The Workers’ Unity Collective of Edmonton considers the questions confronting this conference to be crucial to the Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada. First, because the identification of the principal contradiction, of the classes confronting one another and the nature of the resolution of this contradiction is central to the development of a revolutionary practice. Second, and perhaps more important, at this stage in the development of the movement, because the correct identification and exposition of the principal contradiction and related questions requires the concrete application of the science of M-Lism to the actual situation in Canada. It requires an in depth analysis of the country’s history, its political economy and the classes in motion, and Canada’s relation to the rest of the world, particularly the imperialist system. We stress this point because we feel that the M-L movement is very weak and undeveloped in its understanding of and application of M-L theory.
Lenin held that “the concrete analysis of concrete conditions” was the “heart of Marxism”. And yet most of the published material of the movement in the last year has either been immediate agitation on current events or arguments over the proper interpretation of the texts of Marx and Lenin in general, largely abstracted from the actual conditions. The most notable exception is the recently published pamphlet by the Red Star Collective of Vancouver entitled “Canada: Imperialist Power or Economic Colony?”.
The Workers’ Unity Collective of Edmonton is in fundamental agreement with the position on Canada’s political economy advanced by the Red Star Collective in this pamphlet. We feel that it correctly outlines the history of the development of capitalism in Canada, analyzes the nature of the dominant fraction of the bourgeoisie and its relation to U.S. imperialism, and formulates the principal contradiction. We hope that it will be widely read and serve as a basis for further investigation and analysis.
In an article we published in Canadian Revolution, Vol. 1, No. 4, we stated: “The main characteristic of the development of capitalism in Canada is that this development has always take place under the domination of one or another imperialism. At no point in this country’s history has it been truly economically independent, at no point has Canada produced a genuine national bourgeoisie which actually controlled the Canadian economy and which attempted to develop the country as an independent capitalist power. For this reason, we feel that at present Canada must be viewed as a type of neo-colony, which is dominated and exploited by the U.S. bourgeoisie. Because of the high level of economic development prevalent in Canada, and the absence of any genuine national bourgeoisie the national question in Canada can be resolved only be a socialist revolution which can establish a truly independent Canada under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
This statement has since been misinterpreted in some quarters and therefore requires some explanation. By a type of neo-colony, we were referring to the situation in which Canada, while having political sovereignty, independence, is economically controlled by and subject to the designs of American imperialism. We are not talking here of every economic policy and every investment decision, but of the general pattern of economic development as it affects the strategic interests. Canada occupies a subordinate position in the American empire which is guaranteed by the power of American capital and its state.
The current indices of this domination include (1) the extent of foreign possessions, where it can be shown that American capital dominates the productive apparatus; (2) Canada’s trade dependency, where it can be shown that this country is chiefly an exporter of raw and semi-processed goods to the U.S. and an importer of highly manufactured goods, reflecting the structure of industrial development; and (3) the pattern of Canadian indebtedness, which reveals that Canada has a rapidly growing international net indebtedness, primarily due to U.S. direct investments in this country, but also due to massive borrowing to offset the export of profits to U.S. investors. We hold that the profile of our political economy provided by an examination of these sorts of factors simply does not add up to that of an imperialist power, as some maintain, and that when coupled with an historical analysis of the evolution of the system, as done by Red Star Collective, validates the use of the term, economic colony.
When we denied the existence of a “genuine national bourgeoisie” in Canada, we were not suggesting that the Canadian ruling class is a mere puppet of the U.S., or that as a whole it was a comprador bourgeoisie strictly defined as a directly dependent bourgeoisie. We realize that it both has its own specific interests and designs, and that it is a considerable force in its own right over against the proletariat. But this bourgeoisie has accepted, and even helped foster, a situation wherein it does not control the national economy, and cannot independently formulate a policy of national development. It has not shown the capacity, or the will, to organize and extend its own political and economic power against that of other national capital, especially that of the U.S. Rather, it has sought an alliance with the American bourgeoisie which provides it with a lucrative base in the banks, transportation, trade, and some industries, while surrendering the bulk of the productive apparatus, and with it the possibility of independent development as an imperialist class in its own right, capable of contention on a world scale.
In the above context, the question of who holds state power is not a simple one. The state in capitalist society is not an instrument which can simply be used at will by whoever seizes control of it; rather, it is a product of class relations (struggle) and reflects the existing relation of class force in the society. It acts as a cohesive force in the social formation, and serves to reproduce the existing capitalist structure, characterized today by the domination of Monopoly capital. In Canada, with major sectors of the economy under the control of the American bourgeoisie, and with, as a result, this bourgeoisie in a position to significantly determine the course of the economy, to talk of the Canadian bourgeoisie holding undivided state power is to artificially separate politics and economics.
Further, if one recognizes that there arc important sections of the Canadian bourgeoisie that do not have the kind of autonomous economic base that the bankers and merchants do, for example the out and out comprador bourgeoisie that manages the branch plants; and if one recognizes that members of these sections are part of the ruling power bloc; then it is even clearer that possession of the state apparatus by the Canadian bourgeoisie as a whole docs not make it master in its own house, much less an independent imperialist class with its own imperialist state.
In the previously mentioned article in C.R., we referred to socialist revolution as resolving the “national” question. While this is true, we may have given the impression that we considered the contradiction between the Canadian nation and American imperialism to be principal. This was and is certainly not the case.,/p> Canada is a sovereign country in which capitalist relations are pervasive, and virtually exclusive. Both the political and economic tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution have been basically accomplished.
The fundamental contradiction is that between capital and labour, and we hold that this is also the principal contradiction. But the capital side of this contradiction consists both of the capital of the Canadian bourgeoisie, and that of the American bourgeoisie in Canada, with the latter being dominant. Therefore, the principal contradiction must le formulated as being between the Canadian proletariat on the one hand, and the Canadian bourgeoisie and American imperialism on the other. Central to this position is the contention that American capital in Canada cannot be simply viewed as one of many foreign investments, but instead, because of its nature, strategic concentration and power, is qualitatively different, and places American imperialism as a specific component of the internal contradiction. Therefore, in terming Canada an economic colony, we are in. no way calling for an all class national liberation struggle, or a two-stage revolution. We are simply identifying the actual conditions of the struggle for socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, in a one stage revolution.