weakening of the state, I think that's

a mistake to say, but the weakening of the state function that sort of regulated and contained

capitalism's worst instincts. was actually, he played the lion's role in actually furthering

that agenda and promoting the whole free trade direction. So his contribution to the neoliberal

order on that front was absolutely cutting edge. It bothers me that part of the definition that

you thankfully clarified, but where it's reducing the functions of the state, certain functions,

right? Because the act of signing free trade agreements, even The deregulation, but it's

fluid. It's always dependent on what they need. If they need high regulation in order to secure

something, they will get it. You know, it means competing with a different market. So their

fingers, it's not the fingers, the invisible hand of the market. The government plays a

huge role in neoliberalism. But you know, when you read the kind of dry definition that's

provided of neoliberalism, it does really focus on lowering government spending and... that

libertarian view that is very popular at the moment where the government shouldn't play

a role in my life. But it's also paired with usually heavy reinforcement of police militarization

because you know, you stomp on people long enough, you're going to have to keep them down. And

so that's quite the misnomer when people talk about neoliberalism. No, I think that's it.

That's an essential thing to grasp. I mean, you you've cited it already, but the infamous

interview that Margaret Thatcher Women's Own magazine in 1987, when she made this infamous

comment that there's no such thing as society. She's capable of saying that, but of course

what she really means when she's referring to the state function is getting the state out

of the secondary area of reluctant social provision. As I said recently in something I wrote, Margaret

Thatcher certainly wasn't a prison abolitionist. And when she needed to send in warships, that

was fine. And if employers wanted their strike picket lines smashed, she certainly didn't

tell them, the state can't send you in police forces, you know, you've got to learn to stand

on your own two feet. I mean, she was, so she was, she was a robust believer in her kind

of society. And they weren't any more skilled or aren't any more skilled in balancing the

budget or reducing government spending after all, like after when reduce red tape. Like

that's what deregulation is often sold as the language they use is reducing red tape. But

in the end, it usually ends up costing us, because they remove fees and other ways of revenue

for the government at the same time. And so, yeah, it's hard for people to truly understand

neoliberalism without kind of also looking at the global view that's attached to it, right?

The, the role that free trade is, because it kind of contrasts your current. conservative

rhetoric that is anti-globalization. And I know they don't mean capital. Yeah, yeah. Well,

the foreign investors, that's quite popular right now, the focusing on foreign investors

as kind of like the worst part of globalization or perhaps the UN is the target now. But really

when you talk about neoliberalism and that globalization, it's that free move of capital across borders.

And then I always kind of juxtaposition that with restriction on people on those same borders.

This neoliberal ideology is full of contradictions that I think are worth pointing out, but maybe

help people understand why free trade is a bad thing, because that's another thing that gets

a great label. It doesn't sound bad.

But I mean, it essentially means, I mean, you made the point, I think, exactly that, you

know, there is to be the ability of capital to move in an unrestricted way. So for jobs

to be moved offshore or investments to be moved around is absolutely critical to it. And the

movement of people is, of course, substantially more restricted. So but I mean, under that

kind of liberalized system and using liberal in the sense of freeing up capital, not in

the sense of nice values. Under that system, the global workforce has been completely reorganized

in ways that are absolutely staggering. Not only has there been movement of jobs offshore

from the wealthier countries to the poorest countries, but they've been able to establish

a global supply chain, a just-in-time supply chain that literally draws from the most exploited

people. everywhere on the planet and assembles the component parts. And so I mean, there's

been an incredible change in the global workforce. What Mulroney was a pioneer of has moved in

ways that probably at the time he couldn't even have begun to imagine the enormity of what

he was consciously unleashed. Yeah, he really reshaped the Canadian economy in a way that

we lost tons

exploitation of foreign labor, but also domestic labor as well, right? It frames any barrier,

and that includes labor costs and workers' rights. And Mulrooney had particular disdain for unions,

didn't he? Yes, yes. I mean, he was very instrumental in the intensifying attack on trade unions

that has taken place since the 1970s and played a very big role. assault on public sector unions,

but private sector unions as well. Absolutely. Mulroney was part of a continuing process of

moving from a relatively adequate system of so-called labor relations to moving towards

something that's more and more restrictive. Nicole Johnson I've got a whole list in front

of me of things that we can credit Mulroney for, and also things that people are trying

to give him credit for that I feel like... perhaps are misplaced. I'm going to start there because

Mayor Olivia Chow, she sent her condolences. She tweeted out as well as every other politician,

but the progressive ones I always particularly come after because I should hold them to a

better regard. I mean, I'm really annoyed. She could have sent out any kind of mundane statement,

John. You know, like he was a great statesman. He contributed to the country, like really

vague. The CBC kind of did a headline that you could... borderline getaway with, but she chose

to actually credit him with ending acid rain and apartheid in South Africa, completely erasing

all of the work done on the ground that put the political pressure on, completely ignoring

the kind of political situation that happened at the time. Like apartheid at the time of

Mulroney was going down. It was not popular. It was detriment to capital. Let's just start

there. Do you want to vent about that for a second? Because that really pissed me off coming

from Olivia who has a history of grassroots organizing. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a

huge difference between someone who was appalled by the intense racism and gross exploitation

of apartheid and took up a struggle to bring it to an end because it was vile and morally

disgusting and what have you, to a statesman type who sort of got on board, as you absolutely

correctly say, I think, when the writing was on the wall for the apartheid system. It was

coming to an end, it had lost its credibility, wide sections of global and South African capital

were fully aware of the fact that they needed to jettison that system and implement the neoliberal

agenda in South Africa, which they did brutally in ways that dispensed with the formalities

of apartheid, but maintained. the gross exploitation of black workers in South Africa. So they got

to give up their cake, but eat it as well in that sense. And that was, I think, Molleruni

was very much part of that process of, I don't think he was a genius, but he had a good solid

instinct of which way the wind was blowing. And so I think he got onside and joined the

sort of the cheering section of apartheid must go down. when it was in the interest of the

class that he served to do just that. I'm glad you brought that point up about the exportation

of neoliberalism to other states. Because I think when I learned about neoliberalism in

school, this was the part that was driven home to me, or at least the part that stuck, because

it's often sold as democracy. It's often under the pretext that a liberal democracy, or neoliberal

democracy will bring justness, prosperity to its people. It is the end goal of all foreign

relations in imperial states, right? Canada's goal is to spread democracy. The US's claims

like that is its goal. And so it permeates into countries often, sometimes under economic aid.

but always with the same kind of liberal democracy framework. And then that is the victory, right?

Then the economic exploitation seems to go unnoticed because they can vote. They can vote now. And

so that is the be all end all of the savior and they can move on, right? And like you say,

the economic exploitation is intensified. Yes, I mean, they always want to... I mean, legitimacy

is a major question for them. They always want to preserve that, the facade that would enable

them to preserve legitimacy. Democracy is their watchword. But the striking thing about democracy

is that provided the vote goes the way they want, they are great champions of democracy.

But if anybody disagrees, and usually disagrees around how much exploitation of the people

and resources of that oppressed country can take place, then suddenly... democracy goes

out the window. Right now in Haiti, they're preparing yet another intervention. This is

supposedly to deal with, you know, restore the rule of law and all this stuff. But in fact,

democracy was beginning to take root in Haiti under Aristide. They had a government that

was beginning to respond to the popular will and was beginning to put limits on the A meeting

between essentially French, US and Canadian capitalist interests and political representatives

was brokered in Ottawa, and Aristide ended up being put on a plane by US Marines and sent

out of the country, the first democratically elected president of the country. So, I mean,

that's their commitment to nation building and democratic values is provided it brings them

in profits, they're all for it. But If it works out in ways they don't like, then a bit of

authoritarianism is just fine with them. Yeah. The whole system's built with hypocrisies and

it's just built in, but it's essential to point them out. I want to talk about, let's go back

to Mulrooney. I'm going to keep drawing us back. We're going to keep shitting on him, John.

He's not off the hook. A lot of people look at GST as one of his achievements. And I've

seen some even a little bit of discourse online between progressives about the introduction

of the GST. Do you have any thoughts on a regressive tax like the GST versus an income tax? Because

I would look at the GST as not an achievement, as something that ends up taxing the poor more.

And so I don't like it included on his fucking obituary. No, I think that's entirely, that's

entirely correct and entirely fair. I mean, The whole idea of putting a tax on consumer

goods is that, you know, as they say, the poor pay more. You're going to have a standard rate

that everybody that needs to buy these items has to pay, and it's going to come out of the

pockets of poor people. And I mean, it's not just that shift over to the GST type strategy

was taking place. At the same time, progressively, the banks, the corporations, the personally

wealthy were paying less and less tax. So the GST was a compensation. for the giveaway to

the rich that was taking place. And I don't think anyone can delude themselves that it

was anything other than that. Yeah, no, it's frustrating to see how a lot of these issues

are being reframed, from the advocacy for South Africa to some of the even economic policies.

There's even an article in Rabel that really goes on at some length to the achievements

of Mulroney and- That's really hard to swallow in this time because I think he's had his whole

lifetime for people to give him false accolades and to blow smoke up his ass. I think when

he comes back in the news, if it's for his death, it's ample time to actually be honest with

the long-term impacts because that's also what's missing from the glowing tributes that acknowledge,

they kind of wash over free trade. I'll give them that. They don't, the obvious economic

impacts, the growing inequality that has skyrocketed since the introduction of neoliberalism, it's

manifestation in politics still. It's like hyper capitalism is a kind of a way to describe it

as well. Is there anything else like part of his legacy that really stands out in terms

of economics? For me, well, I'm going to jump in so we don't forget about it. Selling off

of crown corporations. That is a trend that still continues to this day. It's a wave we've

not yet been able to push back in any really meaningful way. I don't know what we have left.

It's to the point where even they're looking to the post office to turn a dollar in order

to justify itself. It's like nothing is seen as a service that has value anymore. Everything

is in terms of making profit, but even then we've lost some serious money selling off these.

these crown corporations. I think some people would be surprised to know some of these used

to be owned because we're talking about from 1984 to 1993. That's why I called you in, John.

I was a kid, but my producer Santiago, he wasn't even born yet. So we definitely had to go over

this. It's a history lesson a little bit, but Air Canada, the Connacht Laboratories, we used

to own the pharmaceutical company that could have created vaccines for Canadians. The list

is long. I think it's like 23. Yeah. Well, I mean, when you say that, I mean, in yet another

area, I think it's almost like the implementation of the regressive agenda has been a relay race.

And so within every one of these cases, it's, you can see what Mulroney did on his several

laps around the stadium. And yes, he contributed to all of the things that have made life worse

for us. I mean, I think that's the fundamental point about him. And so I think he has to be

assessed that way. And I think it's really quite sad that you get, you know, I'm not surprised.

I mean, I wouldn't single out Olivia Chow for this sin any more than most of them. Jagmeet

Singh has done exactly the same, the same kind of, you know, not just a sort of a terse. supposed

to say the right thing, but sort of a lavish, just, I mean, it's like, I don't know what

he really thinks, but he feels the need publicly to sort of pay a sort of a groveling homage

to Mulrooney. Why did they do that, John? Why can't they just not say anything? Like, do

they think there'd be a lot of backlash? Or do they really look to him like that, you think?

Like, what is going on? My honest opinion is that it's actually a bit of both. They have

this sort of electoralist view that, you know, we don't want to offend people by being too

jarring and if we appear too radical and we say nasty things about Mulroney, that's some

people who won't vote for us. Although maybe some people who would, but that's another question.

On the other hand, I think it's sort of their actual, they mean it, I think. I think they

really mean it. I think they see themselves as part of the same club. know, and they're

supposed to be a bit to the left and a bit more sort of a bit more critical, and they disagree

with Mulrooney's in some ways, but they see him as an honored member of the club that they're

part of. And so to actually, I think it's the rottenness of parliamentarianism. I think it

actually gets you to that point where, you know, Mulrooney is someone, yes, you'd spar with

him on the floor of the House of Commons, perhaps, if you were in a position to and you'd disagree

with him, in the media scrums, but at the end of the day, you'd exchange friendly words in

the corridors and even go for drinky poos. I mean, that's just that kind of world that they're

part of. I think they reflect that. I've never forgotten this. Some years ago, when Bob Ray

was the leader of the NDP opposition in Ontario, I was in the gallery of the legislature with

some people from various anti-poverty organizations. And there was this woman from Kitchener who

I remember thought Bob Ray was just such a champion of the people and so ready to, she just admired

him so much. And so the thing hadn't started yet. They were just sitting around waiting

for the speaker to come in with the silly mace or whatever it is. And so at that moment, Nixon...

Bob Nixon, the liberal treasurer, is sitting on the other side and Ray calls something out

to him and then walks over and then they start playboxing and patting each other on the back.

I look around at this woman from Kitchener and she goes, my God, they're friends. They like

each other. She was so horrified by watching that take place that she actually took off.

She actually didn't stay with the movement anymore. She was so devastated by this experience. She

was revolted and she had a right to be revolted. I mean, why would somebody that's supposed

to represent working class people have anything but hatred and contempt for the people that

sit on the other side? But to say that, they would say, oh, no, no. So it's a very, very

real consideration. It's a real weakness. I'd like to, if we were gonna put people in those

places as our representatives, I'd like to think they would have, you know, they would be cold

and hostile to our class enemies, but. That's not what we've got at the moment. I grinned

when you started retelling that story because I pictured you kind of walking into a pub and

seeing Mulrooney sitting at the bar. I'll just let myself daydream how that interaction might

have turned out, but I don't think you'd be buying him a pint. The one meeting I was involved

with Mulrooney, he told me that he didn't have to put up with my diatribes.

He's probably so glad he doesn't. He actually did. He did, I insisted. I will subject you

either way. We obviously can't talk about Mulrooney without talking about brown envelopes of cash,

right, if we're just going to have dripping disdain for the rich, let it go all in. And

I didn't know, so okay, our audience might not even know what we're talking about. Mulrooney!

Do I have to say alleged? It was reported Mulroney took $300,000 from a Karl Heinz Schreiber.

He's a German businessman that wanted to build a weapons manufacturer, yay, in Quebec. And

he thought Mulroney could help him with it or whatever. Someone, Schreiber says, funny enough,

well, funny for me, that Mulroney's chief of staff came to him and said Mulroney's hard

up for cash right now. And so Shriver was like, okay, I'll pay him to grease some wheels and

get my factory. It seemed like a kind of tip for tat. I imagine this thing goes on all the

time. The way that they describe it, it just seems like it's just normal for them to just

pass cash back and forth for favors and whatnot. But not only did he have all that surrounding

him, but he ended up getting two point one million dollars from the Canadian government as part

of a settlement on that. And then after that settlement, it comes out that he pretty much

did have dealings with this, this Shriver, even though he swore up and down. He didn't in order

to get that settlement. And did you know, John, this is a little fact I found out like five

minutes before we logged on. So the Justice Department actually looked into getting that

money back from Mulrooney, that two point one million dollars. The only thing you can find

on that afterwards is the RCMP just shut that shit down. They're like, no, you're not.

You don't have any evidence it's not happening, we're not doing it, so move on. And so not

only did he get the 300k and then never did help Schreiber, we don't think, but he got

$2.1 million like he needed it. That should be in his obituary, don't you think? Yes. The

softer side of public service is definitely a consideration. But I mean, I think that's,

I mean, again, it reflects the whole hypocrisy and injustice of this world that these people

live in, where not only do nefarious goings on take place, that if indiscretions of a fraction

of the same degree were carried out by working class people or poor people living on social

assistance, they'd be vilified and put in prison. Those things, I mean, the RCMP, it doesn't

surprise me for a moment, the RCMP would say not touching him, leave him alone. He's too

big to fail. That's really part of how the system works. But not only do these people get to

immerse themselves in self-aggrandizement and self-gain and undue access to privilege and

wealth, but at the end of the day, they come out as these praised individuals, even icons.

That's what's absolutely incredible. Frankly, If Molt really took some brown paper envelopes

full of cash and stuck them in a safe, that's really the least of what he did. The harm that

he did to people was enormous. Why should we for a moment put up with this deification,

this praising of him? He's a human being. He died. And maybe for some people around him,

that's a personal tragedy. And I'm not looking to be crass. But he was a public figure. He

was a political leader. whose actions hurt lots of people. And I don't think we should be at

all shy about offering an honest and highly critical and even very hostile analysis of

Brian Mulrooney, the political figure. I'm sure a lot of indigenous folks and allies were looking

at the Oka crisis, as well as another part of Mulrooney's huge legacy that is still standing.

I'll link the article because I do forget the author's name. But they describe Mulrooney

as being the one who held the line on settler colonialism with his response to the Oka crisis.

And we can see that kind of replicated in Ontario with land back lane and the response that politicians

have when it comes to land claims, treaty rights, and developer needs. And to watch that happen

on a scale that it did, and he didn't face a whole lot of political It really did set a

standard there that hasn't really been reckoned with either. I wanted to make sure that we

also talk about another one of his lasting impacts that is being felt and also meets the needs

that we need to keep talking about Palestine. Mulroney was a huge supporter of Israel. Here's

actually a quote from Mulroney's memoir. on the belief that the Jews having suffered horribly

over generations have found a permanent home in a tangible, defined Israel and that they

alone must make value judgments in respect of their national security." So much to unpack

in that statement. You could have an entire, I think, discussion on unpacking the assumptions

made there, the But to see now that the world is essentially operating like that, where it's

not their place at all, like international law is just a mere convenience, not applied to

our allies, right? It's only there for when we need to weaponize it. But he really tried,

he did defend, like during the first Intifada, Mulroney was the one that kept pushing back

at anybody trying to restrain Israel. and their heavy-handed military response. He obviously

wasn't very vocal during this last crisis, but we can only imagine where he would stand there.

It really solidified a lot of relationships that we have with Israel now. One that we're

really trying to disrupt is the ties that we have with their weapons industry. It's all

couched under research and development of high technology, but those are the same companies

who... Mulroney was responsible for really establishing trade agreements there and those ties that

now result in a lot of Canadian companies supplying arms to Israel amongst our other supports.

But it's funny to have people celebrating him as ending apartheid, but at the same time knowing

he stood fast for the same colonial violence in Israel. If I could say, I think that the

fact that you raise Oka and then you raise Palestine, is actually very telling because, yeah, I mean,

Mulroney had to, there was a huge crisis. Mohawk resistance created a huge crisis and the support

that existed for Mohawk resistance created a huge crisis for the Canadian state. There's

no doubt about it. But it would be absurd to present Mulroney, the deployer of federal troops.

It would be absurd to present him as some kind of champion of the rights of Mohawk people.

Any concessions made in that period, very limited ones were... were not made with good grace.

I can remember during the Oka crisis, and we're talking about the Mohawk Nation, which has

members of its nation living, members of that nation live on both sides of the US-Canadian

border. I remember Mulgareen making this big, contemptuous statement about many of these

people are not even real Canadians, which really expressed his disgusting... ignorance and arrogance

when it came to Indigenous identity and Indigenous nationhood. And he's the prime minister of

a country where there's been based on the dispossession of those Indigenous nations. And his just glaring

ignorance and contempt is just shocking. And so too, the quote that you gave. I mean, fundamentally

to him, the Palestinians are nothing. They're just a dispossessed people. and that their

rights and non-existence, even their existence isn't taken into account. And everything's

been based on that, based on absolutely sort of racist ideology, but also based on the needs

of Canadian capital, which has obviously always seen the creation of Israel as being a strategic

asset and an enormous benefit to it. So, not really... Not surprisingly, the same theme

emerges with regards to Palestine. Maulani was part of that developing process of ongoing

Western support for the settler colonial regime in the Middle East. He was a way station in

an agenda that's gotten worse and is still continuing and is playing out with unimaginable horror

at the moment in Gaza. And the Canadian government still utilizes that free trade as a way to

aid nations, right? So they're suggesting increased free trade with Israel. trying to sign free

trade agreements with Ukraine and often the presence of a liberal type democracy within

Israel is used to legitimize the state. So all of these, our discussion on neoliberalism and

the impacts of Marouni and the colonial state, you end up finding that all these things are

actually quite tied together. I wonder, are you going to lose any sleep if anyone disrupts

his state funeral on March 23rd in Montreal. Do you think that's appropriate? Would it be

appropriate? I mean, I don't know what plans exist. My personal view would be if they choose

to make this man's passing a major propaganda opportunity and a major way of promoting those

values, then it becomes, as far as I'm concerned, a public event. Mulroney was being discreetly

laid to rest by the people closest to him. That might be a different question, but they choose

to make it a public display. So if they've created the circus, I don't think they can, they can

be too upset if somebody jumps in the ring. I personally think it would be justified and

for me welcomed because I think it's time we really push back against, against the way we

honor political elites. even our own, we tend to shield them from criticism and whatnot because

they're our political elites and they're revered. And it really interprets the way we vote, the

way we see representation, that it's above us, beyond us, you know, for other people, richer

people. It's the same with the royal weddings and funerals and on the money. It seems like

such an insignificant issue to address and perhaps like really maybe superficial, but it's rooted

in the ideology that holds the working class back, right? That realization that they're

not materially different than us other than their income status. Like there is. I mean,

I think the sort of notion that there's an obligatory reverence for the fallen heroes of the establishment

is for one thing, apart from anything else, it's enormously selective and hypocritical,

right? Because if someone that they perceive to be an enemy is to kick the bucket, then

there isn't any hesitation in piling on and denouncing them. When Chavez died in Venezuela,

there was no sort of rule that you had to say dignified nice things about him. If Vladimir

Putin, and I'm certainly not an admirer of Vladimir Putin, but he's an enemy of the establishment

in the West. And if he died tomorrow, they'd be... they'd be letting off fireworks, they'd

be celebrating like crazy. So this notion that you don't speak ill of the dead is anyway hypocrisy.

But the other thing about it is that when these characters croak, they absolutely use it as

an opportunity to shore up and praise the system. Right. Even the GST. This is a time to be like,

this was always a great idea. Absolutely. But to legitimize the system, to create this sympathetic

figure. Sometimes it's their politicians, it's royal family, it's prominent people. God forbid

anything should happen to him, but if Elon Musk was to come to harm, there would be this outpouring

of what a wonderful man he was. A bit complicated, but a wonderful man. No. I mean, I think it's

completely appropriate that we offer. hostile critique of the public and political role that

these people played. Issues of private grief aside, that's not the point. The point is they

were public figures and they have to be dealt with as such. Moreover, I think it's part of,

we've already touched on it, but I think it's part of that rotten parliamentarianism, the

notion that in the end, we can disagree, but in the end, we're all part of the same grouping,

we're all part of the same loyal club. And we all say nice things about each other when we

go in the dirt. And I just think that's, it's just disgusting. I think we need, we need some

hatred for God's sake. We need some rage. We need to, we need to hold these people accountable.

Can't we at least despise them? I mean, if we can't manage to even do that, what's wrong

with us? I mean, I mean, they had nothing but hatred and contempt for working class people.

Why shouldn't we return the favor? I never understood that at all. I think. Some people would label

it as respectability politics. And yeah, no doubt, like if you're going into a normal conversation,

you don't want to go in hostile or even perhaps a somewhat level negotiation with one of your

comrades, one of your community members. There's a way to deal with people respectively. But

you're talking about an immense power struggle. that exists here. And I think we forget that

is our ruling class, like the impact that they have over us. And the failure of some people

to even identify that we're in a class war is part of that. But the toxic parliamentarianism,

yeah, it's like something happens to people when they go in there. And the folks that don't

kind of play by those respectability politics, they don't seem to kind of float close enough

to the sun to actually make. much of a difference. And it just, I don't know, a story popped in

my head and it relates to here I'm ruled by a Mulrooney. Carolyn Mulrooney is my MPP. So.

My condolences. Thank you. I was going to say I'll accept your condolences, but you were

kind enough to offer them without that. So you do know my pain and we all hate Ben Mulrooney.

So it's like, it's a family game. But when you know, we lost an election to her. I was working

on that campaign and Brian Mulrooney was even there stumpin'. He went to all the seniors

homes in the area and glad-handed everybody, even though he had destroyed their pensions.

And so, you know, I had an ax to grind there, but then I ran as a candidate in another election.

I didn't have to deal with a Mulrooney. I won't mention who I lost to, it was horrible, but

I was told to call them. I was the campaign manager on the NDP campaign against Mulrooney

and someone said, has Dave called, like has the candidate called to congratulate Mulrooney?

And I was like, why the fuck would he do that? They do that? It was like my first real campaign.

They're like, yeah. And I was like, well, I'm not telling him to do that. You can go tell

him to do that. I'm not telling him to do that. And then when it was my turn, it was like,

my team was not happy with me. They were like, you have to call and congratulate them. And

I go, congratulate our class enemy. You want me to call a man who would destroy every social

safety net we had, who pretty much spits on indigenous rights. Like, you know, I went on

a little diatribe, obviously. I was like, you want me to call him and congratulate him? No,

no, no. And they're just like, you'll never go anywhere in politics. I'm like, probably

not then. Because this, that's ridiculous. Like I was just so, and I was like, you guys know

me. Like I had only friends and family really working. on that campaign, like they know my

disdain for the ruling class. Like I've known the real enemy since I was a child, right?

Like I grew up in a socialist household. Like it was not, I was so puzzled by their reaction

and their willingness to play like certain games within the political realm. That's what really

in politics, there's all kinds of examples of things you're supposed to do and how to climb

the ladder. And it really does reshape how... you see the class war, right? Like, yeah, you

start considering having beers with those people, then you've lost focus. And then you're not

standing up and making a big fucking scene in the parliament when I need you to be making

a scene and really going after the people you need to go after because you're holding back,

right? You're worried about appearances, you're worried about dealing with them in the hallway

or whatever you're worried about, but yeah, it really kind of takes the teeth out of people.

I mean, we mentioned this before, but they have this notion that you use the term the politics

of respectability as a very apt term. But in truth, I mean, I think they're actually miscalculating

apart from their own allegiances. I think just from a technical point of view, they are actually

making a serious miscalculation because they live in this bubble. I mean, back in Britain,

the parliament is referred to as the Westminster bubble. And that's... That's very much what

frames their ideas. But in fact, I would say to display hostility to those enemies would

actually win them enormous respect in the working class. I mean, the story I told about the woman

in the Ontario legislature being appalled by the friendship and cordiality that the NDP

leader was displaying. I think that's very, very typical. I think if somebody, instead

of saying, you know, if some... NDP politician came forward and said, look, I don't wish to

be crass. A man has died. He has family. There's personal grief. But, but in terms of his public

role, I'm not going to pretend for a moment that Brian Mulroney was our friend or someone

whose political life I want to celebrate. He was an enemy for the following reasons. And

it's necessary to appraise him in that way. You don't have to be, you know, you don't have

to sort of. I would be so excited to hear something like that, John. I would be sharing that. We

all would. It would. You don't have to be crass, you know, you don't have to wear a party hat

and dance on his grave or something, although if you want to, that's fine with me, but you

know, but you could be measured, you could be restrained, you don't have to, but you could

be frank, you could be honest, you could offer a political appraisal of an enemy who has died.

And that's what should happen. But I didn't see one. I didn't see one. Did you see one?

And you'll never see it. I mean, the one... This is also an example from Britain, but this

is a great one. The veteran Labour MP, Dennis Skinner, who was the most ready to show class

allegiance and class hatred, there was a great story told by some senior Tory who says he

was walking down through the corridors in Westminster and he said, I bumped into Dennis Skinner and

he's still a beast. He said, He said, he's 80 something. And I just said to him, Dennis,

happy birthday. And he said to me, piss off Tory boy. We could use a bit of that. We could

use a bit. Yeah, I would love to see a lot less filter on our politicians because I think some

of them go in there with a little bit more of a firebrand. And it's diminished, right? Yeah.

They do live in a little bit out of touch, especially now. Like you can, the anger in people is palpable.

And if you're not gonna reflect that, there's nothing much that distinguishes you from the

rest of the ruling class either. Or it's really hard to say they're not all the same, right?

Isn't that, I mean, I say it all the time. Politicians are all the same, the parties. They're not

all exactly the same, but you know, that rhetoric is used a lot. Why would I vote? What difference

does it make? And then when you see them all chumming it up and all paying respects to a

man who ushered in vampire capitalism,

then you're just so disheartened, right? I think on top of Gaza, but everything just things

keep happening where fewer and fewer people have. any right to believe that the elected

have anything to do in their best interest? That sense that they are all the same is very

deep. I don't think it's correct as a precise appraisal, but I think you have to recognize

there's a pretty significant grain of truth in what's said. So there's, of course, a difference

between the Tories and the NDP and a very significant difference. I think the NDP leadership could

work a little harder on opening up yet more space. I think there's plenty of room to do

better in that regard. And we're talking about, I mean, we're talking about the way they deal

with the fallen heroes of the establishment. But that's only symptomatic of a broader politics

of adaption and compromise and collaboration that cuts very, very deep. That's right. Yeah.

The capitulations. One of the major ideologies, Mulrooney, and especially Thatcher, as we spoke

earlier, about bootstraps, is that idea of individualism. And now it's more, it has almost a political

name in libertarianism, which is full of hypocrisies in itself. We're not going to unpack those.

But... That idea that everyone should fend for themselves, that is responsible for themselves

and their situation, good or bad, right? It is a reflection of their character, their abilities,

their value as a human being. And... the absorption of that mentality into the working class, I

think sometimes is more damaging than the policies that we face because it's a barrier to solidarity.

And without solidarity, we have nothing. So, I mean, you would say he did that a little

more stealthily because, you know, when you introduce austerity, quite often. That's the

premise, right? Everyone should just be subjected to the market, right? The market will take

care of you, take care of us. It's the best way to distribute services and goods. And we

know that's not true. That era of neoliberalism that he was a part of certainly did, certainly

did kind of really drive that kind of idea home into the Canadian mindset. When it comes to

individualism versus communitarianism. Do you find that is a huge barrier to organizing in

terms of appealing to those who have been swept up by populism, the wrong kind of populism?

It's a fundamental problem within the working class under capitalism before you even get

to the more, the recent decades, right? Because the simple reality is that, you know, I mean,

if you've ever gone for a job and you- did an interview or applied, filled in a form, whatever

you did, you were trying to get that job, which meant, whether you like it or not, that you

were trying to make sure that somebody else didn't get that job. And so that competitive

role amongst workers for jobs, that ability to sell their commodity and make sure somebody

else doesn't sell their commodity in their place is actually part of working class life. So

that role of individualism is actually part of the system and part of class reality. And

everything that happens, everything that's happened in recent decades has looked to intensify that

sense of individualism and that denial of common interests and class interests. And, you know,

I mean, Thatcher's statement, it seems like a sort of just a silly thing to say there's

no such thing as society. It's so palpably absurd. But she was striking at something really, really

significant with that point, that the self-interested individual will come out on top, even if they

have to cross picket lines, rat their fellow workers out to the boss, whatever it is, they'll

do all right. And the person who didn't make it, who's in the gutter, you just regard with

contempt and walk over them and move on and continue to live your own life. But all of

the real gains that we've made have been by rejecting that ideology. And it's been intensified

during the recent decades. And that sense of collective identity, common interest, and working

class solidarity is at the heart of everything. That's not to say there isn't a role for individual

people and individual rights. And of course, that's very valid. But the sense of community

and working class solidarity is something that needs to be It needs to be strengthened considerably

if we're going to move forward and if we're going to fight back against what we face. Part

of building that into the system too is when we're subjected to the market, right? Society

is erased in a way because we are all competing for the last on the shelf as well as the job.

And there's just so many different ideologies inherent in capitalism and neoliberalism that

need to be unpacked. Because I think sometimes we absorb them without knowing. You hear it

reflected in people's language. And so for me, now I catch it because of how I think. But

I think there's a lot of people who would not consider themselves as individualistic. That

almost comes off as selfish. But it's just really been ingrained in how we operate because I

wouldn't even have thought as applying for a job as a way of competing. But of course it

is. Yeah, of course it is. You've got to apply for jobs. There's X amount and you need to

come out on top and it really is built into so many parts of our lives, that idea of competition.

But in terms of Mulrooney or neoliberalism, do you think there's any points that we missed?

No, I think just the only thing I'd say is I'd reiterate the fact that the neoliberal turn

was a fundamental turn for global capitalism. Right. That the era of relative compromise.

came to an end and was replaced by an assault. And I think we need to recognize that Mulroney

was laying foundations in an earlier period. But if we look at what's happening now across

the world, we look at the onset of global rivalry. We look at the absolute appalling genocide

unfolding in Gaza. We look at the fact that working class people are actually taking to

the streets. But the other side is so determined and intransigent to hold the line that we're

up against a major challenge. So we need to understand Mulroney as someone who laid the

foundations for a structure that we're now confronting or helped lay the foundations for a structure

that we're now confronting. So his legacy is one of a very, very significant, bitter enemy

of everything we need to do and everything we should stand for. And we should we should evaluate

his life in that way. not necessarily with a sense of personal hatred, although animosity

is totally in order, but we should recognize him as a class enemy that stood for something

that we hate, that we despise, and we seek to defeat. If we do that, I think we've got a

healthy perspective on the life and times of poor old Brian Mulrooney now that he's gone

to his reward. Join Reagan and Thatcher. Join Reagan and Thatcher, and I'm sure they'll just

be well. I want to elaborate. That is a wrap on another episode of Blueprints of Disruption.

Thank you for joining us. Also a very big thank you to the producer of our show, Santiago Halu-Quintero.

Blueprints of Disruption is an independent production operated cooperatively. You can follow us on

Twitter at BPofDisruption. If you'd like to help us continue disrupting the status quo,

please share our content. And if you have the means, consider becoming a patron. Not only

does our support come from the progressive community, so does our content. So reach out to us and

let us know what or who we should be amplifying. So until next time, keep disrupting.