The success of a revolutionary programme in any society depends in the first place upon the investigation and discovery of the main contending classes and strata and the development of a strategy to mobilize the progressive forces against their enemies. A correct analysis and a programme skillfully worked out and implemented should lead to the attraction and solidification of progressive forces under the leadership of an increasingly coherent and vital communist party, the enervation and isolation of the ruling class and its allies, and the eventual conquest of state power by the proletariat. On the other hand, a sloppy investigation and strategy can only fragment and disunite progressive forces, play into the hands of the enemy and consolidate its class rule. A case in point that fits into this second description is the ultraleftists’ “analysis” of the contours of Canadian society – most notably its principal contradiction – and their idea of a political strategy.
In this section, we focus on CCL’s position on the principal contradiction in Canada, a position which it has retained throughout, and one which IS now appears to have also adopted after a history of much vacillation. It is not our intention to come to any definitive conclusions on this question since we don’t claim to have yet completed the work required to unequivocally declare a full position. But since CCL and IS do make such claims, it is possible for us to comment on what they have done. What emerges clearly is that their whole “analysis” is superficial and internally inconsistent. Worse yet, it dishonestly glosses over any evidence, no matter how glaring, that contradicts their position.[1] Therefore, our purpose here is to expose their methods of “analysis” which have allowed them to arrive at easy (and very likely misleading) conclusions.
Since its inception, CCL has held to the thesis that Canada is an independent country with its own independent, imperialist, national bourgeoisie in full command of the state apparatus. This thesis is so shaky that even CCL is forced to make occasional concessions to the obvious. In their pamphlet, Statement of political agreement for the creation of the Canadian Communist League (Marxist-Leninist)[2] (November 1975), they write:
Canada, as a second world country, has so far played an ambiguous, back-seat role. On the one hand, Canada opposes the plunder perpetrated by the superpowers (limitation of oil and natural gas exports to the US, struggle for the 200 nautical mile-limit, temporary closing of the Atlantic ports to the Soviet fishing fleet), seeks to cooperate with the Third World and is trying to develop relations with the European Economic Community. On the other hand, Canada is hesitant to speak in support of the Third World at international conferences and at the UN and is trying to increase its exploitation of the Third World. Moreover, Canada doesn’t really have an autonomous military defense system, but is linked militarily to the United States by the NATO and NORAD Treaties, (p. 22)
The points in this passage which supposedly demonstrate Canadian autonomy are actually open to the opposite conclusions since they are but weak examples of independence, as contrasted with those points demonstrating Canadian dependence – which are telling and significant. It is striking how CCL, in its begrudging acquiescence to reality, soft-pedals Canadian dependence and how it insinuates that Canada’s exploitation of the Third World originates with the Canadian bourgeoisie. CCL’s roundabout admission of the Canadian bourgeoisie’s relative weakness should give pause to any easy acceptance of their central thesis.
Yet it does not stop them, a few short paragraphs later, from beginning the next chapter with the bold heading, “Canada: An Imperialist Country of The Second World”, (p. 25) With complete aplomb, they forward the undocumented assertions that the Canadian bourgeoisie went beyond the formal political independence that came with Confederation to “complete independence” in 1931 (p. 28), and that following Confederation, Canada quickly entered “the stage of monopoly capitalism or imperialism.” (p. 29) (This again suggests by innuendo that the monopolies were Canadian entities.)
How can they be so sure of the independent status of Canada and of its bourgeoisie – its monopoly and imperialist bourgeoisie – when they have just said that this bourgeoisie does not even have a military machine of its own to defend its supposed imperial interests and to expand its empire? How can they make this claim when most of Canadian investment is not in the Third World anyway, and of that portion which is, much of the penetration by “Canadian” monopolies turns out not to be Canadian at all? (Red Star Collective, which documents this point, concludes that “a major portion of ’Canadian’ direct investment in countries outside of the United States is, in fact, American controlled.” Canada: Imperialist Power or Economic Colony?, p. 59)
A more likely possibility, judging both from CCL’s inadvertent admissions and from what honest research has been done, may be a dependent Canada with a dependent bourgeoisie to match, a bourgeoisie which has full control of neither the state nor of the economy of the country, but which instead appears to be locked into the snares of U.S. imperialist hegemony. From the start CCL avoids frank discussion of this possibility by presenting a superficial and often distorted history of Canadian capitalist development, neglecting to show who actually owns and/or controls the monopolies in Canada, and resorting to commonplace truisms like: Canada is a capitalist country, a monopoly capitalist country; and we are now living in the era of imperialism. These facts have been known for a long time, but by themselves, they in no way shed light on the nature of the Canadian bourgeoisie.
Using truisms and unsubstantiated assertions as starting points, CCL draws a series of mini-conclusions, all leading up to their grand conclusion. They begin: Canada is a capitalist country belonging to the developed capitalist countries of the Second World; therefore Canada is an independent country with its own independent bourgeoisie just as are Japan, West Germany, France and Britain (with countries like Spain, Portugal, Hungary and Poland thrown in to boot.)
They continue: the present epoch is one of monopoly capitalism or imperialism, and Canada is a monopoly capitalist state; therefore it is not only independent but also imperialist like Japan, West Germany, France and Britain, the only difference being that the “large American presence in Canada makes Canada quantitatively different from other Second World capitalist countries, such as Britain or France; but there is no qualitative difference.” (p. 39)
They continue on: Third World countries dominated by imperialism must go through a two-stage revolution – a bourgeois democratic national revolution and then a socialist revolution. By contrast, advanced captialist countries that already have bourgeois democracies (like Canada) only need one-stage revolutions-an immediate advance to socialism. Therefore Canada cannot be an imperialized country since it would then be forced into a two-stage revolution. (Anyone who suggests that Canada is a dominated nation is accused by CCL of advocating the absurdity of a two-stage revolution in an advanced capitalist country, because for them a country cannot be advanced and imperialized at the same time and thus in need of a revolution against two enemies in a single stage.)
Such simplistic formulas are supposed to add up to “proof” of their grand conclusion: “the principal contradiction is between the Canadian bourgeoisie and the Canadian proletariat.” (p. 41.)
Under the headline, “Canada: The Development of an Imperialist Country” (p. 27), they set out to “look at the essential characteristics of one aspect of Canadian history: the development of an imperialist Canadian bourgeoisie.” (p. 27) Why only that one particular aspect? Their next sentence, which states that “a more complete history of the working class remains to be done” (p. 27), would not be so upsetting if they had not already made up their minds about the nature of the working class. Surely if they are laying out strategy for a proletarian revolution – which is the whole point of determining the principal contradiction – they should know something about the proletariat in whose name the revolution is to be waged.
In an effort to glean more substantial clues to their rationale for their designation of the principal contradiction, we are confined, since they haven’t done this basic work, to turning our attention to some of the history they do claim to have done.
1-Primitive accumulation of capital in Canada essentially took place in the first part of the 19th century with the appropriation and monopolization by capital of the land belonging to small farmers, the native peoples (the expropriation was particularly violent in this case) and the seigneurs. At the same time, enormous fortunes were amassed by the commercial bourgeoisie, mainly through the fur and wood trades.
From that time on, capitalist forces and relations of production witnessed an autonomous, if limited development, (p. 28)
Primitive accumulation of capital in the sense in which the authors of this passage suggest may be more apparent than real. In the particular colonial conditions prevailing in early 19th century Canada, isn’t it possible that this, in large part, meant the increasing expropriation and exploitation of the native and settler communities by British colonialism, of which the Canadian bourgeoisie may have been little more than the political instrument? It is not enough to simply say that capital was accumulated without asking how much of that capital may have been either drained away from the country to fill the coffers of British and other foreign capitalists or utilized in such a way as to further enrich them and their local agents. Such questions could conceivably point to a dependent Canadian bourgeoisie lacking economic autonomy and political initiative– which, if it did, would tell us much about the offspring of that bourgeoisie today.
That the Canadian bourgeoisie has since assumed and maintained, first under the tutelage of British colonialism and then under U.S. imperialism, the mantle of political independence and that it has since grown larger numerically does not necessarily establish its independent character as a class. This is the fundamental point at issue, and those who assert that this makes the Canadian bourgeoisie independent must prove it, not by repeating Marxist-sounding phrases, but by conducting an honest study of the history of the different economic, social and political forces involved and of the place each occupied within the given colonial or imperial structure.
2-On the political level, the rebellions in 1837-8 . . . led by certain bourgeois elements against British colonialism resulted in “responsible government” and marked the first step towards Confederation ....
With Confederation, in 1867, the still weak Canadian bourgeoisie gained a formal political independence, starting the process which would end in complete independence, confirmed by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. (p. 28)
CCL does not explain how they come to conclude that this nearly 100-year long process, which led first to Confederation and then to the Statute of Westminster, resulted in the admittedly “weak Canadian bourgeoisie” achieving “complete independence”. It is well known that between the First and Second World Wars, the new and more powerful American imperial power had effectively displaced British imperialism in Canada. The passage from the domination of one imperialism to another scarcely constitutes “complete independence”.
Wedded as they are to the thesis that Canada has always been an independent country endowed with its own independent and imperialist bourgeoisie, CCL not only inflates the real worth of the formal political independence “granted” by British colonialism in 1867, but also in effect liquidates the fact of U.S. imperialism in Canada before and after 1931. (It should be noted in passing that their liquidation, or serious underestimation of present-day U.S. imperialism in Canada also results from their overestimation of Russian imperialist penetration of the country today, another example of their China flunkyism.)
3-Confederation spurred on the development of capitalism in Canada and consolidation of the Canadian bourgeoisie. As it developed, the bourgeoisie brought about a political centralization of the Canadian state, and its expansion continued rapidly. This growth was considerably accelerated by an external factor, American expansionism, (pp. 28-29.)
What we are given in this passage is an amalgam of mangled facts and concepts which tells us absolutely nothing about how the alleged “growth”, “consolidation” and “expansion” of the Canadian bourgeoisie was “accelerated by an external factor.” Here as elsewhere, the pertinent question is not whether capitalism “developed” in Canada, but rather what kind of capitalism was it. If it was “spurred on” by an act of confederation granted by a colonial power, surely we must ask: under whose control and direction? Was it under a national Canadian bourgeoisie, or was it external capital largely controlled and directed by foreign capitalists, with the national bourgeoisie playing the role of managing this capital and facilitating its control by foreign capitalists?
As for the “centralization” of the Canadian state, of course the Canadian bourgeoisie provided the necessary political instrument for presiding over the state. This is an essential function of every bourgeoisie, whether it is independent, or is dependent within a colonial or neo-colonial setup. This function does not signify independence as CCL would have us believe, any more than it signifies dependence. At any rate, formal political independence like that of Confederation is certainly a necessary but never a sufficient condition for real national independence or sovereignty. Before assuming otherwise, we should heed the phrase coined in the 19th century by the British empire-builders themselves: “indirect control if possible, direct control if necessary”. American imperialists have since immeasurably refined this system of indirect control. Yet nowhere does CCL present a convincing argument that Canada, which has more U.S. investment than any other country in the world, is an exception to this rule.
4-After 1867, the country moved rapidly toward the stage of monopoly capitalism or imperialism. As Lenin defined it [Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism], “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 international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.” (p. 29)
In this first sentence, CCL suggests that the “country” quickly passed from a colonial dependency of Britain until 1867, to a capitalist state which embarked on a successful imperialist career after that date. The quotation from Lenin which follows is at best beside the point and at worst misleading because the juxtapositon implies that Canada neatly fits Lenin’s definition of an imperialist power. But a close look provokes a number of questions:
How does this passage from Lenin infer that “a weak second-rank bourgeoisie” (to use CCL’s own description-p. 29) can forge a monopoly capitalist country, and an imperialist one at that?
Where in this or any other passage does Lenin suggest that dominance of monopolies and finance capital had established itself under the control of a national bourgeoisie in countries like Canada?
That the export of capital from such countries had acquired a pronounced importance?
That over 60 years ago there were international trusts in countries like Canada which were actively engaged in the imperialist division of the world?
That Canada, supposedly one of the biggest capitalist powers at that time, had, along with its peers, completed the division of all territories of the globe?
Lenin does not suggest any of these things, because such inferences are inconsistent with his whole analysis of imperialism, a fact which leads us to another point about CCL’s convenient misuse of Lenin. The particular passage quoted from Lenin is only a small part of his much more extensive definition of imperialism. The case can be made that other parts of his exposition on the subject, which have been omitted by CCL, apply to Canada more than many of those parts which have been included.
Writing as he did in 1916 in the middle of the first imperialist world war, Lenin made it clear that weak countries were the objects of a few predatory imperialist powers bent on redividing an already divided world. Although he didn’t mention Canada specifically, it is a fact that Canada was by then passing from the domination of British imperialism to U.S. imperialism. Using examples of Portugal and Argentina, Lenin made some observations which we in Canada should find instructive.
In the epoch of capitalist imperialism, . . . finance capital and its foreign policy, which is 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. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, are typical of this epoch, [emphasis in original](Lenin, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” CW, Vol. 22, p. 263.)
The truth of this state of affairs was so overwhelming that Lenin characterized colonialist Portugal as a country which, although it “is an independent sovereign state” officially is “actually ... a British protectorate,” adding that it has been so “for more than two hundred years, since the war of the Spanish Succession (1701-14).” (Ibid.) As regards Argentina, his observations are equally emphatic.
He quoted with approval Schulze-Gaevernitz’s conclusion to the effect that “South America, and especially Argentina, is so dependent financially on London that it ought to be described as almost a British commercial colony.” Lenin concluded by saying that “it is not difficult tO’ imagine what strong connections British finance capital (and its faithful ’friend’, diplomacy) thereby acquires with the Argentine bourgeoisie ...” (Ibid.) Shouldn’t we, then, at least entertain the idea that the development of monopoly capitalism in Canada does not necessarily mean that Canada became an independent, imperialist power? “The characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agrarian territories, but even most highly industrialised regions ...” [emphasis in original] (Ibid., pp. 268-9.) (Incidentally, the annexing of even the most highly industrialized regions is for Lenin “the characteristic feature of imperialism”, not merely “the tendency of imperialism”, as CCL chose to represent it when it gave passing mention to Lenin’s point in its Statement of political agreement. . . , p. 35.)
5-It is important to point out that the imperialist Canadian bourgeoisie has been a weak, second-rank bourgeoisie, subjected to a large degree in its initial stage of development to British imperialism and, later on, to American imperialism, (p. 29)
Now here, at long last, CCL gives us a taste of reality. But if the Canadian bourgeoisie has been weak and second-rank, if – right from the start – it has been subjected in large measure to British imperialism, only to be passed on to American imperialism, how can CCL so easily characterize it as independent and imperialist all along? Thus, in the very act of acknowledging that the Canadian bourgeoisie is weak, second-rank, etc., the acknowledgments are forgotten and even denied, all of which indicates that they were really only momentary lip service to glaring facts CCL dared not completely omit.
CCL’s erratic handling of difficult questions demonstrates the opportunist vacillation that underlies their would-be expertise. For example, in their newspaper article on the 200-mile off-shore limit (“The 200-Mile Off-Shore Limit: A Necessary Step,” The Forge, April 28, 1977, p. 6), CCL announces in bold print and with piqued indignation that the Canadian bourgeoisie “has already sabotaged its implementation.” The article goes on to say that “the Canadian bourgeoisie is completely inconsistent”; that “it has done nothing to ensure this law is implemented”; that it is “always ready to give in”; that it “didn’t lift a finger to guarantee our sovereignty”; that “as soon as the 200-mile limit was declared, they rushed off to tell the superpowers they could continue their plunder”; that “the Canadian bourgeoisie is pretty stupid if they think we’re going to believe that the USSR will renounce its pillaging” of Canada; that “American imperialism’s attack on Canada’s sovereignty is just as bad” as that of the Russians(l); that the superpowers merely “pretend to accept the new regulations, but in reality, they have not given up their plunder” of Canada; finally, “that we mustn’t wait for the Canadian bourgeoisie to have [our country’s sovereignty] respected” and that “its capitulating policies towards the two superpowers proves this.”
Now, if all this is true, the thesis that Canada is an independent imperialist country with its own independent imperialist bourgeois class must at least be open to serious question. So also all the political programmes, strategies and tactics that flow from it. In plain language, a bourgeoisie which is weak, which does nothing to enforce its own laws, and even sabotages them, which is completely inconsistent, which won’t lift a finger to defend its country or its people, which is always ready to give in and capitulate to the superpowers and immediately rushes off to give them permission to plunder the country – this kind of bourgeoisie doesn’t sound particularly independent. (It should also be pointed out that the legal fact of the 200-mile limit in Canada does not necessarily signify the country’s independence from superpower domination. Imperialist powers can afford to pretend to accept this or that law which relatively weak countries like Canada might proclaim so long as the reality of their plundering activities remains unaffected in any substantive way.)
If we add to CCL’s muddled thinking their rigid rules about the immutable behaviour of countries depending on which of the three worlds they are put into, the contradictions and confusions reach extraordinary proportions. According to their exaggerated view, the Third World countries have “tightened their control over transnational companies and have turned more and more towards nationalization as a means of gaining control of their economies” (p. 21) on the one hand, while “the revisionist countries of Eastern Europe . . . have been reduced to a state of dependence by the Soviet Union” (p. 21) on the other. If the monolothic picture that CCL draws of the Third World countries were true, all or any one of them would be far more independent than Canada where there is hardly any meaningful nationalization or tightening of control over transnational corporations. And if, by contrast, what they say of the Eastern European countries (which, as part of the Second World, CCL sees as pretty much the same as Canada) were true, how is the reduction of these countries to a state of dependence by Russian imperialism substantially different from Canada’s relationship to U.S. imperialism?
When all is said and done, CCL’s stubborn circles refuse to be squared.
6-Between 1890 and 1920, total capital invested in manufacturing enterprises rose from $353 million to $2,923 million . . . while the value of production increased from $219 million to $1,621 million. During the same period, huge Canadian monopolies were formed thrugh the fusion of different companies, (pp. 29-30.)
These statements appear directly under the subtitle, “Concentration of Production and Capital – the Development of Monopolies” (in Canada). This entire section consists only of the above and a couple of other such contrived bits of information. The crucial question is not simply how much investment there was or when such and such was produced or invested, but by what interests they were invested and who, in the main, reaped the benefits. What needs to be shown here is not when Canada became capitalist or which monopolies developed when, but how and under what conditions such developments took place, and most importantly, who actually owned or controlled the capital and monopolies involved, not just in name, but in fact.
The use of the words “fusion” and “different” in the second sentence of this quote also requires attention. Monopolies are formed not simply by a number of different companies fusing with so many others, but by the absorption, annexation and elimination of such companies – those which cannot withstand the rigours of competitive capitalism. And if one speaks of fusion in Lenin’s sense, what actually fuses or merges in the development of monopolies is not just “different companies”, but bank capital with industrial capital. It is the merger of bank capital with industrial capital which gives rise to and characterizes monopoly capitalism. This is not just a semantic matter; CCL’s arguments amount to distortion, the extent of which can be appreciated if we recall the fact that, along with the Trotskyists and other assorted pseudo-Marxists, CCL asserts that such a Canadian merger has long since taken place.
7-The Canadian bourgeois controls 93 per cent of the total capital in the banking sector; American capital stands at a tiny 2.2 per cent. (p. 30)
CCL now turns to the question of the banks-the only remaining thread on which their tattered “theories” still hang-but here again they never ask the cardinal questions: if such a high percentage of the banks in Canada are owned and controlled by this Canadian bourgeoisie, how does this bourgeoisie conduct its banking business? At whose disposal does it put its banking capital? Who exactly benefits the most from the way in which these banks operate in Canada? Do these banks contribute in any substantive way to Canada’s national industrial development? Isn’t it possible that they carry on their business largely as lending institutions and clearinghouses for those foreign companies and corporations which already own and control so many of the vital lifelines of the country’s economy? Isn’t it possible that the policies and practices of these banks help to reinforce and perpetuate Canadian dependency? Like the proverbial bookkeeper whose singular preoccupation is to keep the balance sheet balanced, but who has little or no concern about the real function and appointed destination in the world outside of the monies represented by the figures he fondles, CCL avoids venturing beyond the narrow universe which it has defined for itself by steering clear of such questions.
8-The fusion of banking and industrial capital and the development of an all powerful Canadian financial oligarchy is very advanced. The concentration of banks has always been more developed in Canada, than, for example, in the U.S. . . (p. 30)
Here, not only do they make the extraordinary claim that a fusion of banking and industrial capital has taken place in Canada under an “all-powerful Canadian financial oligarchy”, but they also imply that it has practically no equals in the capitalist world, not even in the United States! This they “back up” with the following fact, which is somehow supposed to clinch the argument: 4 of Canada’s 11 chartered banks are among the world’s 50 largest non-American banks, and they rank 23rd, 27th, 32nd, and 45th. (pp. 30-31)
It is unnecessary to add more examples. In summation, it appears to us that CCL’s “analysis” results in burying the very important question of imperialist penetration of Canada. Any Canadian group or party claiming to be Marxist-Leninist must seriously and thoroughly investigate the influence of American imperialism in Canada. Failure to do so courts failure to dislodge this imperialism, failure to unite all the forces that can be united, and failure to formulate the strategy and tactics necessary for a successful socialist revolution in Canada. Any group or party which glosses over the concrete realities of American imperialism in all spheres of Canadian national life is, in effect, an instrument of that same imperialism, and is therefore as anti-national and as anti-proletarian as the Canadian bourgeoisie itself.
[1] The pamphlet entitled Canada: Imperialist Power or Economic Colony? (March 1977) written by the Red Star Collective in Vancouver is the most serious attempt to date to analyze the principal contradiction in Canada; it also documents the shoddy analysis of the Montreal groups. Unfortunately, Red Star still considers the Montreal groups, despite all their shenanigans, to be part of a Marxist-Leninist movement. We can only hope that a group whose written work has often been marked by diligent analysis will apply this same quality to recognizing the fundamental opportunism of ultraleftism and make the necessary break with it. Until then, its own work will inevitably suffer the consequences which stem from being in any way involved in this phoney movement.
[2] Except where otherwise specified, quotations in this section are from this pamphlet.