First Published: Canadian Revolution No. 2, August-September 1975
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Malcolm and Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
The co-authors of this paper have taken an impromptu trip through the entire political universe, casually – not to mention arrogantly – dropping economic formulas, new political structures never before heard of, and philosophical comments, to mark their carefree passage. In little more than one hundred pages of text, they pass judgment on experiences accumulated over more than a century and a half of political activity.
Limited as to journal space and the necessary time for adequate research at this time, and not being armed with the outrageous temerity of the authors of Imperialism etc., who offer simplistic solutions to the most complex of problems, it will not be possible, in this relatively brief article, to adequately consider all the crucial problems crammed between the covers of the small booklet under review. The points raised, and the comments passed upon them, will surely provide material for a score of articles by future contributors of CR. It is to be hoped that the journal will take up the challenge, not in any negative spirit of polemicising against Moore and Wells, but for the purpose of advancing some positive proposals for a more fruitful discussion.
Approaching the Moore-Wells opus with a view towards critical analysis, causes one to be more appreciative of Engels’ dilemma, and more understanding of his comment when confronted with the task of dissecting Herr Eugen Duehring’s massive tome:
“It was the sort of thing one had to get through as quickly as possible, once it was begun. And it was not only unpleasant but quite a task. ... It was necessary to follow Herr Duehring over a wide expanse of country where he had dealt with everything under the sun, yea, and more also....”
An ideal situation in an intellectual discussion would be for the opposing sides to concern themselves with the task of illuminating the issues, and bringing to light the truth. However, there is ever present the temptation to acquire a vested interest in one side of the debate, and to strive to score off one’s opponents, even to the point of destroying them – not only their arguments but their credibility and their reputations.
Judged by the tone of their attacks on “left-nationalists”, Moore and Wells appear to have opted for the latter choice. It is not that the authors have serious differences with certain groups and individuals. We have had longstanding disagreements with several groups specifically named by them. But there are some people who are keenly aware of a rising sense of national consciousness amongst WORKING PEOPLE in Canada – a consciousness which flows from the belief that an overwhelming foreign (especially U.S.) domination over the countries economy and its resources, distorts the economic and social structure, and inhibits rational development to the detriment of the working people.
We are confronted with a choice of one of two options: One can take the position that ALL manifestations of national sentiment are reactionary, no matter from what source the flow, in which case workers bitten by the national bug will be resisted and condemned for being so gullible as to fall for such “bourgeois nonsense” as to believe in the nation. On the other hand, one can choose to study, and attempt to understand the phenomenon, with a view towards using it as a lever for social transformation.
Moore and Wells have chosen the former course – but only when it suits their purpose, which has the effect of imparting a distinct aura of inconsistency to their argument. But we do not propose to challenge their political honesty for choosing a particular side in such a hotly-contested issue as this.
However there are others who take an opposite side, people whose integrity is at least equal to that of Moore and Wells, but these two authors extend to their opponents less than honest treatment. They are fully aware of the fact that many who accept national consciousness as a growing factor in Canadian life, also specifically reject the policy of an all-class alliance. More concerned with destruction than enlightenment, Moore and Wells make no distinctions between the various forces, indiscriminately filing all under their classification of “left-nationalist” and their concept of it.
This indiscriminate labeling is all the more reprehensible in that it is wholly unnecessary to the development of the Moore-Wells thesis, which could have been accomplished without any reference to ”left-nationalists” at all.
A second general observation concerns the method – or lack of method – employed by the authors. They have no universal criteria for assessing the status of a nation, which results in ambiguities and ludicrous conclusions. But it is an approach that serves very well the avowed purpose of the authors, since it allows them to conveniently mold the “facts” to fit the occasion.
A third general observation would note the fact that Moore and Wells obviously began their task with their minds already set on what the conclusion would be – that Canada would be characterized as a ”secondary imperialist power”. The authors were resolved they would not be confused by any unwelcome facts that might militate against their argument, and they were determined on tailoring the evidence so it would sustain their pre-determined conclusion.
A fourth general conclusion concerns the failure of the authors to identify modern Russia as an imperialist power, and this omission is crucial to the line of argument they pursue in order to establish their concept of “collective imperialism” (ultra-imperialism?), wherein cooperation supplants conflict as the chief characteristic of inter-imperialist relations, and nations domestically weak are enabled to become relatively strong in the area of imperialist exploitation. It seems that Canada, but not Russia, can fit into the category of “imperialist power”, in the Moore-Wells analysis.
Is it really necessary at this point in history, to belabour the obvious; that Russia has transformed the Warsaw Pact into a weapon of aggression, aimed first at Eastern Europe, then at Western Europe and the whole world? That Moscow has established economic, political, and military domination over all of Eastern Europe, occupied Outer Mongolia and other Asian areas, organizes joint-stock companies in India under Russian domination, founded a banking structure in England to facilitate foreign capital investment, has invited foreign monopolies to share in the exploitation of Soviet workers, and, under cover of the concept of the “socialist division of labour,” has established a comprehensive system of imperialist exploitation. In brief, the modern-day Czars have extended the boundaries of the Russian Empire, to limits scarcely even dreamed of by the Czars of old. Yet, this most significant development rates no consideration in the Moore-Wells paper.
This brings us to our fifth, and final, general observation. In an introduction to the Moore-Wells epic, Dr. Leo Johnson of Waterloo declares:
“... Steve Moore and Debi Wells have taken up the task of analyzing that (capitalist) class, and by using rigorous Marxist techniques, have introduced a mass of data and wide-ranging inquiry into the nature of the Canadian capitalist class. Their conclusions... are a giant step towards the resolution of the left’s division on theory and strategy. Because they have set a high standard of careful documentation and analysis, and have taken great care to examine not only internal evidence, but have made external comparisons with other major capitalist economies as well, the debate must inevitably be raised to a significantly higher level....” (page 6)
How high a standard of documentation and analysis has been applied in preparation of Imperialism etc., will be a subject of specific examination and comment later on this article. At this point, a word of advice to Dr. Johnson: Never write a eulogy for a work you have not read. A simple check of some of the alleged quotes from Lenin’s Imperialism would be sufficient to raise doubts as to the value of the paper, and even some concern as to the political integrity of the authors.
Our comment on the paper will begin at chapter two, wherein the authors seek to establish their expertise in economic and political analysis by demonstrating their ability to quote extensively from Lenin’s Imperialism. Let it be noted here that quoting extensively is not a satisfactory substitute for serious research, analysis, and discussion, and our criticism of the Moore-Wells effort will be based on the latter criteria.
However, it will be enlightening as to the authors’ intentions and method if we check the fate that Lenin’s work suffers at their hands. We will follow the procedure of quoting the passage in question in full, bracketing CI the portions omitted by Moore and Wells. It is not that we insist on copious quotes at every point in a work. But one must not do violence to the opinions of the person cited as reference, or seek to mislead an unwary reader. We will leave it to our readers to judge if this policy has been faithfully followed by Moore and Wells.
Attention is directed first to pages 14 and 15, and what appears to be two separate quotes, but actually consist of a truncated version of a single, longer passage, which reads as follows:
“Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general. [But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of its fundamental characteristics began to change into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken shape and revealed themselves all along the line. Economically the main thing in this process is the displacement of capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly. Free competition is the fundamental characteristic of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly; cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist over it, and alongside of it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system.
“If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist combines of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolistic possession of the territory of the world which has been completely divided up.
“But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since very important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined have to be especially deduced. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its complete development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features: l) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this ”finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world: among themselves, and 5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has established itself; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun; in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
(We shall see later that imperialism can and must be defined differently if we bear in mind, not only the basic purely economic concepts – to which the above definition is limited – but also the historical place of this stage of capitalism, in relation to capitalism in general, or the relation between imperialism and the two main trends in the working-class movement. The point to be noted just now is that imperialism (as interpreted above undoubtedly] represents a special stage in the development of capitalism. [To enable the reader to obtain the most well-grounded idea of imperialism possible, we deliberately tried to quote as largely as possible BOURGEOIS economists who are obliged to admit the particularly uncontrovertible facts concerning the latest stage of capitalist economy.]”
It necessarily follows that those who quote authorities to validate their position, must either: a) follow the authority to the letter, or b) inform the audience where they are in disagreement with the authority, and explain the reasons for disagreement. Moore and Wells very clearly censor certain crucial portions of their chosen authority, and simply ignore certain of his formulas, without explanation of any kind.
We can see that Lenin has said his brief definition of imperialism is “inadequate” to the purpose, and that it ”can and MUST be defined differently”. This duo of writers do not apprise their readers of that fact, nor do they indicate that Lenin cautioned against limiting the examination of imperialism to the “basic, purely economic concepts”. In fact, Moore and Wells choose to CONCENTRATE attention on the purely economic aspects of the subject, to the exclusions of all other considerations. Again, Lenin points out that finance capital (an essential feature of imperialism) ”is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks merged with the capital of the monopolist combines of industrialists”, and this is repeated in the “five basic features, as follows; ”2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital and the creation on the basis of this ’finance capital’, of a financial oligarchy”. And in the third feature Lenin points out: ”the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance.” And this is indicated again further when he writes: ”the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance.”
So far as these two “basic features” are concerned, they might as well not exist at all, if the attention accorded them by Moore and Wells is any criteria. The undeniable monopoly concentration of the Canadian banking system is duly noted by these writers, but no evidence is adduced to demonstrate that a merger of banking capital with the “monopolist industrial combines” has occurred in Canada. The farthest Moore and Wells will go in this regard is to claim that the banks render important assistance to international corporations interested in capital investment abroad – very casual treatment indeed of a crucial problem. As for the second proposition: not only do Moore and Wells NOT distinguish between the export of commodities and the export of capital, giving special emphasis to the latter, they confuse the two and combine them in a single feature of foreign investment – of imperialist exploitation.
A little further along we encounter another quote from Imperialism, as badly mutilated as the first:
“The monopolies are most firmly established when ALL the sources of raw materials are captured by one group, and we have seen with what zeal the international capitalist combines exert every effort to make it impossible for their rivals to compete with them by buying up, for example, iron ore fields, oil fields, etc.” [Colonial possession alone gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggle with competitors, including the contingency that the latter will defend themselves by means of a law establishing a state monopoly. The more capitalism is developed, the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw materials throughout the whole world, the more desperate is the struggle for the acquisition of colonies.
That there is a desperate shortage of, and world-wide hunt for sources of raw materials by the imperialist powers, is even more apparent now than it was in Lenin’s time. But a question that must be confronted is this: is Canada one of the desperate participants, or is it a harassed object in the hunt. To ask the question is almost tantamount to answering it.
It is well known that Canada is extremely rich in raw materials, energy resources, and fresh water, all items that are very much coveted in many parts of the world. In these things Canada, so far as its own needs are concerned, is well stocked, and can even export a surplus. It is primarily the over-industrialized United States that is desperate to secure safe sources of supply.
In view of this situation the section eliminated from the quote takes on special significance, and poses the crucial question why Moore and Wells eliminated it when they cited part of the passage. If it is true, as Lenin says, that “colonial possession alone gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies” then, in view of the present critical situation regarding natural resources and the increasing signs of tension in Canadian-U.S. relations, should Canada not be regarded as a prime target for colonization by the United States, especially since geography, a small population, and a rapidly diminishing armed force, makes the project seem so temptingly easy of accomplishment.
Having progressed thus far the authors undertake to state their objective, as follows:
“Canadian monopoly capitalism’s attempt to resolve its problems through the traditional means (capital and commodity export, control of raw materials) is the subject of this paper.” (page 17)
Note first that the authors have departed from the HUNT for raw materials to the CONTROL of raw materials. But more important, this is where they for the first, but not the last, time ignore Lenin’s advice to distinguish between the export of commodities and the export of capital. This is all the more incomprehensible since, just two pages before, they had quoted Lenin as follows (but without the emphasis on goods and capital, a significant change in view of the authors’ own position):
“Typical of the old capitalism when free competition had undivided sway, was the export of GOODS. Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopolies rule is the export of CAPITAL.”
There is one last quote from Lenin in this chapter, prefaced by a comment from Moore and Wells, which reads: “In closing, Lenin’s work contains an interesting section on dependent capitalist governments, which applies to Canada’s unique situation.” The reader will note that the section, despite the interest claimed for it, did not escape editorial censorship:
[Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its corresponding foreign policy, which reduces itself to the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of TRANSITIONAL forms of state dependence. Typical of this epoch is not only the two main groups of countries: those owning colonies, and colonies, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, officially, are politically independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence. We have already referred to one form of dependence – the semicolony. An example of another is provided by Argentina.
“South America, and especially Argentina”, writes Schulze-Gavernitz, in his work on British imperialism, “is so dependent financially on London that it ought to be described as almost a British commercial colony”. Basing himself on the report of the Austro-Hungarian Consul at Buenos Aires for 1909, Schilder estimates the amount of British capital invested in Argentina at 8,750,000,000 francs. It is not so difficult to imagine what strong connections British finance capital [(and its faithful “friend” diplomacy)]) thereby acquires with the Argentine bourgeoisie, (with the circles that control the whole of that country’s economic and political life].
A somewhat different form of financial and diplomatic dependence, accompanied by political independence, is presented by Portugal. Portugal is an independent sovereign state, but [actually, for more than two hundred years, since the war of the Spanish Succession 1701-143 it has been a British protectorate. [Great Britain has protected Portugal and her colonies in order to fortify her own positions in the fight against her rivals, Spain and France. In return Great Britain has received commercial privileges, preferential conditions for importing goods and especially capital into Portugal and the Portuguese colonies, the right to use the ports and islands of Portugal, her telegraph cables, etc. Relations of this kind have always existed between big and little states, but in the epoch of capitalist imperialism they have become a general system, they form part of the sum total of “divide the world” relations, become links in the chain of operations of world finance capital.
It is difficult to understand why the Argentina and Portugal of sixty years ago should be thought of as typical of Canada’s “unique situation” today. But Moore and Wells say it is so, and that is their own funeral for the examples, if they prove anything at all, clearly prove that Canada is not imperialist – which is the opposite of what the authors are attempting to establish. Even Portugal’s physical possession of colonies, (which Canada does not have anyway) is of no value as an example. Strip Portugal of its colonies, which were held only by the grace of British protection, and what is left is little better than a glorified colony. As for Argentina: Lenin, in a section censored by the authors, agrees with Schulze-Gavernitz that it is no more than a British commercial colony. It is little wonder that Moore and Wells end the chapter on an ambivalent note:
Canada does not fit neatly into the category of either “colony” or “imperialist” country....
In this chapter, on page 21, the authors present their readers with information, as follows:
“... the major trend has been the substantial advances made by American capital in all other countries. Thus, U.S. ownership of Canada is only the tip of the iceberg. Canada has the highest percentage of U.S. ownership; and hence, the left-nationalists have defined it as a unique phenomenon. However, U.S. domination is a general trend which is beginning to affect Europe as well.”
Evidently Moore and Wells do not know icebergs any better than they know the Canadian economic situation. More than thirty per cent of United States foreign investments are located in Canada. That is SOME tip! The fact is that United States investment in Canada IS unique; in absolute terms, in terms of quality, and in relative terms.
United States investment in Canada as of 1969, totaled 21,000 million dollars. Investments in Europe amounted to 21,554 million dollars, and for all of Latin America combined the amount was 13,811 million dollars. If we consider the matter in terms of INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES Canada ranks far ahead of all others. No other single nation even comes close in that respect.
In the matter of quality of investment: the United States exercises overwhelming domination over Canadian primary resources, and consumes an exceptionally large proportion of its energy. In manufacturing, United States capital controls more than sixty per cent of the total productive capacity and a large number of firms, nominally under Canadian control, operate under patent license leased from United States owners, or are wholly employed in production under contract with U.S. subsidiaries.
In an area vital to the independence of an industrialized nation – machine tools and industrial research and design – Canada possesses almost no facilities of its own, and is dependent on the United States in those crucial areas. Even simple tool and die making especially in the auto industry, is being increasingly concentrated in United States parent plants.
In these respects Canada is indeed unique. No other industrialized country, and very few under-developed nations, are quite so dependent on a single imperialist power. And the geographical factor emphasizes the totality of dependence. In “sovereignty at Bay”, a study based on U.S. Department of Commerce reports, R. Vernon cites some interesting comparisons:
“Even after proper discounting Canada emerges as an area of heavy U.S. involvement in every type of industry. The U.S. stake in the United Kingdom lags well behind. After that the interests of the United States are well dispersed, with Mexico, Brazil, France, and Italy showing some prominence in the list.
During the mid-1960’s, U.S. controlled companies that were engaged in manufacturing in Canada accounted for about 60 per cent of total manufactures in that country. In asset terms the same companies accounted for about 50 per cent of the total for all entities engaged in manufacturing, (page 20) If one lumps together the U.K. and western Europe in a single aggregate, U.S.-controlled subsidiaries engaged in manufacturing accounted for less than 6 per cent of the total sales of manufacturing firms in that area. Moreover, the 6 per cent figure is not unrepresentative of individual countries in Europe. The United Kingdom is on the high side at about 10 per cent, and Italy on the low side with 3 per cent. In short, measured in this gross and insensitive scale, the U.S.-controlled multinational enterprises are not especially prominent in the European manufacturing economy.” (page 21)
In regards to sales in selected industries, sales by U.S. subsidiaries as a percentage of the whole, comparing Canada with Latin America – Latin American figures in brackets: food products 21.8% (7.8%), paper and allied products 42.6% (18.4%), chemicals 50.2% (28.3%), rubber products 72.2% (58.1%), primary and fabricated metals 25.1%, machinery, except electrical, 100%, electrical machinery 68.5%, transport equipment 100%. In the case of Latin America the combined sales in primary and fabricated metals, non-electrical and electrical machinery, and transport equipment, was 20.2%. (Vernon page 22)
These figures give some slight idea, in relative terms, the extent and consequences of United States investment in Canada. This should be important to Moore and Wells, who say:
“For Marxists, foreign investment has always been an important criteria of imperialism.”
But stated as they are, these figures do not tell the whole story of United States investment saturation in Canada. Statisticians generally – and Moore and Wells, are no exception – treat Canada as an economic region, to be compared to other regions, i.e., Western Europe, Latin America, the United Kingdom, etc. Such a system, however, leaves PEOPLE, the real victims of exploitation, entirely out of their calculations. It seems that only REGIONS are exploited in the calculations of the economists.
If we apply the investment statistics in terms of real people instead we will discover that Canada, with approximately one-half of one per cent of the world population, absorbs nearly one-third of all United States foreign investment. Calculated in terms of people that is a ratio of about sixty to one. And if we omit, the Soviet block and China, the ratio will still be about forty to one. So, in terms of population, Canada receives an overwhelming proportion of United States foreign direct investment.
We are treated to statistics purporting to show that Canada’s share in foreign direct investment rose from one percent in 1914, to five per cent in 1960, the only country besides the United States to register growth in that department. What the authors neglect to point out, is the fact that it was in the period 1914-1916, that the United States displaced Britain as the dominant force in the Canadian economy. It was precisely in that period that Canada experienced a phenomenal growth in branch plant industry, and the nearly complete alienation of its primary resources to United States control. Simultaneous with this development Canada became an important base for the channeling of American capital into foreign investment. Hence, the growth will be primarily due to the rise of American investment as an apparent factor in Canadian direct foreign investment. Moore and Wells are compelled to concede this point, but try to minimize it in the following manner:
”... actual native-Canadian capital invested abroad is probably... higher than Germany but lower than France. However, this does not take into account American money which is channeled through European subsidiaries, which would lower the percentages for European countries also. (Unfortunately we lack these statistics.)”
The fact is that Canada is exceptional in this respect. Dividends earned abroad by foreign owned firms in Canada are exempt from taxation. (Brascan, majority foreign owned, is a direct product of this system.) No other country, industrialized or neo-colony, has similar legislation so favourable to foreign investors. (Australia has particularly favourable legislation for capital infusion, but not for reinvestment.)
From comparative growth of foreign investment as a factor in Canada’s status as an imperialist power, Moore and Wells move on to comparative ownership of international corporations, as follows:
“... Canada’s 17 major imperialist corporations places it in a league far removed from Argentina’s two companies, Brazil’s one corporation and India’s two international companies. Canada’s 17 companies even surpass the COMBINED strength of declining Spanish, Dutch and Belgian colonies with their total of 14 major international industrial corporations.... Again the facts demonstrate that Canada is predominantly a weak SECONDARY imperialist power.”
The authors hasten to forestall anyone who may be of a mind to challenge the national status of any of the 17 corporations with the claim that
“... Even if Canada’s 17 international corporations are reduced to 14 (or even 8), Canada would still have more multinationals than Spain, Italy, Netherlands or Belgium. Furthermore, the issue of actual control is becoming increasingly unimportant in an age of the internationalization of capital and multinational investments.”
It is difficult to imagine this type of argument as being anything other than a gigantic hoax. But it seems to be seriously intended, and there are two important trends of thought that begin to emerge.
First to be noted is the suggestion that control of a corporation is an issue of no importance. This will no doubt come as something of a surprise to Third World peoples who are struggling against the depredations and distortions wrought on their economy and their whole social fabric, by the operation of foreign corporations. But not to worry, comrades, control is unimportant to your independence and social welfare.
A second important feature of the argument concerns the reference to the internationalization of capital. By their introduction of this theory of the internationalization of capital, the authors are preparing the ground for the introduction of a new formula that will aid them in “proving” Canada to be a secondary imperialist power. This new formula is accordingly advanced a few pages later, in the following manner:
“... Co-operation is an increasing necessity for imperialist powers. The internationalization of capital (“collective imperialism” breeds “dependence” but “dependence” does not negate the existence of national imperialism – it only restricts its relative autonomy. Even the strength of the U.S. economy is partly dependent upon the stability of the world imperialist system. Therefore, it is a mistake to assume that ”dependence” and “imperialism” are mutually exclusive categories. Quite the contrary, they can overlap. In a sense this whole paper is an attempt to demonstrate this overlap in the case of Canada.” (page 29)
And later, on page 33, the authors elaborate further on their theory of “collective imperialism”:
“The integration of the world imperialist system through “collective Imperialism” has made the division between senior and junior partners increasingly irrelevant. Medium and small sized monopoly capitalist countries are becoming increasingly integrated into the world imperialist system as minority shareholders. Even dependent capitalist countries are not being pushed out of the capitalist system into some sort of alliance with the neo-colonial world.”
In their determination to “prove” Canada is a “secondary imperialist power,” Moore and Wells are doing an impressive public relations job for imperialism, of a sort and magnitude that imperialism could never do for itself. Imperialism, it seems, is not the domination of a strong country over a country, or countries, that are weaker. This monster that everyone dreads so much turns out to be nothing more fearful than a genial ”board of directors”, with the United States at the head, and Canada among the middle order of vice-presidents.
But is there really any difference between this new Moore-Wells formula and Kautsky’s ultra-imperialist apologia for imperialism, which Lenin castigated in these words:
“From the purely economic point of view,” writes Kautsky, “it is not impossible that capitalism will yet go through a new phase, that of the extension of the policy of the cartels to foreign policy,” i.e., of a super-imperialism, of a union of the imperialisms of the whole world and not struggles among them, a phase when wars shall cease under capitalism, a phase of ”the joint exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capital.”
We shall have to deal with this “theory of ultra-imperialism” later on in order to show in detail how definitely and utterly it breaks with Marxism. At present in keeping with the general plan of the present work, we must examine the exact economic data on this question. “From the purely economic point of view”, is “ultra-imperialism” possible, or is it ultra-nonsense?
If by purely economic point of view a “pure” abstraction is meant, then all that can be said reduces itself to the following proposition: ”development is proceeding” towards monopolies, hence, towards a single world monopoly, towards a single world trust. This is indisputable, but it is also as completely meaningless as is the statement that ”development is proceeding” towards the manufacture of foodstuffs in laboratories. In this sense the “theory” of ultra-imperialism is no less absurd than a “theory of ultra-agriculture” would be.
If, however, we are discussing the “purely economic” conditions of the epoch of finance capital as a historically concrete epoch which opened at the beginning of the twentieth century, then the best reply that one can make to the lifeless abstractions of “ultra-imperialism” (which serve exclusively a most reactionary aim: that of diverting attention from the depth of EXISTING antagonisms) is to contrast them with the concrete economic realities of present-day world economy. Kautsky’s utterly meaningless talk about ultra-imperialism encourages, among other things, that profoundly mistaken idea which only brings grist to the mill of the apologists of imperialism, viz., that the rule of finance capital LESSENS the unevenness and contradictions inherent in world economy, whereas in reality it INCREASES them. (Lenin, pages 112-113)
There appears to be little doubt that this criticism of Kautsky places Lenin in direct conflict with the Moore-Wells concept of “collective imperialism”. It was Moore and Wells who chose to appeal to Lenin as authority for their analysis. On page 18, they declared: “Lenin has helped us to define the problem; we must now approach the answer from the perspective of the world imperialist system.” Now it is incumbent upon them to explain how they reconcile their “collective imperialism” formula with Lenin’s position on “ultra-imperialism.” Would they not be better advised to call Kautsky to witness, in affirmation of their stand.
One usually adopts a procedure which begins with a class analysis, and a study of the economic history of one’s own country. Armed with an understanding of the political and economic motives underlying the policies and actions of the dominant class in society, it is then possible to understand their world relations and how those relations reflect back on, and influence, domestic relations. Moore and Wells have reversed that procedure, declaring:
“Proceeding from world political economy to the national peculiarities of Canada and back again to world economy is the most productive Marxist approach; but, this approach is ignored by left-nationalists. Instead they start with a study of the internal development of Canada.”
This reversal of procedure need not necessarily end in disaster, so long as one acquires a correct view of the real world. But if the world view is out of focus, as the view of the authors certainly is, then it may happen that domestic relations will be made to fit an incorrect world view. That, as we shall see later, is precisely the fate that befalls Moore and Wells.
They take as their point of departure, a world outlook that is not in accord with reality. They have failed to comprehend the true role of Russia in today’s world. They see Russia as a member of a non-existent “socialist bloc”, which distorts their analysis, and causes them to arrive at their theory of “collective imperialism.”
Russia’s superpower status is now a crucial factor in international relations. It is not detente, but imperialist rivalry and contention over world hegemony, that is the chief characteristic of U.S.-Russia relations. It follows therefore, that we are not living in an epoch of “collective imperialism” and the victory of world cooperation over conflict, as Moore and Wells contend. The real world is a continuous scene of contention and conflict between two superpowers, and a steadily mounting resistance to their attempts to dominate the whole world.
That point surely needs no further elaboration. The physical evidence is all around us – in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. It is only necessary for one to assess correctly the real role and imperialist objectives of Russia, in order to place the world in proper perspective.
Each of the two superpowers has its own particular sphere of influence. Moore and Wells recognize only one of these spheres – that of the United States – and that, for them, constitutes the “world system of imperialism,” and within this system “collective imperialism” holds sway. But we can readily observe that there is continuous economic competition within the sphere. Armed conflict between members of the U.S. camp is by no means unknown – witness the open hostilities between Turkey and Greece over Cyprus.
There is concern lest Portugal not only quit the camp, but that it may actually defect to the other side. Collusion, long the dominant aspect of Canada-U.S. relations, is in the process of breaking down and giving place to recrimination and dissension. There is a deepening crisis of relations over control of Canada’s primary resources, especially energy sources and fresh water. Viewing the rapid depletion of its own resources, and the increasing difficulty in obtaining supplies from others, the United States strives for a guarantee of access to, and stable prices for, Canada’s abundant raw materials. On this economic ground the interests of Canadian capitalists, and those of the United States imperialists are in collision. The quarrel has even reached the stage where U.S. spokesmen have been known to suggest some unilateral action “to protect American interests.” Such is the current state of relations between the two closest partners in the American camp.
Such unity as did exist in the camp was based on a negative factor – fear of “bolshevism”. Russia is now recognized as another capitalist state, which operates by different methods, so the CLASS issue is resolved and fear in that direction has definitely receded. But there still remains a real fear of Russian aggression which tends to act as a unifying factor but with less effect than formerly.
These conditions are clearly reflected in the communiqué at the end of the May 1975 meeting of the NATO alliance, which emphasized the growing military might of Russia as the compelling reason for maintaining the alliance, and declared that NATO members were
“... strengthened in their resolve to preserve the solidarity of the alliance and restore it where impaired by removing the causes which disturb it.”
Moore and Wells probably hold the opinion that the Russian sphere is held together with bonds of “socialist solidarity.” Of course Russia claims its acts of aggression are “selfless sacrifices in defense of the socialist bloc,” and they endeavour to disguise their imperialist exploitation as the “socialist division of labour”. But one would have to be both blind and deaf, or a dedicated Russian puppet, not to recognize the true state of affairs.
Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, and Hungary, all bear testimony to the existence of Russian imperialist aggression. There is struggle against political repression in the Ukraine, in Georgia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, etc.
The Russian sphere is every bit as much torn by internal contradictions as is the American sphere. Therefore there is contradiction in the imperialist camp; between the two superpowers contending for world hegemony, and within each of the camps between the various members thereof.
This is a far cry from the “collective imperialism” dreamed up by Moore and Wells. And if they can be so wrong in their comprehension of world relations how could they possibly be right in their comprehension of Canada’s role and status in the world – especially since they insist that a correct understanding of world relations is an essential prerequisite to understanding internal relations.
We will offer comment on just one more point in this chapter. On page 31 the authors claim that Canadian bankers want to amend the federal bank act to allow reciprocal banking arrangements for Canadian banks in foreign countries and for foreign-controlled banks in Canada. In short, Canadian banks are prepared to allow foreign banks in Canada so that they can penetrate the economies of other countries. This is a most significant issue which the authors treat very casually indeed. The abandonment of Canada’s historic laws protecting the country’s financial institutions from competition would certainly excite comment from economists and bankers around the world. But no such comment is heard. Moore and Wells read one speculative report on the matter, and took it as virtually settled. Rockefeller, who wanted to come in with a bank long ago, would be standing on Ottawa’s doorstep, in line for a license to operate, if there was but a grain of truth in the rumor.
The suggestion that Canadian bankers would be willing to abandon their age-old protectionism for privileges they already enjoy, is simply ludicrous. It is, in fact, one of Moore and Wells many “proofs” of Canada’s status as an imperialist nation, that the banks roam far and wide in search of new places to exploit.
In this chapter the authors propose to lay to rest the “Deindustrialization Myth” – a myth they lay at the door of their left-nationalist antagonists. No doubt the subject is related to the whole question of Canada’s status as an industrial and a world power. However, we do not intend to follow the example set, rushing to conclusions based on no serious research, and arrived at with the aid of debatable figures and methods. Our contribution will be limited to an examination of the Moore-Wells thesis plus a suggestion for further research into the problem.
The case against the theory of deindustrialization rests entirely on the reproduction of various official tables of statistics, followed by Moore and Wells own inimitable style of comment, appropriately designed to advance the argument in the direction of the pre-determined objective. Our examination will be limited to just one of these tables, and the comment thereon. While this will certainly NOT put an end to the subject - far from it - it will certainly indicate the need to exercise extreme care about accepting the conclusions arrived at, and it places in doubt the use to which the other tables have been put.
Among the tables cited – the item we will examine – there is one that compares the percentage of manufacturing in the gross domestic product of a number of nations. This table appears on page 42, and reads as follows:
| COUNTRY | 1950 | 1960 | 1969 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canada | 29% | 24% | 22% |
| U.S. | 29% | 28% | 28% |
| France | 38% | 37% | 35% |
| Germany | 39% | 42% | 43% |
| Sweden | 33% | 29% | 28% |
| U.K. | 37% | 32% | 29% |
| Japan | 24% | 34% | 33% |
| Denmark | 28% | 29% | 27% |
| Norway | 28% | 25% | 25% |
These statistics are followed by a paragraph of comment by the authors, which reads as follows:
“What do these statistics mean for Canada? First of all, they mean that Canada’s relative decline of manufacturing in the GDP is part of an international trend in the imperialist world. If we take the left-nationalists deindustrialization theory seriously we must conclude that Britain is deindustrializing at a rate similar to that of Canada. After all Britain has declined 8 per cent since 1950 and Canada has dropped 7 per cent. Is Britain a dependent capitalist country moving towards a neo-colony?”
Statisticians and economists possess a rare ability to make figures jump through hoops. A bit of sleight-of-hand will produce almost any result the statistician desires. This particular effort is a classic example of such a performance.
First of all, does a ratio comparison tell the complete story of industrial imbalance. Obviously not. A country which starts from an initially narrow base may experience the same loss percentage – or even less – as another country which started from a much broader base, and the former will suffer much the more serious setback of the two. Moore and Wells are conscious of that fact, but – on page 43 – attempt to pass it off as being of minor significance:
“... Canada is less industrialized than other major capitalist countries and thus suffers more severely from further declines. In fact, Canada has the lowest percentage in manufacturing in the GDP of any major capitalist power. This does not mean that Canada is experiencing an absolute decline in manufacturing but only that other sectors (service, etc.) are growing at a faster rate than manufacturing. . .”
However, there are points of greater significance than this one. Take that alleged 8 per cent U.K. decline, as compared to the Canadian 7 per cent, for example: This is one particular, and blatant, example of the impermissible use of figures to convey a wrong impression. The decline is NOT 8 PER CENT and 7 PER CENT, as stated; it is 8 PERCENTAGE POINTS and 7 PERCENTAGE POINTS, which is quite a different matter. In the case of Canada, for example, the total drop is from 29% to 22% – a decline of 7 POINTS. Now, the percentage ratio of 7 to 29 is NOT seven, it is 24.2%. Employing this correct method we find the following to be the case: the true decline, percentage-wise, is: Canada 1950-1960, 17.3%; 1960-1969, (the entire period) 24.2%. And for the United Kingdom the appropriate figures are: 13.5%; 9.4%; 21.3%.
Contrary to the Moore-Wells mathematical system, we see that the Canadian decline exceeded the British by a whopping four percentage points in the first period,” (a 25% ratio), and by almost three points over the whole period, (a 12.5% ratio). Considering the fact that Britain started with a much larger industrial base initially, (more than 28% larger as a percentage factor), these true figures are very significant indeed. It is even more significant if one takes under consideration the particular problems that have beset British industry since 1939.
Clearly, Britain and Canada are not comparable. If Canada is to be compared with any other country it must be with the United States. But Moore and Wells, dedicated to their chosen cause, refuse to see Canada in a unique relationship to the United States and its economy. If we do place Canada within that economic orbit we find that, in the complete period 1950-1969, the decline in the United States was nearly 3.5%, as against the Canadian figure of 24.2%. The Canadian decline was SEVEN times greater than that of the U.S.
But even this does not tell the full story. Quite a large proportion of what passes for a manufacturing industry in Canada, consists of operations that cannot be classed as anything more than a process of assembly of U.S.-manufacture items. It is mainly an extension of the American assembly line into Canada.
But the question of “deindustrialization” cannot be properly disposed of by means of an analysis of official statistics, covering a mere two decades, and limited to a narrow economic theme. The problem is one of analyzing economic history covering at least two centuries of Canadian historical experience. Some important work has already been done in this area by scholars such as, Pentland, Naylor, Clement and Sher – not all of them in agreement, or laying stress on the same aspects – but much more remains to be done before final conclusions are drawn. Only writers possessed of the temerity of Moore and Wells would venture to reach final conclusions based upon the extreme poverty of information at their command.
We have already resolved that we will not follow the example of these two writers. We have not even a tentative theory to advance at this time, but will pose some of the questions we think must be answered in any study that is undertaken in this area of research.
Did industry experience some success in the early period of our history, only to be destroyed at a later date, thus causing a major shift in the natural course of economic development? Why, in view of our abundant natural resources, do we not have an industrial and agricultural base capable of sustaining four or five times – or even more – our present population? Is our limited population due to the, not accidental, retardation of our industrial development? Why have several million Canadians left their homeland to work in the more extensive industrial and commercial base in the United States – often engaged in fashioning Canadian raw materials into finished products? Why, in the early years, was Canada mainly a transient base for European immigrants passing through to the United States?
These are only some of the more crucial questions that must be answered before the so-called deindustrialization myth can be destroyed – or established as a very real and formidable body.
The authors undertake to answer this very large question in a chapter consisting of a scant eight pages, while placing their reliance on their favourite source of information – official government statistics. They have engaged in no independent research whatever, limiting themselves to highly-debatable opinions on inconclusive statistics. In view of their all too obvious limitations and the paucity of their data, a sweeping claim made by them is ludicrous to the extreme:
“This chapter will demonstrate that the Canadian industrial bourgeoisie is stronger than the left-nationalists claim and that Canadian manufacturing is holding its own against the wave of American investment. In other words, Canadian manufacturing is growing at the same rate as U.S. manufacturing in Canada.” (page 55)
Even the authors of the document do not quite believe their own propaganda, which is indicated by the fact that – on page 60 – they are constrained to say:
“A word of caution must be added to these statistics. The exact relative strengths of the Canadian and American bourgeoisie are not determined by a numbers game i.e., comparing net assets etc. Such assets represent only ’potential’ power for it is the utilization of capital rather than its mere existence which determines economic and political power in society.”
It is indeed unfortunate that the authors did not choose to heed their own timely warning, and scrap the entire project. But they decided to ignore it, and on the very same page we read:
“... the Canadian manufacturing bourgeoisie is linked to and supported by the Canadian-owned financial, insurance and real estate interests.”
It may well be that the left-nationalists underestimate the strength of the Canadian industrial bourgeoisie, as Moore and Wells claim is the case. But that is an extraneous issue, raised merely to muddy the waters. The actual point of the argument is the Moore-Wells attempt to MAXIMIZE Canadian industrial strength as part of their effort to prove their point – that Canada is an imperialist power. Under-statement is neither improved nor corrected by over-statement, and one should be wary of both, especially when each side is primarily concerned with scoring points over the other, and only secondarily concerned with what constitutes the truth.
At this point, and, similarly later, Moore and Wells present no proof of a financial-industrial link in Canada; nor do they attempt to do so. That is most significant in view of the importance of such a link to their whole case for Canadian imperialism.
In this chapter the authors base their claim of industrial strength on a Financial Post list of 39 companies. We do not propose to examine them here, but would point out that the authors themselves are extremely wary of insisting that the list represent a true picture of Canadian control of the economy. We can assert briefly here that 10 out of the 39 companies listed are definitely not Canadian controlled, and 9 of the others are suspect.
On the question of placing reliance on a ratio analysis of control: if one of the two contestants starts from a larger base then, while the RATE of growth may be equal, ABSOLUTE growth favours the stronger of the two. In addition it is important to know about the kind of growth, and the areas of the economy in which it has taken place.
Once again the authors of the document deal with a very large subject in a very limited space: 12 pages. In this examination we propose to omit comment on commodity exports and loans for the financing of purchases in Canada. We will deal only with foreign direct investment, only directing the readers’ attention to the fact that Lenin drew a clear distinction between the export of GOODS and the export of CAPITAL. The figures cited by Moore and Wells on page 65, are taken from publications issued by Statistics Canada, whereas we will rely on the more definite figures in the study “Direct Investment by Canada Abroad”, published by the Department of Industry, Trade, and Commerce. This department uses a base of 50% or more as a definition of “control”. It is generally well known that control is usually exercised through a very much lower percentage of shares than this, therefore the situation regarding foreign ownership will tend to be MINIMIZED rather than MAXIMIZED. The study explains:
“In general, Canadian control of an enterprise is said to exist if 50 per cent of its voting stock is known to be held by residents of Canada.”
For total foreign direct investment, the department study cited a figure of 4,030 million dollars for the year 1967. Of this amount 54.3 per cent was invested in the United States; 12.8 per cent in Britain, and if we include Europe and Australasia we arrive at a figure of 81.4% of the total amount invested in the industrialized countries. Therefore, 18.6%, or approximately 750 million dollars, was invested in Third World countries.
Based on the Department’s criteria of 50% ownership indicating control, 42.5 per cent of Canadian direct investment abroad was in the hands of non- residents. If that percentage holds for the Third World (there are reasons for believing it is greater), then Canadian-controlled investments In that area would be approximately 430 million dollars, while about 2 billion dollars, nearly five times as much, is invested in highly-developed capitalist countries; and mainly in the United States.
All of the charts and comments later presented by Moore and Wells cannot alter the fact that by far the greater portion of Canadian direct investment abroad, ends up in countries that are unquestionably imperialist in character. Moore and Wells place their main emphasis on capital investment as the criteria for imperialism, and conclude that Canada, because it makes such investments, is not simply making investments that are imperialist in nature, but that Canada, as a nation, is imperialist oriented as its chief characteristic. If that is the case, then Canada must enjoy an imperialist status in relation to some of the leading imperialist nations of the world. That is an embarrassing problem that Moore and Wells choose to ignore – but it will not disappear of its own accord. If more than 2 billion dollars investment in the United States fails to make Canada imperialist in relation to that country, then 750 million dollars can hardly make Canada imperialist in relation to the Third World. The point is that both investments are of an imperialist nature, but they do not make Canada characteristically imperialist – and the latter is the essence of the Moore-Wells paper.
In this chapter, on page 76, the authors consider the profitability of Canadian direct investments in the Third World. They make the claim that:
“... Canada’s direct investment in the Third World yields colonial superprofits. . . . some general information is provided from which speculative conclusions can be reached. For example, in 1968, 55.1 per cent of Canada’s direct investment was invested in the United States; yet, only 40.8 per cent of investment income receipts came back to Canada from the U.S. For Britain, the figures are 12.3 per cent for investment and 7.6 per cent for income receipts. In contrast, 32.5 per cent of Canada’s investment was in “all other countries”, which includes the Third World; yet, 51.6 per cent of the income receipts came from this area. Clearly more profit appears to be coming from some countries in the “all other countries” category and it is probably from the Third World.”
It is to be hoped that we will be forgiven for suggesting that the authors’ ”speculation” is clearly influenced by their desired objective. At least it has the distinct advantage of being more clear than the speculation about Third World profits.
It is to be hoped that someone, some time, will do an article on the subject how superprofits relate to the Marxian theory that everything ultimately sells at its value. Marx, of course, was aware of the fact that abnormalities would show up in any short term survey, but over the longer period these abnormalities would fade into insignificance. Things would ultimately balance out.
Not only did Moore and Wells ignore this basic fact, they also, in a frantic effort to score a point, made three important errors: they used statistics that were themselves speculative; they speculated on speculative information, and they arbitrarily assigned speculative data to the area best suited to their purpose. No one could possibly accept that as a normal scholarly approach, and it is a million miles removed from Marxist methods of analysis.
Fortunately, we are in a position to be a little more explicit on this subject. The Department of Trade study, ”Foreign Direct Investment Abroad by Canada”, contains a survey of actual conditions of investment, covering a period of 20 years, from 1946 to 1965. At the end of the period the investment ratio stood thus: U.S. 54.3%; U.K. 12.8%; all other countries 32.9%. Taken over the 20-year period, the investment income situation was thus: U.S. 49.1 per cent of the total; U.K. 16.6% all other countries 34.3%. Admittedly, some abnormalities show up, but the trend is towards balance, and, significantly for the Moore-Wells argument, the imbalance in investment income is related mainly to the U.S.-U.K. figures.
Because it seems more appropriate to discuss the matter in this context, we will now refer back to an earlier point made by the authors (on page 25).
At that stage in their argument Moore and Wells cite statistics based on a per capita ratio of foreign investment. This citation purported to demonstrate that Canada was even more imperialist than some old-established imperialist nations. Canada, with a foreign direct investment of 180 dollars per capita, placed third, surpassed only by the U.S. at 348 dollars per capital, and the U.K. at 336 dollars.
This is a thoroughly bourgeois economist method of statistical calculation. It is a gross minimization of the exploitive effects of imperialist investment on the victims of exploitation. It tends to obscure the true face of imperialism, and make it appear more palatable. Not only does it convey a distorted impression of imperialist investment, it implies that the whole population of a country, every man, woman and child, possesses a stake in this type of investment, shares in the benefits of imperialist exploitation – in Canada’s case a 180 dollar share – when we all know well that such investments are securely held in the hands of a tiny minority. So far as we are concerned this method stands facts on their head, and we propose to stand them on their feet. Let us apply per capital statistics in a directly opposite manner and see what results we come up with.
Nearly 2.2 billion dollars of Canada’s direct foreign investment (both foreign and Canadian controlled) was placed in the United States. This makes a per capita rate of EXPLOITA¬TION of approximately 10 dollars. For countries other than the U.S. the per capita figure would not be above 5 dollars, and even less for Third World countries.
Now, according to the United States Department of Commerce, U.S. direct investment in Canada, as of 1969, amounted to 21,075 million dollars. That amounts to the rather large sum of 1,000 dollars per capita, as a rate of exploitation.
Calculated another way; Canada’s population is about three-quarters of one per cent of the world total – except the Russian sphere and China. Canada absorbs in excess of 31 per cent of ALL U.S. foreign direct investment. That is a ratio of more than 4,000 to one, and rises to more than 6,000 to one if the entire world population is taken into consideration.
According to a government of Canada study published in 1973, the total foreign direct investment in Canada, from all sources, amounted to 34,702 million dollars in 1967 – a per capita rate of over 1,500 dollars. The same study – employing a criterion of 50 per cent or more non-resident ownership as indicating foreign ”control” – reported non-resident control of Canadian assets to be just under 40 billion dollars, or a per capita rate of nearly 2,000 dollars. Canada’s less than 58% of 4 billion dollars foreign investment would not be sufficient to provide a decent down payment for the repatriation of that kind of imperialist ownership of the nation.
No adjustment having been made for the 42.5% foreign control of Canadian investment abroad, the data cited MINI¬MIZES the full scope and effect of foreign – especially U.S. – economic control in Canada. Neither is any allowance made for nominally independent Canadian firms that operate under patent license from American corporations, nor for plants that produce solely for United States branch plants, both being wholly at the mercy of the American corporations.
In brief, foreign (especially U.S.) control of the Canadian economy is truly phenomenal, and unique in the world. And what do Moore and Wells have to say about such vast control of the economy of a nation? On page 21 we read:... U.S. ownership of Canada is only the tip of the iceberg. Canada has the highest percentage of U.S. ownership; and hence, the left-nationalists have defined it as a unique Canadian phenomenon.
Some tip! Some iceberg! Evidently Moore and Wells have as little knowledge of icebergs as they do of the Canadian economy. And let it be specially noted that we are not even touching on the very important question of American domination of our educational system, especially our colleges and universities, or of the overwhelming influence of the American mass media and American culture.
On page 67 we encounter, not for the first time, a reference to the pursuit of raw materials. Since the only raw material that rates mention is bauxite perhaps we had better lay this question of aluminum and bauxite to rest.
Those interested in how Alcan came to Canada are advised to read “Alcan: Portrait of a Foreign Monopoly”, which was published in B.C. Newsletter, No. 8, March 1970. Just one note of interest from that article: Arvida, Quebec, was named for Arthur Vining Davis, the president of Alcoa and a Philadelphia partner of the Mellons. An Arthur Vining Davis is the current head of Alcan. However, in this article we will discuss only the question WHY bauxite was brought to Canada.
There appears to be a general impression abroad that bauxite was shipped to Canada simply as a measure to increase the exploitation of peoples in the bauxite-rich nations. However, the reasons were technical, as well as related to profit.
The refining of bauxite into aluminum requires enormous quantities of electric energy. The cheapest source of electric energy was, and is, water power; once the capital cost is made hydro-electric power is very cheap to produce. The bauxite countries did not possess the water resources necessary to the production of electric energy in sufficient quantities for aluminum refining. To produce on site would have required the employment of expensive fuels, (coal or oil) which were not available locally and would have had to be shipped in at great costs.
In Canada there was available vast resources for the generation of electric energy, and a government ready and willing to lend a hand in exploiting them. There was never any question what the decision would be; bauxite would be shipped to Canada and there refined. And since aluminum ingots are still a form of raw material, workers in both Canada and the Caribbean are being jointly exploited by a giant American-owned corporation.
With the introduction of atomic reactors as a source of electric energy an interesting possibility arises – especially in view of the Canadian government’s willingness to finance the sale of Candu reactors; if Caribbean regimes should resort to the use of reactors, and offer power at attractive rates, and should this be accompanied by a policy of heavy duties on the export of bauxite, the end result could well be the moving of aluminum refining to the Caribbean, and thus end the life of the industry in Canada. It all hinges on the element of profit.
The nature of Canadian imperialism cannot be understood without reference to its business activities in the Third World.... This chapter provides the concrete examples of Canadian imperial expansion, (page 79), Confronted with such a sweeping promise of something concrete in the way of facts, the reader begins this chapter with high expectations. Alas for expectations! There are no miracles forthcoming in the ten pages allotted to the subject.
The authors begin their revelations – on page 79 – with references to “Canadian branch plants” operating in such places as the U.S., the U.K., West Germany and Australia, all nations that one would hardly be inclined to place in the category of “Third World” country. The chief culprits named in the orgy of Third World exploitation are: Falconbridge Nickel; Noranda Mines; Alcan; International Power (Canada Ltd); and Brascan, all American controlled corporations, some of them American-owned.
Kari Levitt is the source of information on investment in Commonwealth Caribbean countries, which is said to total 550 million dollars. But Levitt heads her list with a 310 million dollar investment credited to Alcan, an American corporation. That leaves a balance of 240 million dollars, still fairly large but somewhat smaller than the other figure, and not all of this is proven Canadian-controlled. Even Ford of Canada is thrown into this stew that Moore and Wells have jointly cooked.
The list of companies provided on pages 81 and 82 of the document turn out to be mainly American controlled. In general, the chapter, including the short paragraph on Quebec which appears to have been thrown in for extra effect and without any thought whatever, is a confused mess, and a far cry from the concrete facts promised in the opening paragraph.
At the beginning of this chapter, on page 91, the authors quote from a statement issued by the Toronto Committee for the Liberation of Portugal’s African Colonies, which reads in part as follows:
“... it is far easier for Canadians to perceive their own nation as a ’colony’ – an object of imperialist manipulation – than it is for people living in less-developed parts of the world to view us this way. The Third World is much more likely to see Canada as a well-to-do country with profits, noticeably from the inequities of the industrial economy... It is hard for them not to consider Canada as an integral component of the centre of the world imperialist system, rather than the periphery – an “imperialist power” rather than a colony.”
When companies, whatever their nationality, appear in Third World countries as Canadian entities, people are going to react to them as Canadian imperialist corporations. And who will criticize them for that: So long as our investment laws create an attractive climate for such firms to operate on Canadian soil, we will have to accept condemnation from the Third World as eminently justified.
But opinions on Canada’s conduct in certain respects – even very poor opinions – do not make us an imperialist power. A demeaning role? Yes! An imperialist power? Not necessarily! How we get such a reputation, without coining any profit, is perhaps best illustrated by a story from the not so distant past, and connected with Latin America.
In 1914, Standard Oil, while under investigation for antitrust law violations, secretly purchased the London and Pacific Petroleum Co., which had large holdings in Peru. Standard then established a Canadian subsidiary of London and Pacific – International Petroleum.
In 1915, Peru increased the purely nominal tax of 150 dollars per year, levied against London and Pacific properties, to 6 million dollars annually – about one third the gross revenue realized from exploitation of the properties. Standard, via a secret telegram addressed to the U.S. State Department revealed its status as owner of the ”dominant financial interest”, and appealed for protection, protesting that the Peruvian authorities were “imposing and enforcing destructive and actual confiscatory tax” on the property.
Britain also intervened, on the grounds that the parent company was registered in England. Before such a formidable array of power, Peru at first retreated but quickly returned to the offensive, moving to repossess the property, on the ground that it had been illegally acquired by London and Pacific in the first place. Canadian-based International Petroleum, the Standard Oil foundling, was now used in the dispute. The English-language “West Coast leader”, organ of Anglo-American corporate interests in Peru, on January 12, 1918, reported that
“... a fortnight ago the Canadian government requisitioned the steamer tanker Azof, one of the two carrying oil from Talara to Lima-Callao. At the time the Lima-Callao area needed some 6,000 metric tons of petroleum per month. The remaining tanker, the Circassian Prince, could carry 5,000 metric tons per month. The metropolitan area faced a petroleum deficit of 1,000 metric tons.”
The article reported that while the Canadian government had allowed the two tankers to remain in service ”if thereby a favourable settlement of the controversy could be effected”, the pressures of war and ”the failure of the Peruvian government to take definite action... has removed the essential cause for the Canadian government’s forebearance in the question of the tankers, and as a result one of them has been withdrawn and the second will probably soon follow.”
A private inquiry from the U.S. Secretary of State elicited the information that ”neither the Azof nor the Prince have been requisitioned by the Canadian government.” It was Standard Oil that withdrew the ships, in the name of the Canadian government, and without authorization from that body. But American, British, and Canadian authorities kept silence, and went along with Standard’s blackmail scheme.
In a counter-measure Peru ordered the Lobitos Oil-Fields Co., to transport to Lima-Callao twenty per cent of the oil it normally shipped to Canada. This British company, backed by the British ambassador, rejected the order on the grounds that the Lobitos ships were under Canadian control. Peru was compelled to capitulate to Standard’s blackmail tactics.
It is possible that Canadian merchant capitalists garnered a small profit from the operation. But they neither owned nor exploited the resources in question. Nevertheless, one can readily understand how the people of Peru would arrive at the conclusion that Canada was an imperialist power.
The utter confusion in the Moore-Wells “analytical method” is evident in their “explanation” of the basis of “sub-imperialist” and “secondary imperialist” powers, which reads as follows:
“... sub-imperialism is a form of branch-plant imperialism. These countries, like Brazil, completely lack the independent economic basis of an imperialist power. They lack a fully independent banking system; they import far more capital than they export, and they have very few, if any, international corporations (1 in the top 300 non-U.S. corporations for Brazil; 3 in the case of South Africa, etc.). Secondly, they are imperialist only in a certain regional area – not on a world wide scale. For example, Brazil’s interests are in Latin America, Iran’s investment is in the middle east, etc. In reality they are predominantly privileged colonies which have taken upon the role of junior partners of U.S. imperialism.” (pages 93-4)
Among secondary imperialist powers, Canada is near the bottom of the barrel with only 17 international corporations in the top 300 non-U.S. corporations. However, it must be remembered that Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands together have a total of only 14 international corporations in the top 300 non-U.S. companies. This, then, is the real bottom of the barrel. Yet, who would deny that these countries are imperialist (Belgium in the Congo; the Dutch in Indonesia, and Spain in Morocco).
This looks very much like a handy pocket kit for making imperialist countries out of nothing at all. With the aid of the enclosed formula one can go around creating imperialism wherever one wishes. At an earlier point Moore and Wells spelled out some of the substance of Lenin’s criteria for imperialism and said that Lenin had ”defined the problem” for them; later they disclaimed any intention of “playing a numbers game”. At this stage they have already forgotten their previous resolutions; they are now ignoring Lenin altogether, and are hopelessly abandoning themselves to a numbers game.
The authors are certainly caught on the horns of the proverbial dilemma. That is what causes all their mental gymnastics. Canada is a branch plant nation par excellence – far more so than any Latin American or Caribbean country; it surely lacks an independent economic base, and, depending on one’s point of view and objectives, Canada could be said to have “very few international corporations”. Canada imports far more capital than it exports – even without adjustments for non-resident owned foreign direct investments.
Two other criteria are pushed in for the purpose of establishing a fundamental difference between Canada and the “sub-imperialist powers”; Brazil lacks a “fully independent banking system” (whatever that is? and the authors cite no evidence to show that it is so); and the sub-imperialists invest in a single region, instead of world wide. Apparently all we need do in order to shed the stigma of imperialist power is to reduce the number of international corporations, which can easily be accomplished by moving out the foreign corporations that roost on our soil; next we can concentrate our investments in a single region, then we reduce the independence of our banking system, and, according to the previously noted speculation by the authors, we are well on the way to a voluntary achievement of the latter. So much for the logic of the Moore-Wells criteria for imperialism.
This seems to be a good point at which to insert comment on a Lenin criterion for imperialism ignored by the authors. It was previously noted that Lenin emphasized the export of capital over the export of goods as a criterion for imperialism. The point receives additional emphasis in the following passage horn Imperialism – a passage which the authors never refer to:
“... imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries... Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a social stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by “clipping coupons”, who take no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is idleness. The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.
“In 1893 ... the British capital invested abroad represented about 15 per cent of the total wealth of the United Kingdom. ... By 1915 this capital had increased about two and a half times... The annual income Great Britain derives from commissions in her whole foreign and colonial trade, import and export is .. . 18,000,000 for 1899.... Great as this sum is, it cannot explain the aggressive imperialism of Great Britain. It is explained by the income of 90 to 100 million pounds sterling from “invested” capital, the income of the rentiers.
“The income of the rentiers is FIVE TIMES GREATER THAN the income obtained from the foreign trade of the biggest “trading” country in the world. This is the essence of imperialism.”(Lenin emphasis)
Note that a criterion for imperialism that Lenin classifies as the ESSENCE of imperialism, receives no attention whatever from Moore and Wells. This Essence consists of a vastly greater income from capital exports than is derived from the export of goods. We cannot give the income figures at this time, that is a point that will have to be checked for the future. However, there are figures that can temporarily fill the gap in our knowledge. In 1967 capital exports, native and foreign owned, amounted to less than VA billion dollars, nearly ten times as much. The commodity exports FOR THAT ONE YEAR was almost twice the total sum of foreign direct investment from all sources. It is obvious that income from capital investments would not come near the income from commodity exports. Also to the point: direct foreign investment in the Canadian economy is vastly greater than the total of Canadian direct foreign investment abroad. If these significant facts are not assessed the analysis of the economy cannot help but become distorted.
Nevertheless, armed with their confusions and distortions, Moore and Wells propose to offer an analysis of classes in Canada:
“What is the LINK between dependence and imperialism? This question cannot be answered concretely unless the bourgeoisie is divided into its majority comprador imperialist section and its minority national imperialist section. In the case of the compradors, they are highly paid dependent managers of American imperialism in Canada and abroad. The American controlled comprador bourgeoisie promotes a structural relationship between dependence in Canada and Canadian “branch plant” imperialism abroad. This form of Canadian imperialism is based on the weakness of the Canadian bourgeoisie and its state. However, the real Canadian imperialism of the Canadian-controlled companies is based on strength, i.e., a successful domestic implantation.... Both the comprador and the national bourgeoisie are imperialist because they both dominate monopoly capitalist firms, which inevitably generate surplus capital and commodities which must be invested or sold in the international arena. If Canada were a colony, its national bourgeoisie would probably lack the resources for a world-wide imperialist presence... The strange phenomenon is that both sections of the bourgeoisie are imperialist but predominantly anti-nationalist. Of course the compradors are COMPLETELY anti-nationalist and only a minority (although growing) faction of the ”national” bourgeoisie are nationalist – the rest are pro-American.”
Given the weakness of the Canadian bourgeoisie at home, the national bourgeoisie believes it is more profitable to follow the ideological leadership of the U.S. compradors than to try and rock the boat. In turn, the American bourgeoisie allows certain rights and privileges to its Canadian counterparts. For example: the Canadian bourgeoisie is encouraged to exploit countries weaker and more backward than herself. Thus secondary imperialist powers, like Canada, are unhampered in their imperialism abroad as long as they recognize U.S. hegemony. “Collective imperialism” is a sign of this increasing cooperation between large and small imperialist powers.... (pages 94-95)
The dominant position is to play along with the Americans until we have the strength at home and abroad to seriously undercut them.
It is at this point in their paper that Moore and Wells really begin to pay for their sins against logic – measured by Marxist, or any other standard. From the beginning they rejected the method of an analysis of classes in Canada, determining the social base of the ruling class and placing it in a proper perspective in the world situation. The objectives of the ruling class needed to be understood so that their position within world relations could be understood. Armed with such a correct analysis it is possible to known, not only what the ruling class would LIKE to accomplish, but what they were CAPABLE of accomplishing. Not having carried out that essential, not having arrived at a proper view of the world and the relationship of forces within it, Moore and Wells have no other option but to CREATE a social structure and a ruling class in Canada that will fit their distorted view of affairs.
The Moore-Wells dilemma is clearly evident in the first few sentences of the passages quoted above. They say the link cannot be solved UNLESS the bourgeoisie is divided; in other words, they have no option, they are COMPELLED to put forward that concept because of the monster they have created.
It is also important to note that Moore and Wells insist that the “comprador managers” are a CLASS, and furthermore, that they are the MAJORITY in the Canadian ruling class structure. Shall we not assume that these compradors command state power as a majority, and compradors being what they are, that means rule directly in the interests of the American imperialists. Where, then, is Canada’s political and economic independence, a very important factor in the Moore-Wells scheme of things?
But why divide this ruling class at all? Do they not share a common heritage and class outlook? Both are imperialist! Both dominate monopoly capitalist firms! Both generate surplus capital and commodities which must be sold in the international arena! Both are imperialist, but predominantly anti-nationalist! The compradors are COMPLETELY anti-nationalist, while most of the rest are pro-American! And if anyone can explain that bit of erudition they get the grand prize.
The authors claim that the Canadian bourgeoisie is weak at home, but enjoy an important degree of strength in exploiting other countries. How does this strange phenomenon occur? It seems that an imperialist foster parent helps and encourages the weak infant in the exploitation of still weaker nations. There is no explanation why the imperialists should not act as imperialists all the way, exploiting the weak, the middle weak, and the strong wherever possible.
Moore and Wells say we will play along with the Americans until we gather the “strength at home and abroad to seriously undercut them”. But where is this strength to be gathered from? From the very same imperialists whom we are going to “seriously undercut”. Why should the Imperialist foster-parent nourish the infant until it grows into the monster that destroys the parent? Why not cut the umbilical cord now, kill the weak infant, and take over everything? Is it not the objective of the superpowers like America to take over and exploit the whole world? Has the nature of imperialism changed so much in these latter days that we can really accept the concept of ”collective imperialism”, and the idea of a powerful imperialist nation sharing the fruits of exploitation with a weaker neighbour, rather than striving to seize more areas of exploitation for itself? So many questions, and so few sensible answers from the overnight experts who will study and research nothing, but can deduce everything by the sheer power of the intellect.
Marxists have always contended that a rising capitalist class was first of all concerned with tasks that are essentially national in character; i.e., they sought to consolidate their domestic base, protect the home market, create a solid state structure, and then, and only then, outward bound to imperial glory – or infamy, depending on the class viewpoint.
But Moore and Wells, those intrepid explorers into the never-never land of “collective imperialism”, have stood the world on its head. For the first time in the history of humanity we are observing the evolution of a ruling class that first builds a neo-colonial base, and then, from a position of colonial strength liberates the national base from imperialist domination. And Moore and Wells say that Canada is not unique!
One fundamental problem awaiting solution is the question, what is the economic and social base of the Canadian ruling class? If a correct answer is found to that question then we are a long way toward the solution to the problem of why we are in our present state of stagnation. Making up a world according to a fixed recipe is certainly not the way to a solution.
A better way to start would be to see why the two separate parts of the continent developed along divergent paths. Why did the United States become a highly-developed, powerful imperialist nation while Canada stagnated in the midst of an abundance of natural resources, and sources of energy?
One important factor, of course, was the American revolution; but it was not the only factor, and many people are prone to lose sight of the fact that other elements played a huge role in the making of the American ruling class.
The American Revolution was made by a coalition of three classes; a merchant capitalist class in the northern region; a small industrial capitalist class in the middle region, and a class of slave owners in the south, (see: Simons, Social Forces in American History) The slave owners were the most powerful single force in the coalition; the industrial class was the weakest. The slave owners dominated in the leading bodies of the revolution, and continued their dominant role in the Federal Convention of 1787, when the constitution was drawn up. Washington, a slave owner, was first President and commander-in-chief of the army, and Jefferson, another slave owner, was chief propagandist of the revolutionary forces. It was not until the War of 1812, that these diverse social elements began to be shaken into a new order.
Because of British supremacy at sea America was cut off from its traditional sources of supply in Europe, at the precise time when the demand for consumer goods was rising, a demand aggravated by the exigencies of war. The manufacture of consumer goods, and particularly the production of supplies for the armed forces, became a highly profitable pursuit. The war acted even more effectively than import duties as protection for the home market. Merchants began to turn their attention towards industry – the manufacture of goods, rather than concentrating all of their time and attention on the buying and selling of commodities. Army contracts, with their assured profits, encouraged them in this endeavour. Wilson, in his History of the American People, relates how merchants in the port cities were selling their ships to raise capital in order to finance manufacturing projects.
Within a half century the contradictions between the rising industrialist capitalist class on the one hand, and the slave owning class on the other, sharpened to the point of open armed conflict. From that civil conflict the most advanced social element, the industrial bourgeoisie, emerged victorious, and immeasurably strengthened, economically and politically, as a result of their victory.
By means of an ever increasing campaign of violence, the American ruling class added to their stores of wealth, and expanded their territorial acquisitions. The French were forced out of Louisiana, and the Russians from Alaska. Vast areas were wrested from the Spanish and Mexicans, and additional lands taken from the British – especially in the Northwest. In an unprecedented campaign of violence and savagery the native Indians were dispossessed of their possessions. Riches poured into the coffers of the ruling class, industry expanded, and imperialist appetites were whetted.
As a result of the Spanish-American war United States influence became dominant throughout the whole of Latin America. By the end of the first world war, by which time United States capital had displaced British capital in a position of dominance in the Canadian economy, United States economic domination covered the hemisphere.
Beginning with the first fundamental fact of no armed overthrow of British rule, Canada followed a very different path of economic and political development from that chosen by the United States revolutionaries.
While it is true that some industrial development did begin to emerge in British North America – especially in the Maritimes – the merchant capitalists remained the dominant economic and political force, clinging closely to Britain for aid and protection against both the French and the Americans. Because of its choice of a dependent existence, the ruling class stagnated in its merchant class character. There was no climactic event, such as the War of 1812, to push the Canadian merchants in the direction of industrial development. That event only made them cling all the closer to England.
The aborted petit-bourgeois revolution in Upper Canada, in 1837, led only to compromise, the strengthening of the political control of the merchants and landlords, and the continuation of dependence on Britain. The chief characteristic of the ruling class in Canada lay in its economic basis in commercialism, and that had a fundamental effect on the growth – or lack of growth – of the Canadian economy.
There was an abundance of natural resources at hand, and a huge energy potential. Immigrant labourers came by the tens of thousands to create the necessary labour pool. For the most part they remained a short time, then passed on to the United States, where the economy was expanding and providing the necessary jobs to attract and keep immigrants. Canada was, in fact, aiding United States industry in the task of gathering a labour force.
As early as the 1880s U.S. corporations had established branch plants in Canada, and had begun the exploitation of natural resources. (Mira Wilkins, The Maturing of the Multinational Enterprise, Harvard 1974) By 1904. the U.S. Consul-General in Halifax was able to report to Washington
“... The American invasion of Canada seems to be pretty well under way. There are a large number of American companies already at work in Canadian towns near the American border. There is not a week that either myself or someone of my colleagues does not report to the department of State the name of some American firm that has received a license to erect a factory and engage in business in Canada.” (Canada and the Garrison City, American Industries, Vol. 3 No. 9 p. 4) By 1905 one hundred and thirty-two leading corporations had established branch plants in Canada.
Of course, the merchant wanted, and needed, the development of industry so there would be someone in need of merchant class services. It was to encourage this type of development that the Empire preferential tariffs were put into effect as early as 1897. Indigeneous Canadian industrialists had the protection of the tariffs to the same extent as anyone else, and a few did take advantage of them. But the main advantage lay with the already strongly based American industry. Because of their demonstrated ability to carry on a successful business venture, they even received the lion’s share of public funds allotted for the encouragement of manufacturing enterprise.
British investment in Canada had consisted mainly of portfolio funds and loans. American investments, on the other hand, were of the direct type of investment, which meant direct control of the economy. The consequence is that Canada lost control of its economy, and the direction of its development. The end result of these historical conditions has been the subject of discussion in the previous pages. The question now is: what kind of class structure has arisen on this economic base, in which the major portion of the economy, including the leading sector, is in the control of alien imperialists, while political control – the state – obviously rests in the hands of an indigenous capitalist class that is characteristically mercantile?
We are a fairly highly industrialized country. But not an ADVANCED industrialized country. That is because we have no machine tool industry, no industrial research and design facilities, and only a limited amount of simple tool and die making capacity. All of these crucial facilities are held securely in the grasp of the American imperialist entrepreneurs, and any country that is without them is deprived of any possible independence in economic development. No country that is without them could possibly be thought of as an ADVANCED industrialized nation in the real sense of the term. While we have retained a large measure of POLITICAL independence (and that is a significant factor, which tends to mislead the unwary), ECONOMICALLY we are well advanced in the stage of colonization.
Out of this historical development, and On the basis of our economic bondage and political independence there has come into being a particular class structure.
Normally in an industrial society the industrial bourgeoisie should rule. But in Canada the class that is economically dominant is an alien class and, as a direct result of its alien quality cannot rule on its own behalf.
Moore and Wells tried to solve this problem by turning comprador managers into a class, which rules both on its own behalf, and on behalf of its imperialist masters, sharing state power with a half-nationalist, but economically and politically weak industrialist class. But they choose to forget that compradors are completely tied to the imperialists, possessing no political or economic interests that are separate from those of their masters. If compradors ruled Canada would be a complete colony.
There is no question about the branch plant managers being comprador in nature. Many of them, in fact, are American citizens, others are ”temporary” Canadians. But the question of whether or not managers can be said to be a “class”, in the real meaning of the word class, is a moot point. However, one could certainly expect them to ACT as a class in the event of a real crisis in Canadian-American relations. If successful that could only end in Canada being integrated into the American state structure.
Subject to further study, we are suggesting that Canada, an industrialized country, is ruled by a merchant capitalist class, with a minor share of the state power going to comprador representatives of the dominant imperialist power – the United States. Therein lies the secret of many of our internal contradictions, in the federal state structure, between the federal state structure on the one hand and the regions on the other, and between the regions. The largely comprador Alberta faction is an example of one side of the contradiction, while the merchant-class oriented NDP in British Columbia is representative of another aspect. There is also a small indigenous industrial capitalist class which drifts around between the two dominant political groups, while trying to expand its own position by taking advantage of the contradictions that exist between the other two.
There are two aspects to the relations existing between the Canadian merchant capitalists on the one hand, and the imperialists and their comprador representatives on the other hand. Because of their nature as a class providing services for the imperialists, the element of collusion is usually quite strong – for example: most of the public funds allotted for industrial development assistance goes to large American corporations.
But because they have independent economic interests, the merchant capitalists are often in disagreement with the imperialists, so there is a strong element of conflict in the relationship. At this time, mainly due to the world situation, the aspect of conflict is dominant, and harsh words are being bandied about on both sides of the border.
Manifestations of this element of conflict, also partly related to the expansionist desires of the indigenous industrial capitalists, are seen in the occasional jousts that they have with such people as Coyne, Kierans, Gordon and Gray, on the one side, and managerial compradors on the other side.
It is not suggested, however, that the Canadian merchant class will deliberately seek a solution through a hostile confrontation with the imperialists and their agents. But not to be ruled out altogether is the possibility of miscalculation on the one side or the other, that could result in a precipitate change in the structure of Canadian society.
We have not touched at all upon the working class and other elements in Canadian society, so the picture is unavoidably incomplete, to be returned to at a later date.
There is just one final point in this chapter to be commented on. The authors, for their own particular purpose, offer us their peculiar version of Canadian history, in a passage which reads:
“The Canadian national bourgeoisie, with the backing of British imperialism and the Canadian state, utilized a time of American weakness – the Civil War – to expand their control to the Pacific Ocean and unify Canada. This founding of the Canadian state was also the product of a vicious policy of internal colonialism towards the Native population of Western Canada. Thus the Canadian nation is the result of five interlocking factors: (1) utilizing the contradictions of inter-imperialist rivalry (British vs. American); (2) the strong intervention of the Canadian state; (3) internal colonialism towards Native people; (4) the aggressive expansionism of the Canadian bourgeoisie; (5) the American weakness during the Civil War. In the future, the Canadian empire will also result from an expanding bourgeoisie, strong governmental support, external neocolonialism, the decline of American hegemony and Canada’s ability to play off Japan and the Common Market against the U.S.” (page 96)
It would be very interesting to know what brand these people smoke. It was a rare nightmare they had when they sat down to discuss Canadian history.
First of all, we have the suggestion that there will be no fundamental social change taking place in the world. We will experience only an endless round of one imperialist empire arising on the ruins of one whose day of glory has ended. It is Canada’s turn, with the help of Japan, to enjoy the next try at imperial glory. Japan, of course, will render selfless assistance in the spirit of “collective imperialism”, not trying to garner any of the glory for itself. Who knows? It may be Japan’s turn next – or perhaps the glory of the isle of Tierra del Fuego will rise to pre-eminence, and its people rule the whole known universe.
This particular distortion of Canadian history was needed by the authors in order to sustain their incomprehensible thesis of a dawn of Canadian empire. Perhaps, in some later version, they will instruct us on the tactics of Japanese support in the making of the Canadian empire. However, we have our doubts.
Let us turn for a moment to the “facts” of history, as stated by Moore and Wells: Control expanded to the Pacific Ocean during American weakness in the Civil War period; the boundaries on the Pacific were set on the 49th parallel, in the Oregon Treaty of 1846, twenty years before the Civil War erupted. In that business Canada lost out to American aggression and British chicanery and cowardice. Furthermore, there was not yet a Canadian “state” in existence. Confederation, the fashioning of the Canadian state, was not completed until well after the Civil War had ended. The “last spike” was not driven in the transcontinental railway until 1885, two decades after the Civil War.
The drive to span the continent by rail, and the determination to spend the enormous amount of capital necessary to its accomplishment, was because of American strength, not weakness. The American entrepreneurs were furiously attacking the problem of constructing lines of transportation and communication south, west, and north, and the northward expansion was the cause for much anxiety among the ranks of the Canadian capitalist class. A merchant class saw its realm of profitable trade threatened by an extremely ambitious and aggressive competitor, and hastened to effect remedial measures to head off the threat at the pass. The full financial resources of the nation were dedicated to saving the day for the merchant class and, ironically, American industrialists coined a tidy profit from the project, and obtained possession of a considerable interest in the railway in the process.
We invite our readers, in fact we URGE our readers, to make their own thorough study of the sources to see who is right on these items of Canadian history.
AT LAST! After much sweat and extreme frustration in confrontation with this unholy mess, we have finally reached the last chapter. There are many complex issues raised and it would be a hopeless task to try to deal with them here. However, they are all problems that would be discussed in a journal like Canadian Revolution in the normal course of events. So one may reasonably expect to see them introduced from time to time. The claim that ALL nationalism is reactionary is a Moore hangover from his days in the Canadian Party of Labour, the Canadian political branch plant of Progressive Labour. The only thing that Moore appears to have accomplished in his political migration is his consistency. He still insists that ALL nationalism is reactionary but talks of the need for national self-determination, in a very confused way it is true. He is so confused at this stage that his comparison of the Lenin line with that of Luxemburg, implies that Luxemburg favoured support for national causes and Lenin opposed her, whereas the reverse is the case.
We will just touch briefly on the reference to Quebec – another example of the Moore-Wells penchant for dealing with very complex questions in the most simplistic, confused and ridiculous manner. They say:
“... Quebec unlike most neo-colonial nations today, is under the direct political and military control of Canada (witness the War Measures Act and the invasion of Quebec in 1970). It is the direct colonialism of the 19th century rather than the indirect neocolonialism of the 20th century.”
“... Marxist-Leninists should support Quebec’s right to self determination.” (page 108)
In partial support of their position Moore and Wells quote Ryerson’s “Unequal Union”: “... a union in which hegemony was to belong to the English-Canadian bourgeoisie.” The operative word is WAS, and indeed that was the initial result, even when the Anglo-Canadians were in a very definite minority. But Moore and Wells view history as though it was static, not capable of motion and change, so they are still at year one of the conquest.
But history has moved on while Moore and Wells stand still at 1760. The Quebec bourgeoisie are far from the helpless victims of oppression that the authors try to make them out to be.
In this nation, composed of a multitude of racial minorities, and with Anglo-Canadians no longer as solidly united as they once were under British influence, the compact population of Quebec, with its strong nationalist spirit, traceable to the conquest and years of foreign oppression, represents a potential of powerful popular support for nationalist bourgeois and petit-bourgeois circles. Also, the form of the federal state, originally designed as a weapon against Quebec, now militates in favour of the Quebec bourgeoisie. That is made manifest in the coalition of forces in the ruling Liberal Party, with Quebec the solid core.
Moore and Wells are seemingly unaware of the value of Quebec’s strong tactical position, but the Quebec bourgeoisie are not unaware of it, and are making full use of the situation. They have pushed ahead towards a wide measure of autonomy – the formation of a “national assembly”; greater control over Quebec finances; French as the official language, etc. This is not to suggest that the working class of Quebec have attained any greater degree of liberty in the changing situation. But the Quebec bourgeoisie certainly has. In the economic field Quebec bourgeois advances keep pace with political advances. Bombardier is a leading Quebec corporation, and it recently purchased MLW Worthington, formerly U.S. owned, with the aid of the federal government. Power Corporation is rapidly becoming one of the most powerful economic unit’s in the country, and threatens to absorb the once prestigious, but now declining Anglo-Canadian Argus Corporation. (Moore and Wells should check their list for “imperialist” corporations controlled by Bombardier and Power Corporation.)
In regards to the proclamation of the War Measures Act in 1970: that mission was carried out in support of the Quebec bourgeoisie. Furthermore, it is simply perpetuating an illusion to insist that the War Measures Act can be proclaimed for a single area. If these two authors had lived in Vancouver at the time they would have very quickly realized that the Act applied everywhere. Mayor Campbell made that very clear when he ordered all “hippies” to be picked up under authority of the official proclamation.
One final point should be made on this subject: other areas of this federal state have had the economic development in the interests of the financial centre. Living standards are more depressed in the maritime region than they are in Quebec. It is the conquest, ethnic, cultural and language problem in Quebec that make it appear so much worse there. And when speaking of self-determination for French Canada^ what about the Native Indian population, they have suffered from the result of conquest and oppression for far longer than the Quebecois.
This is the point at which we must pose to our readers the question: have Moore and Wells proved their point, have they successfully defended their thesis that Canada is an imperialist country? That, of course, is a rhetorical question which we. will answer ourselves, in the negative. We believe that there remains no shadow of a doubt regarding their total lack of success on that score. About the only thing they have succeeded in establishing is their own lack of simple honesty and political integrity. This they have accomplished by the manner in which they have outrageously mutilated quotes, and misused statistics, all done in a frantic effort to substantiate a conclusion they had already agreed upon before starting on their opus.
There can be no denying the fact that these two set out with the deliberate intent to mislead. The second chapter alone contains ample evidence on that score. There we saw quotes truncated, taken out of context, or deliberately mutilated – sometimes all three in a single paragraph. In addition, some material germane to the discussion was deliberately suppressed. In every single case the distortion was worked so as to be of the greatest possible benefit to the authors’ cause.
But even with all the mutilations, and the mental gymnastics that the authors went through, we believe that no solid case was made to prove Canada an imperialist country. When the thesis is dissected and analyzed, it is even more obvious that Moore and Wells have registered a colossal miss on the target al which they took aim.
Does this mean that Canada makes no capital investments that are imperialist in nature? Of course not! And here we would like to add that we do not subscribe to the hollow controversy, that mercantile investments are not imperialist, or are less imperialist than direct investments. There is a difference in the two types of investment; but both are imperialist in nature. After all, mercantilism was the chief cornerstone of the British Empire and that should be imperialist enough to suit anyone’s taste.
But the question at issue is not does Canada make investments that are of an imperialist character. What has to be resolved is this: is Canada characteristically imperialist? And the answer to that would appear to be a resounding no! Canada is a nation economically dominated by a single great power, to an extent not experienced by any other single country – with the possible exception of some countries in the Russian sphere. The historical record, and the wealth of economic data that is available seems to bear that out. People should shed their preconceived notions and get down to the solid business of collecting, studying, and analyzing the data, without prejudice or favour.
In the matter of the merging-of banking capital with industrial capital, there is a wealth of concrete evidence that this has taken place in the United States, but no one has stated a single shred of concrete evidence that it has taken place in CANADA. Having said that I must express the fervent hope that, the next issue of the journal will not bring-someone quoting Lenin. We KNOW what Lenin said about finance capital; the point is not to make endless quotes, but to PROVE that it has happened here and now. No one seems to think it necessary to do that simple task on a point so extraordinarily crucial to the case. Those who rely solely on quotes and formulas are the kind of cooks who would say: “We have the recipe, to hell with the ingredients.”
We see the Moore-Wells epic as consisting of nothing more nor less than a cosmetic job on imperialism; ”Collective imperialism”, cooperation, the greater part of direct foreign investment said to pass between imperialist countries themselves – America choosing to invest in Europe, while Europe favours America as an area for profitable investment – all makes imperialism seem so much more palatable. And the creating of imaginary imperialisms that are encroaching on the great American empire, mice gnawing at the mighty edifice until it collapses, makes the monster appear less fearsome, and takes the heat off one of the most aggressive powers the world has ever known. This error is further compounded in the failure to direct attention towards the aggressive imperialist policies pursued by Russia, the other great imperial superpower. One must conclude on the evidence that this paper by Moore and Wells serves no enlightening purpose. It is reactionary to the core.
Finally, and most importantly, we dislike the way in which the document implicitly denies any hope of social transformation in the world. It suggests only an endless round of collapsing empires, which will be succeeded by others in their turn. We believe there is another way.
* * *
Imperialism and the National Question in Canada is available from Steve Moore and Debi Wells, 70 Beverly Street, Toronto, Ontario. $2.50 per copy; 3 copies or more, $2.00; 10 copies or more, $1.50