The opening paragraphs reflect what the article is about:

quote:

---

Is Canada a colony of the United States, a dependent economy controlled by U.S. corporations? Are Canadian capitalists a weak and servile group with no real power? Should socialists focus their efforts on winning Canadian “independence” from the Yankee behemoth?

Many on the Canadian left — especially in the NDP and the Communist Party — believe just that. They complain that Canadian capitalists don’t defend Canadian sovereignty at home or pursue independent Canadian interests abroad. Imperialist war, private health care and more greenhouse gases are not really ‘Canadian issues’, they are ultimately ‘made in the USA.’

That in turns leads them to the view that the left should focus its main fire on the U.S., not on Canadian capitalists. In some cases they argue that we should ally ourselves with “progressive” sectors of the Canadian bourgeoisie to bolster Canadian sovereignty as a necessary first step towards other progressive changes. This view guided much of the opposition to "free" trade with the US over the past two decades.

This “left-wing nationalism” became particularly influential in English Canada in the 1960s and 1970s, and it still exerts a powerful influence on progressive thought. Groups such as the Council of Canadians, headed by Maude Barlow, argue that Canada’s growing political and economic integration with the U.S. is the most important political question today. Readers of Barlow’s recent book, Too Close For Comfort, will find no mention of a Canadian capitalist class with its own capacity to act and its own motives for acting the way it does. Barlow’s Canada is controlled by US corporations and right-wing Republicans.

Barlow’s readers would never guess that 22 of the 25 largest enterprises in the country are Canadian-controlled. Ten rich families control ten of these largest enterprises. Another two are government enterprises, and ten are more widely-owned. Only three of the top 25 enterprises are US controlled.
....
The simple truth is this: Canada is an independent imperialist country dominated by its own ruling class.

---

[ 02 October 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Control of corporate assets from Statistics Canada, Corporations Returns
Act, 2004, for the ‘top 25’ enterprises, from Corporations Returns Act, 1999.

---

Mel Hurtig says that StatsCan is always a few years out of date with its statistics, and with the loss of FIRA and one or two other foreign ownership watchdog agencies, current information just isn't available to the public, like what percentage of the approximately half trillion dollars used for the takeover of thousands of Canadian corporations since the 1980's were financed by Canada's banks.

Kellogg's list of largest Canadian corporations doesn't mention Encana, Canada's largest oil and gas company being owned by mainly American shareholders. StatsCan doesn't figure PetroCan, Air Canada, Encana or CNR in its foreign ownership estimations, even though all four of these companies are majority foreign-owned and mainly by Americans. And I'm wondering about AlCan in that list.

quote:

---

What does the comparative record of Canadian capitalism actually show? Yes, Canada is more specialized in primary products than other G7 countries (US, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy), but the resource-extractingor primary sector accounts for only 6% of GDP – hardly a “staples colony.” The manufacturing share of GDP in Canada is basically the same as in the U.S.

---

But why does Canada import everything from Scandinavian chainsaws to furniture to greeting cards to toilet paper made from from some of our oldest trees to home electronics to the clock radios that waken our unemployed Canadian youth in the morning ?.

quote:

---

And Canadian nationalist predictions
that free trade with the US would “de-industrialize” Canada have proven false. In 1988 there were 1.99 million manufacturing jobs. Last year there were 1.93 million. Meanwhile manufacturing employment in the US declined 3
million.

---

But the U.S. has lost living wage manufacturing jobs for decades. If it wasn't for public sector job growth since 2001, team Bush and big business would look even worse than they do now. Why is it ok to compare ourselves with that country in this regard?. Why not compare Canada with smaller and middle-sized nations of Europe and Scandivia where foreign ownership is lower and economies ranking in the top ten in terms of competitiveness ahead of Canada ?.

Team Bush has lost so many manufacturing jobs that they've managed to reclassify burger flipping into this category for political appearance sake. And what about the full-time payroll jobs that Canada USED TO create before FTA and NAFTA ?.

I think it's only a matter of time before our auto sector and what manufacturing jobs we do have begin shipping out for low wage zones on the other side of the planet and carefully avoiding about a dozen democratic capitalist third world nations before reaching China. And especially if our looney goes much higher against the dollar. China's auto exports will be taking away even more of the big three's market share at some point. Some countries consider ten percent foreign ownership and control of the economy to be excessive. Hurtig says we've got 35 percent that the feds are able to confirm as it is now. It's likely even higher than that.

[ 02 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

ford announced 25000 jobs cut

same day they hired 100,000 Chinese to build cars
coincidence i guess

we will all be driving Fungs instead of Fords,

but ford will still be raking in the dough,

i wonder if being a burger specialist at $8 dollars an hour,,would qualify to buy one ,,,

it was Canada's election day and every one was side tracked in this country

when i worked in the auto finance industry i was amazed to find out a couple of things

# 1 they used dead bodies left to science as test dummies in car crashes

# 2 the big 3 owned majority shares in all of the Japanese and other competing auto companies in the world

sorry about the edits, i took out the 25 thousand

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: kulvahs ]

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: kulvahs ]

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: kulvahs ]

quote:

---

Jan 23rd 2006

ford announced 25000 Canadian jobs cut

---

is incorrect:

quote:

---

Ford's St. Thomas, Ontario assembly plant, with nearly 2,600 employees, will lose one of its two shifts

---

quote:

---

we will all be driving Fungs instead of Fords,

---

Current account surplus = net increase of domestic holdings of foreign assets.

or, equivalently,

Current account deficit = net increase of foreign holdings of domestic assets.

Up until recently, Canada had a current account deficit, which meant that foreigners (typically those in the US) were accumulating Canadian assets at a rate faster than Canadians were accumulating foreign assets.

But that's changed over the past decade: we're running a CA surplus, and so we're accumulating foreign assets. The IMF projects that within 5 years, we'll have a positive net international investment position, for the first time in our history.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

i do own fords and would buy fungs, i think i said?

they are both foreign auto makers and if i had my way i would have Canadians building cars ,,the whole car here in this country,,that would be in demand even if they cost more because of Canadian higher labor costs,,i would give them that Canadian intelligent edge ,competitive edge, like those little commuters or cars that ran on cannabis fuel which is clean burning and is renewable ,blah,blah,,you all know all about the many ,many uses for cannabis ,etc
see if I'm racist its to my country

i wasn't making any comments about how i felt, only what i thought was correct.
it seems those numbers may be less or north American based.

you are seeing things or words that were not said, maybe for other reasons?

tuff crowd some of you guys are,,

kind of like ""we don't listen to you because you are the one issue guys(marijuana party)""
marginalizing us.

Harper cuts the 4 million in funding for cannabis research and then they can say easier "show me the evidence, the research that pot is OK"

please,,,wait until i actually shoot my foot off before you pretend i shot my foot off

i know how some of you seem to perceive us.

we are harmless and more human rights based than the gay presence in the ndp(my opinion)
the party is wasting time judging us, discriminating against us, belittling us,
as until the Liberal leadership convention in December ,,there wasn't a place they could go to be equals in a party that actually wants their vote(don't say we didn't try to be good ndpers but we are tired of being jailed or being marginalized)
we want to be here as jack deserves better.

i think it is sad some don't know how many really joined.
how many worked the last 2 campaigns, bi-elections
they come from a self driven party and expect to sacrifice and give to further the party and its ideals out of the gate,,,
to not be taking the energy and efforts of the 150,000 of us that joined , seriously ,that joined because of jack Layton ,, is costly to the party, period.
his video is still running on pot TV if you ever want to know why guys like myself and Dana or others ,,are here even at babble.

quote:

---

The company has already announced plans to cut 25,000 to 30,000 hourly jobs and 4,000 salaried jobs across the continent by the end of 2012. On Friday, it said that schedule has now been moved ahead by four years.

Friday's announcement brings Ford's total number of white-collar job cuts to 14,000, or one-third of its salaried workforce in North America.

Ford has 87,000 hourly and 35,000 salaried workers across North America.

Reductions to Ford's U.S. workforce will be made through early retirements, voluntary separations, buyouts and, "if necessary, involuntary separations," the company said.

Ford did not specify how many of its 11,000 union jobs would be lost in Canada or how many would be offered buyouts. Those numbers will be announced by mid-October.

---

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

Thorin, I was talking to a friend of mine from Indiana. Their car plant is going down as well. Leaving a hell of a lot of people, including her, unemployed. She'd been working there an awful long time.

Look what happened to Oshawa when GM pulled out. Look at the devastation that hit Flint Michigan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
But that's changed over the past decade: we're running a CA surplus, and so we're accumulating foreign assets. The IMF projects that within 5 years, we'll have a positive net international investment position, for the first time in our history.

---

I'm not sure how that's happening, and I'm having a difficult time imagining the U.S. feds allowing wealthy Canadians to become majority shareholders in big pharma, big military or prison industrial complex down there.

Stephen, would it have anything to do with the exodus of Canadian pensions savings to the U.S. while they continue to grab what's left of our corporations and assets here ?.

Mel Hurtig quotes from the Financial Post, May 22, 2002

quote:

---

When Canadian pension funds and big Canadian institutions are looking to buy Canadian stocks, and they're looking for liquidity, it's difficult to find it.

---

They sell off our country and then complain that there's no place to invest in Canada. I'm confused, Stephen.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Edited to save everyone time.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
kulvahs has already been banned as "shavluk" (I know, it's clever) from another thread, where he called me Hitler. Personally, I think I'm better looking.

I was hoping he could last a bit longer this time, but apparently he's as racist as he is punctuationally impotent.

---

shhhhhhhhh,,,

i never called you Hitler only a facilitator,,

and any way i am sorry if i was a bit abrupt,,,
i was being denied my business license at that time after a 3 year effort,,its since going ahead but they put people like me through the hoops for sure,all the time,its kinda like the cops that only arrest 1 in 10,,, well you can rest assured the other 9 danced the hoop dance all the same and us public cannabis activist are given the rump at every opertunaty

why am i perceived as racist though,,im assuming that was a joke?,, i know i am a bilingual illiterate , i cant read or write many more languages

but racist? only if stupidity is a country or religion.

i have never run into pencil skirt since my blow out,,so i guess i was successful in getting read of her,she doesnt have to like me just vote for me,,,teee hheee

and i said i am civil to sanity,,

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
You accumulating any foreign assets yet Fidel? I'm sure not.

Edited to save everyone time.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

---

Catchfire and Stargazer I think you know more that I do about what the frig is going on here.

And marijuana-man, I'm not sure what you're going on about. You have no idea what my position on pot is. And now you'll never know. Bwa-ha-haaaaa.....

Is there a car called a "Fung", pot-boy? No? Did you mean that comment to be "clever"? Meaning what? A car made in China? Is the racism of that statement clearer now, weed-dude?

Now look what you've done, joker-smoker-midnight-toker. I'm all stresed out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
kulvahs has already been banned as "shavluk" (I know, it's clever) from another thread, where he called me Hitler. Personally, I think I'm better looking.

I was hoping he could last a bit longer this time, but apparently he's as racist as he is punctuationally impotent.

---

well you have me deleted again,,thanks catch fire,,actually,i think you have healthy esteem and i know you didn't mean to have me deleted again,,you were just making a joke. something the ridiculous mods don't know anything about
i don't think they even read all of the posts as they just deleted me again, what now?

thanks, michelle,,
for being born Nov 21 1972 you are really mean spirited and obviously don't read.
i don't think its about what i write though is it?

please, if you are not as cowardly as it seems, explain what "kulvahs" as an entity ,has said that was so bad,,and what is this crap in babble rules about "temporary" deletions or banning,,you are probably a bully in real life and will get dealt with accordingly as i believe in karma(actually the Scorpio year(pig year, Feb 18 2007) coming should handle that)

i will be deleted again, i am sure, as they seem afraid of my view and even though i can show they have posts here way worse than my thoughts,, that haven't been deleted ,they keep doing it.

i realize its my message they are really afraid of and if you guys are cannabis supporters,,you are silly to be here as they don't want us.
for some reason the bully i am thinking of likes Dana though, so i guess they only want one cannabis pet here. so be it.

i guess i will say goodbye and hope this place gets real mods as i have done nothing wrong, in my mind.

if the ndp are like this website they will also get whats coming to them as well

you will see that i am quite resourceful with many people that are quite handy ,,anyway i will show up here again as being here reaches some ndp
i will also never forget how they have treated me and will deal with them in the future if i ever get the chance.

making enemies instead of friends is stupid
i just met babble people at convention and what do they think i will be like at the next meeting,,just stupid.

good bye everyone,,enjoy yourselves in this censored website
when i have found a better and more intelligently handled site i will be back to entice all of you away from this mean spirited bully web page,,they do not deserve your patronage

here's to people like me that fight against stupidity no matter how much abuse we have to take and stupidity we have to fight.

this to me,, is ,,,i am sure political, nothing to do with what i write,as i said,,
like some anonymous weak MP here,,
is using her clout to be a BULLY,,,
what a miserable example of what not to grew up like. you win for now it seems as the dog here snaps to attention at everyone of your commands.

to all of you that wrote/write me privately,, i will still be easy to find,,just Google me when you want info or a better read free from censorship.

I will be back for some of your members when i find them a free and democratic site where we can all talk

I am gone again ,,, i am sure.

goodbye

[ 05 October 2006: Message edited by: arthur ]

>*****
>
>POUR DIFFUSION IMMÉDIATE
>LE 4 OCTOBRE 2006
>
>LES CONSERVATEURS VEULENT RESTREINDRE LA SOUVERAINETÉ CANADIENNE
>
>Le NPD demande des comptes à Stephen Harper
>
>OTTAWA – Le porte-parole du NPD en matière de commerce international,
>le député Peter Julian (Burnaby - New Westminster), ainsi que Teresa
>Healy, porte-parole du Congrès du Travail du Canada, et Jean-Yves
>Lefort, porte-parole de Common Frontiers, ont déclaré qu’ils
>redoubleront leurs efforts communs pour empêcher la mainmise furtive du
>Canada par le Partenariat nord-américain de sécurité et de prospérité,
>et qu’ils feront lumière sur ce programme, qui est motivé par des intérêts corporatifs.
>
>
>« C’est une façon de céder le contrôle du Canada à l’administration
>républicaine des Etats-Unis et aux plus grandes corporations de
>l’Amérique du Nord », a dit le député Julian. « C’est exactement ce qui
>se passe avec l’entente sur le bois d’œuvre, avec la Commission
>canadienne du blé et avec toute une gamme d’autres secteurs. Stephen
>Harper suit l’exemple des libéraux de Paul Martin et il est prêt à
>céder n’importe quoi, pourvu que ça fasse plaisir à l’administration de
>George Bush. »
>
>Des ministres conservateurs actuels, d’anciens ministres libéraux, des
>responsables canadiens, mexicains, et américains, ainsi que des cadres
>supérieurs de corporations américaines et des représentants du
>militaire se sont tous réunis à l’Hôtel Fairmont Banff Springs du 12 au
>14 septembre 2006. Ni le public, ni les médias n’ont été informés de la
>tenue de cette réunion. Jusqu’à présent, le gouvernement de Harper a refusé d’en parler.
>L’événement a été organisé par le Conseil canadien des chefs d'entreprises.
>
>Le Partenariat nord-américain de sécurité et de prospérité a été lancé
>en mars de 2005 à titre d’initiative trilatérale qui avait pour but
>d’accélérer l’intégration du Canada et du Mexique avec les États-Unis,
>en harmonisant 300 lois et règlements communs. Depuis que Paul Martin,
>Vicente Fox et George W. Bush ont conclu le Partenariat, les
>discussions sur l’intégration continentale sont devenues clandestines.
>
>« Par le biais du Partenariat nord-américain de sécurité et de
>prospérité, des cadres du monde des affaires et du gouvernement se
>réunissent secrètement. Ils subvertissent les règlements et augmentent
>la concurrence, ce qui nuit aux droits des travailleurs, aux salaires
>raisonnables et aux conditions de travail. Les travailleuses et
>travailleurs veulent savoir : mais où est donc passé la démocratie?” a
>lancé Teresa Healy.
>
>« Le North American Competitive Council (NACC), qui est composé de
>cadres supérieurs des plus grandes entreprises canadiennes, américaines
>et mexicaines, ont été sacrés conseillers exclusifs des départements
>gouvernementaux en ce qui concerne la mise en œuvre du Partenariat. Ils
>font la sourde oreille aux opinions du peuple », a déclaré Jean-Yves Lefort.
>
>« Ce que cela signifie pour le Canada, c’est que notre qualité de vie
>sera inférieure dans plusieurs domaines, tels que la sécurité
>alimentaire, la sécurité aérienne, les normes écologiques, les soins de
>santé et les droits des travailleurs. Ce plan imposera des normes
>inférieures à notre pays. La plupart des Canadiens trouveront cela
>inacceptable », a souligné le député Julian.
>
>Au cours des prochains mois, le NPD se battra pour que soient
>divulguées, en leur totalité, toutes les ententes conclues par le
>gouvernement de Harper. Nous soumettrons des demandes d’accès à
>l’information pour que les Canadiens soient conscients de ce qui est en jeu.
>

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

I figure on retiring comfortably when I'm about 97 and sometime after I pay off student loans.

---

quote:

---

The simple truth is this: Canada is an independent imperialist country dominated by its own ruling class.

---

Yes, Canada is an independent imperialist country dominated by its own ruling class. At the same time, Canada is an export based economy, with 90% of our exports going to the United States. Thus the Canadian capitalist class has a direct stake in US imperialism, more so than at any other time in our history.

Canadian government policy of the last 25 years clearly reflects the growing interdependence of the economies of Canada and the United States. The FTA and NAFTA have contributed greatly to the interdependence of the Canadian and American econmies. Given the integration of the Canadian and American economies, it is not surprising that the Canadian capitalist class actively supports political union with the United States (and Mexico) to create a North American union. The left commonly refers to political union between Canada, the United States, and Mexico as deep integration.

The flipside of Canada's growing economic dependence on the united states has been, and continues to be, spending/program cuts, balanced budgets, debt reduction, and tax cuts. These fiscal conservative measures are designed to provide the Canadian Capitalist classs with a buffer against a prolonged downturn in the American economy, and there are signs that this downturn will occur sooner rather than later. Fiscal conservatism offers nothing to the Canadian working class in such an economic downturn. In fact, it worsens the potential impact of an economic downturn on the Canadian working class due to an increasing lack of government services.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Sparking up. Thanks Catchfire.

---

anybody got MSN messenger ? admittedly the webcam doesn't have a lighter, but not a bad way to toke it up with folks with a high-speed connection.

oh, uh, the subject was, ... The nature of Canadian imperialism.

when i started in Silicon Valley, manufacturing was local. especially with an automated factory, the labor content of products was low enough that whether you paid assembly People $20 or $2 didn't affect the cost much.

now, i hear all sorts of people talking about "re-localization". glad to hear it.

i think the people in Argentina had a good idea when they fired the managers.

one place to start would be for Canadian people to stop buying Dell computers and to start buying computers that are at least assembled in Canada.

separate but related subject - are we any better off now than we were during the '60's, without electronic technology ?

i don't think the middle class or folks with less money (aka poor folks)(who might actually be Rich) are better off. i perceive that most of the benefits of the productivity improvements offered by the un-mighty microprocessor have incurred to the wealthy.

meanwhile, Europe has shipped some of their toxic waste (from tech. manufacturing) to the East Coast of Africa ... where it is now leaching into the environment.

i say, tax the Wealthy to make them pay for real toxic waste management.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:

Yes, Canada is an independent imperialist country dominated by its own ruling class. At the same time, Canada is an export based economy, with 90% of our exports going to the United States.

---

compare this statement by Sherri Cooper of Dec. 2001

quote:

---

Today, trade represents 45 percent of the Canadian economy, 85 percent of which is with the United States. This trend has enhanced Canadian growth and employment.

---

with this one by economist Jim Stanford in June 2001:

quote:

---

It's commonly claimed that foreign trade now accounts for almost all of Canada's economy. It's true that the gross value of exports and imports exceeds 80 percent of our GDP. But these trade figures double-count and triple-count the value of many of many manufactured products which now flow back and forth across the Canada-U.S. border in the course of their final processing.
In reality, the relative importance of the traded and non-traded portions of our economy is actually the opposite: over 80 percent of our total economic output is produced in Canada, and consumed in Canada by Canadians, for Canadians, never crossing a national boundary.

---

Phillip Cross, Chief Accountant of Current Analysis at Statistics Canada, explains that if double and triple counting is removed, the real value-added contribution of exports is a lot smaller. So our total exposure to the U.S. economy, in 2001 anyway, was roughly 20 percent.

quote:

---

No mainstream politician dares to propose a truly independent Canadian economy, as it is political suicide to do so. Not even the NDP is prepared to stake out a position in favour of repealing NAFTA. While such a position might be politically saleable, the policies required to prevent the subsequent crash of the Canadian economy are sadly not saleable.

---

Canada isn't as vulnerable to trade with the U.S. as the Americanization of Canada free traders would like us to believe. In fact, it's the U.S. that is far more vulnerable and dependant on Canadian raw materials and energy. Conceivably, Canadians could survive a trade embargo of Hallmark greeting cards and toilet paper made in the U.S. Their economy would be crippled without our energy exports. Suddenly, Canada's not looking so vulnerable on trade with the U.S.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:
Yes, Canada is an independent imperialist country dominated by its own ruling class. At the same time, Canada is an export based economy, with 90% of our exports going to the United States.

---

As Fidel pointed out above, Jim Stanford says that "over 80 percent of our total economic output is produced in Canada, and consumed in Canada by Canadians, for Canadians, never crossing a national boundary." That doesn't sound like an "export-based" economy to me. Nevertheless, as the article by Bill Burgess notes

quote:

---

The point is that, contrary to nationalist predictions, Canadian capitalism has been able grow substantially through industrial exports, including by increasing its ‘end-product’ exports relative to ‘intermediate’ goods. [p.2]

---

Of course it's important not to confuse the issues of import/export of goods with the import/export of capital. The article uses the latter to demonstrate that the Canadian economy is not dominated by U.S. ownership, and that our "outward" Foreign Direct Investment exceeds our "inward" FDI.

We are no banana republic.

[ 09 October 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

Of course it's important not to confuse the issues of import/export of goods with the import/export of capital. The article uses the latter to demonstrate that the Canadian economy is not dominated by U.S. ownership, and that our "outward" Foreign Direct Investment exceeds our "inward" FDI.

---

And there are over 30 sectors of Canada's economy that are foreign-controlled. Hurtig says the number of foreign-controlled sectors of the American economy is zero. Most countries would consider ten percent foreign ownership of its economy as approaching high levels of foreign control. Stats Can is only admitting to 35 percent of our economy as falling under foreign ownership and control. Apparently, StatsCan doesn't consider EnCana, our largest oil and gas producer, to be foreign-owned, even though the majority of shareholders are non-Canadians and mostly Americans. The same goes for PetroCan, Air Canada and CNR(formerly "Canadian National Railway"), and dozens of other important Canadian corporations owning valuable assets in this country.

And as to whether or not it matters who owns and controls our economy, I think it does. Global monopolies take away from our economic sovereignty and ability for democratically-elected governments( like a future NDP government) to control our economic destiny. Canadians pay taxes in Canada, including our imperialist oligarchs like: the Thomson's, Irving's, Sobey's-Jodrey's etc. I think it would be more difficult to bargain on a range of issues, including any future plans to nationalise certain industries, with the Wall Street crowd and multinational monopolizers with real leverage.

[ 09 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I think it would be more difficult to bargain on a range of issues, including any future plans to nationalise certain industries, with the Wall Street crowd and multinational monopolizers with real leverage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
According to the Globe and Mail "Top 1000" of 2005 EnCana is the most profitable of all oil and gas producers, but in rankings by revenue, it's no. 3, behind Imperial Oil and Petro-Canada.

---

And all three are foreign-owned or with controlling interest residing in another country. The most valuable and increasingly scarce natural resource in Canada is being pumped away through pipelines which were 90 percent financed by Canadian taxpayers and sold for a song.

American-based multinationals at least have certain "interests" in Canada now wrt to extraction of our oil and gas. They have hooks in our collective asses, and now they can, legally, hold us all to ransom for own stuff because of that. The perfect pretext for sending war planes to Canada would be the event that an NDP government moved to nationalise resources with American interests at stake. In fact, American mulinationals are notoriously "unfriendly" when it comes to nationalisation plans.

There are already more American flags on the Calgary skyline than any other Canadian city.

quote:

---

There's no evidence that Canadian capitalists are any more friendly to the idea of nationalization of industry than USian (or any other foreign) capitalists.

---

Well that's true, and I'll try again - deal with Wall Street and mulinational conglomerates when buying back natural resources, or work with Canadian corporations and shareholders ?. Who does transfer pricing, offshore tax shelters and tax evasion better, Canadian companies or foreign owned ones ?.

Of the world's 20 largest oil companies, wrt oil reserves, 16 are national oil companies. Venezuela, Canada and Iran nationalised certain percentages of their countries oil industries in the 1970's. With oil expected to become ever more scarce and valuable, only Iran and Venezuela were shrewd enough to hang on to nationalized oil revenues. Our weak and ineffective politicians in Canada hung on to billions of dollars of PetroCan debt and privatized the profits instead.

35 percent is what StatsCan says. Do you believe them ?.

[ 09 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Phillip Cross, Chief Accountant of Current Analysis at Statistics Canada, explains that if double and triple counting is removed, the real value-added contribution of exports is a lot smaller. So our total exposure to the U.S. economy, in 2001 anyway, was roughly 20 percent.

---

I wasn't aware that only 20 percent of Canada's econmy was "export based". Even still, a downturn in the US economy could place significant downwards pressure on the Canadian economy. Thus my point that the Canadian capitalist class has a direct stake in US imperialism, remains valid.

[ 09 October 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

[ 09 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

A re-negotiating of trade agreements is feasible and doable and exactly what's needed given we had a government with some backbone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And if we're as vulnerable as you say we are to the biorhythms of the U.S. economy, maybe it's time we diversified our economy. Canada needs to begin to shed its image for being a hewer of wood and drawer of water nation. We need to pursue new world economy like those European and Scandinavian and Asian tiger economies which have far fewer natural resources being carted-off to the U.S. and yet still rank higher than Canada wrt economic competitiveness. And I don't believe our two old line parties in Canada are capable of it.

[ 09 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:
Fidel wrote:

Because of the negative optics of such a course of action, no mainstream political party, not even the NDP, dares to propose repealing the trade agreements.

---

Both our federal Conservative and Liberal parties campaigned on promises not to enter into free trade talks with Washington or to reverse FTA before winning elections and forming governments.

An offhand opinion poll says 49 percent of Canadians would be in favour of nationalising oil with 36 percent of Albertans highly suggestible to the idea without so much as a national campaign for it funded by Ottawa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Both our federal Conservative and Liberal parties campaigned on promises not to enter into free trade talks with Washington or to reverse FTA before winning elections and forming governments.

An offhand opinion poll says 49 percent of Canadians would be in favour of nationalising oil with 36 percent of Albertans highly suggestible to the idea without so much as a national campaign for it funded by Ottawa.

Are you saying Canadians would actually protest a move by the first NDP federal government to bargain hard with our imperial masters ?. If Steve Harper's ratings are buoyed just a little when appearing to confront Washington, imagine how popular the NDP would be for playing old time hockey rules with Warshington.

---

If an NDP government decided to bargain hard with the imperial masters, there would likely be
a)Massive spin from the media, suggesting massive economic downturn, and;
b)such capital strike from the imperialist masters as to make it happen, and to cause the government to run deficits, and;
c)Massive spin from the media suggesting that government debt and deficit will bankrupt the country and;
d) an NDP defeat in the next election, resulting in the undoing of any hard barganing the NDP does with our imperial masters.

This is assuming the NDP actually weathers the massive media attacks that will occur if the NDP ever comes out on top in a poll during a federal election, and actually gets elected.

[ 09 October 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

quote:

---

Since 1945, the great appeal of the US Empire has been that it has not looked like an
empire. It has mainly ruled indirectly by influencing, and sometimes coercing, other
countries. The huge exceptions to indirect rule have been Vietnam and Iraq, where the
US has been revealed as an empire. But ruling indirectly is its preferred route. It looks
better, but indirect rule is also the Achilles heel of the US Empire. This is the opportunitypoint for popular forces outside the US. The great danger to indirect rule is for US client states to look like puppets. That is our task. The political elite has abandoned the project for Canadian sovereignty, which has been taken over by popular forces. That’s why it has a progressive character. Sovereignty issues have great resonance in Canada. Take medicare as symbolizing the national character of Canada.
Citizens’ struggles have established not-for-profit medicare as a hegemonic idea. As Susan George put it “get into people’s heads and you will acquire their hearts, their hands and their destinies”. Not-for-profit medicare feels like its normal, natural, part of the air we breathe. With medicare we live the ideal set out so beautifully by those 2 young radicals of 1848 – to each according to his / her need, from each according to his / her ability to pay. The sharing, generous quality of medicare is what bugs the elites, who continually peddle greedy capitalist principles in health care, to little appeal. In nightly mass protests in May 2000 in Edmonton against Bill 11, which allowed for private-for-profit hospitals, crowds repeatedly sang ‘O Canada’ with gusto. The demo leaders were dismayed, but shouldn’t have been. Where else is the national anthem sung as a protest song against the elites schemes? ‘Nation’ building is not a bourgeois project in Canada. And our protests had positive effects. An article in last week’s Edmonton Journal stated that privatization of health care has gone further in BC and Quebec than Alberta. The founder of a Surgery Centre in Vancouver said “Alberta, of all provinces in
Canada, is the most hostile towards private clinics. We couldn’t function in Alberta” Hey, you can’t say protests don’t have an effect. ...

The end of NAFTA. For the first time, it looks politically possible to defeat NAFTA and
develop a Canadian energy security strategy which would supply Canadian needs before
exporting any surplusses.

---

[ 09 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
35 percent is what StatsCan says. Do you believe them ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And if we're as vulnerable as you say we are to the biorhythms of the U.S. economy, maybe it's time we diversified our economy. Canada needs to begin to shed its image for being a hewer of wood and drawer of water nation. We need to pursue new world economy like those European and Scandinavian and Asian tiger economies which have far fewer natural resources being carted-off to the U.S. and yet still rank higher than Canada wrt economic competitiveness.

---

quote:

---

For decades, nationalists have prescribed some form of “national industrial policy” to direct Canadian capitalism away from natural resource “staple” products towards “high-end” manufacturing activity.

What does the comparative record of Canadian capitalism actually show? Yes, Canada is more specialized in primary products than other G7 countries (US, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy), but the resource-extracting or primary sector accounts for only 6% of GDP – hardly a “staples colony.” The manufacturing share of GDP in Canada is basically the same as in the US.
....

Figure 1 shows that the share of total exports from Canada accounted for by ‘primary’ products declined over most of the period since 1971, although the commodity boom of the last decade (notably oil and gas) has brought it back up to about one-fifth of the total.

“End products” rose substantially for most of the period, from about one-third of total exports to peak at over one-half. Although they have lost some of their share to the recent rise in primary products, it may be noted that the end product export share of GDP in Canada is still several times greater than in the US. “Intermediate” goods have declined from about half of total exports to about a third. (The “end-product” export category here is defined differently than the “finished goods” category referred to above in the discussion of manufacturing production.)

The point is that, contrary to nationalist predictions, Canadian capitalism has been able grow substantially through industrial exports, including by increasing its ‘end-product’ exports relative to ‘intermediate’ goods. And although nationalists have objected to including the auto sector in such analyses (because much of the trade is intra-firm), Kellogg has shown that excluding auto does not change the basic trends.

In short, capitalist manufacturing in Canada has developed along the very lines advocated by the nationalists – without the benefit of their “national industrial policy.” The core economic assumption of Canadian nationalists – their pessimism regarding the comparative prospects for Canadian capitalist industrial development – is simply wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
The US Empire and how to break away

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
According to the Burgess article, Figure 2, Statscan says 22%, of which less than 14% is US control. (All corporations, 2004)

---

I think Burgess' article was published in 2004, but I think he's using StatsCan data that's several years older. We have to remember that Mulroney scrapped FIRA and our national petroleum watch dog agency. Hurtig says StatsCan's latest numbers are a bit higher than 22, and, again, they don't admit to dozens of important Canadian corporations as falling under foreign control, like EnCana, PetroCan, CNR or Air Canada even though those companies are majority foreign-owned and mostly by Americans. Hurtig says StatsCan's latest figures are 35 percent, and he thinks it's higher than that.

quote:

---

Just because Gord Laxer thinks the Canadian capitalist class has a progressive role to play is no reason why we should swallow that crap. He's still living in the days of the Waffle 30 years ago.

---

If anyone thinks its hard to make Canadian capitalists come to heel now, then what will they think when Soviet-in-size global multinationals are monopolizing our economy ?. Is Canada a real country, or are we really just a large northern colony, a repository of natural resources belonging to corporate America and a handful of multinational conglomerates- throw in a dozen or so billionaire Canadian families who sometimes live in Canada ?.

What developed nation has allowed as much foreign ownership of its economy as Canada has ?. Foreign-controlled corporations held $1 trillion worth of Canadian assets in 2003. Where are the full time payroll jobs to show for the pawning off of natural wealth ?. I think British colonies at least had a military occupation. Apparently, our little frozen Puerto Rico doesn't rate as much concern.

quote:

---

Okay, what's wrong with so much foreign ownership?

Why do virtually all other developed countries shun a high degree of foreign control?

There are many reasons, the corporate hollowing out process that follows, the excessive foreign non-arms length import of foreign parts, components and services, (395), the failure to do R & D, (patents 339), the terribly costly transfer pricing, (Ford, Safeway, Coca-Cola, the big international drug companies (38-39)).

A past president of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants tells me that the fastest growing area of accountancy in Canada is transfer pricing, in other words, developing strategies to transfer profits out of Canada before they are taxable in this country.

And guess who it is that has to make up for the lost tax revenue?

Hollowing out? The office vacancy rate in Calgary is sharply up during the past two years after a record number of takeovers in the oil and gas sector.

Meanwhile, in Vancouver, the headquarters of almost 1/3 of the province's largest firms have disappeared as companies such as Westcoast Energy and MacMillan Bloedel were taken over by foreign firms, and their senior management and much of their office functions were transferred down to head office in the U.S.

---

Hurtig says:

The following industries in Canada are now majority or heavily foreign-owned:

• manufacturing
• the petroleum industry
• chemicals
• chemical products
• mineral fuels
• non-metalic mineral products
• food processing and packaging
• electric products
• tobacco products
• machinery
• transportation equipment
• computers
• major advertising firms
• meat packing
• aircraft
• etc., etc. and etc.

Altogether, some 36 different sectors of the Canadian economy are heavily or majority foreign-owned and/or controlled. And now the Harper government is under increasing pressure to allow the foreign takeovers of Canadian:

• utilities
• airlines
• book stores and book publishers
• telecommunication companies
• etc etc and etc

ALERT! Newbridge Networks, a Canadian-owned telco switch maker, designer, manufacturer of the world's most advanced ATM switching equipment to the U.S. military and banking, governments is now wholly foreign-owned. G'bye r&d jobs. Hey, yours truly used to work for them.

[ 10 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
If anyone thinks its hard to make Canadian capitalists come to heel now, then what will they think when Soviet-in-size global multinationals are monopolizing our economy ?. Is Canada a real country, or are we really just a large northern colony, a repository of natural resources belonging to corporate America and a handful of multinational conglomerates- throw in a dozen or so billionaire Canadian families who sometimes live in Canada ?.

What developed nation has allowed as much foreign ownership of its economy as Canada has ?. Foreign-controlled corporations held $1 trillion worth of Canadian assets in 2003. Where are the full time payroll jobs to show for the pawning off of natural wealth ?. I think British colonies at least had a military occupation. Apparently, our little frozen Puerto Rico doesn't rate as much concern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Fidel you are so full of shit with your nonsense about colonies and Puerto Rico. I repeat: we are not a banana republic. We have our own powerful, developed capitalist class and a government that represents its interests.

---

You think superrich American's don't invest in bananas too ?. Coffee and sugar ?. Up here it's minerals and oil and timber and energy. And to hell with creating any real jobs for Canadians benefit.

quote:

---

Never let them make so much as a safety pin. - Ben Disraeli on the British colonies

---

quote:

---

Read Burgess's article for answers to your rhetorical questions. The article was published this month, not two years ago, and uses 2004 StatsCan figures - the latest available.

---

ok: but according to StatsCan, there have been almost 1200 takeovers of Canadian corporations since 2004 Q1 and a grand total of
11, 905 since 06/30/1985 to 2006 Q3. And the year's not even out yet!. So Burgess' report is already off the mark.

[ 10 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Just because Gord Laxer thinks the Canadian capitalist class has a progressive role to play is no reason why we should swallow that crap. He's still living in the days of the Waffle 30 years ago.

---

quote:

---

He's still living in the days of the Waffle 30 years

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
Fidel, if the Canadian capitalist class was weak and felt like a small player, they wouldn't be as nearly unanimous as they are in support of free trade and deep integration.

---

I think you're saying that Canada's handful few oligarchs are supporting Mulroney's and Chretien's free trade deals because they want to compete with corporate America ?.

I don't think it's about dog eat dog capitalism at all. Remember, laissez-faire went the way of the dust bowl in the 1930's. The superrich would never have become the neutron absorbers of wealth that they are today without upside-down socialism, Keynesian-militarism, inherited wealth and so on. Canada currently does not practice socialism for the rich to the same degree that they do in the U.S.

And the richest one percent of American's don't actually pay high taxes like everyone lets on they do, according to American David Kay Johnston. American oligarchs are able to swing sweet tax deals with state governments.

So besides being more favourable to corporations and what is the largest population of billionaires in the world, the U.S has created the developed world's largest low wage, lowly-paid non-unionized workforce. Canada isn't far behind in this regard, but American labour markets are a lot more "flexible" than here.

Put simply, I think our handful of oligarchs are wannabe American oligarchs. Since Mulroney, our uberrich can move family trust funds across the Can-Am border unscathed. They could be richer here in Canada if only someone could just convince Canadians to "dreg"ulate our public monopoly on health care, education and other government walnuts our own elite haven't been able to crack into by themselves.

quote:

---

In the first free trade election, in 1911, domestic capitalists opposed it because they felt they couldn't compete.

---

USian capitalists have effectively insulated themselves from free market competition when buying out controlling interest or large minority shares in big pharma, banking, mining, insurance, big military etc., sectors of the economy that rely more on extended patent protections, government contracts, access to public timber and mineral rights, taxpayer handouts, and enterprises which generally succeed by how well they lobby for protection against free market forces. This is the way the Republican Party support base, the one's who live off of compound interest, currency speculation and have more dollars than Clark's have beans, have operated since WWII. They buy out small and medium size companies - they merge with other corporatus giganticus in eliminating market competition and they influence governments in getting what they want, including eliminating social welfare spending so that much can have more. Our billionaires must be envious, don't you think?. Dog-eat-dog competitive capitalism of turn of the last century which you're referring to doesn't exist anymore.

So, what were you saying about a Darwinian cage match to the end between our capitalists and theirs , Lord P ?. I've forgotten already.

[ 11 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
If the Canadian capitalists felt they would just be swallowed up by American capitalists, they wouldn't have been so unaminomously in support of free trade.

---

quote:

---

This was a hot topic of debate in the seventies among Canadian Maoists.

---

But why do people instinctively shun that reality?

Its more organizational methodology involving Democratic Centralism that I have a problem with... oh an historical materialism, and the march of history blah blah.

[ 02 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

There is a long tradition and practice of Marxian socialists of substantiating their political approach by reference to their views on the political economy including an assessment of likely political sub-groupings based on economic interests. As the saying goes, "Class consciousness is figuring out which side you're on. Class analysis is figuring out who is there with you". The debate/discussion about Canadian imperialism eventually leads to assessments about who are, and who are not, likely allies in the struggle for socialism. A mechanistic version of this turns into a kind of "workerism" ideology where those in the productive sectors (in Marxist economic terminology) are seem as inherently having more or better class consciousness than those in non-productive sectors - but this sort of problem is inherent for all theories that are poorly understood. Snobbery can go both ways.

I'm with Cueball on rejecting the inevitability arguments used to substantiate socialism (march of history) but frankly, there is a great deal of so-called democratic centralism that seems indistinguishable from the day to day actions of any political party. I would focus more on criticism of replacing the working class with a party and replacing a party with an individual (Stalin) under the guise of "democratic centralism".

Historical materialism, or the theory of socio-economic formations, when expressed in a more primitive form - say, when the Liberal leader John Turner criticizes then PM Mulroney in a debate for giving up Canadian sovereignty by giving up the economic levers of control that will inexorably give up the political levers of control (I'm paraphrasing Turner here, but faithfully, I think!) - is, to me, common sense. I don't see how that can be rejected. History is not bunk (Henry Ford), nor has it come to an end (Fukiyama), nor is society an illusion (M. Thatcher) and the third way is a dead end. Call me orthodox.

Supplemental: There are those in the Marxian tradition that identify the current onslaught of neoliberalism as evidence of the failure of social democracy. Or something like that. How else to explain a Tony Blair? The consensus, shared with Liberals and Conservatives alike, is the unquestioned preservation of capitalism and the rules of the game. It would go a long way towards explaining why parties like the Canadian NDP can't seem to rise above a certain level of support; the idea, here, that they're not really offering anything fundamentally different and voters recognize that.

For those who are interested: I see over at MR that Samir Amin has written a short piece What Maoism has contributed.

[ 02 November 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I'm with Cueball on rejecting the inevitability arguments used to substantiate socialism (march of history) but frankly, there is a great deal of so-called democratic socialism that seems indistinguishable from the day to day actions of any political party. I would focus more on criticism of replacing the working class with a party and replacing a party with an individual (Stalin) under the guise of "democratic centralism".

---

As you know I often find myself in agreement with you on theoretical issues such as these, and it is clear that you have spent considerable time researching these trends in marxist and socialist thought.

However, fundamentally, I think the thesis that the party was subverted by the action of an indivdual, applying a "cult of personality" (Khruscheov) is at odds with Marxism itself which asserts not the primacy of individuals as the main factors in determining the course of history but actually wider social forces. One could simply ask the question: "is not the idea that Stalin and a few of his cronies (Khruscheov being one of them btw) being able singlehandidly subvert the party and the state, not merely and extension of the central theme of the cult of personality itself?" to see the point clearly, I think.

No. I think it is much more in keeping with a Marxist framework to look at more general social forces at work, and in this light I think it is more profitable to assert, not that a leader like Stalin was operating under the "guise of Democratic Centralism" but actually (possibly inevitably) the result of the organizational methods of the CPSU as espoused by Lenin, Trotsky et al, in the form of Democratic Centralism and as informed by the CPSU's views on Party Unity and War Communism.

[ 02 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Where are the nationalists? -- TorStar Oct 29

quote:

---

In the past two years, more than a dozen of Canada's largest corporations, with total assets of more than $57 billion, have been swallowed by foreign predators. And the response has been ... well, there really hasn't been a response.

At the height of economic nationalism in Canada in the 1970s, there was nothing like the "hollowing out" of Corporate Canada that we've witnessed lately. If there was a flashpoint back then, it was the purchase by a U.S. firm of the venerable Ryerson Press (now McGraw-Hill Ryerson).

---

quote:

---

`When these leading companies disappear, we lose our membership card in the global economy. We're becoming a kind of Manchuria, supplying raw materials to the more mature world'

Peter C. Newman, author

---

I find it difficult to determine how much of their political history, the truncation of democratic political culture and so on, can be attributed to the role of outside interference, subversion, and so on. It might be useful to look at present-day Cuba for some sort of yardstick. But I don't have any doubt that it played a gigantic role.

I suppose I could enumerate some more points ... but if socialism is not inevitable then it hardly seems reasonable to assert that Stalinism was inevitable. The CPSU produced a (Sergei) Kirov as well as a Beria. Your argument isn't entirely convincing for, strangely, the same reason that my argument isn't convincing to you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

I suppose I could enumerate some more points ... but if socialism is not inevitable then it hardly seems reasonable to assert that Stalinism was inevitable. The CPSU produced a (Sergei) Kirov as well as a Beria. Your argument isn't entirely convincing for, strangely, the same reason that my argument isn't convincing to you.

---

To assert that a single man was capable of diverting the progressive energies of the Soviet Union to a bad end, through the cult of personality, is simply to invert the principle that was the basis of his cult of personality, but to say it resulted in bad deeds as opposed to a good ones.

ETA: Meanwhile, Vlad Putin is on a nationalisation binge back in Russia. I will admit that wresting control of foreign-owned corporations in Canada and the wealth of national assets under their ownership may only be a first baby step toward socialism. But I also think there are a host of other issues for workers enshrined with the issue of absentee landlords controlling our economy from afar.

[ 02 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

These debates and intellectual "ferment" seem to have more in common with Canada today than comparing the economic situation of Russia in 1920 to present-day Canada. Is Canada an imperialist country? Will the national question be satisfactorily solved? Or will Canada break up? Is an alternative to the neoliberal juggernaut possible? What will it take? Is an NDP breakthrough possible?

ETA: I think Canadians need to look at the issue of foreign ownership, FTA-NAFTA as an exercise in fighting for democratic control of our resources and economic sovereignty. That is, if we believe in the idea of worker-ownership of the means of production, then what's happening now is anything but democratic. It is the job of our two old line parties, hirelings of the international corporate and banking world, to convince Canadians that their own democratically-elected governments cannot be trusted to act in their best interests, and that the common good must be forfeited into the hands of a handful few undemocraticmultinationals marauding and taking over our stuff while the feds twiddle their thumbs and claim it's inevitable and that they are impotent to do anything about it. Like Frankenstein's monster coming alive at midnight with a lightening bolt, North American politicians on the right and centre-right have struck a deal with the devil to bring back laissez-faire capitalism from its hiding place under a 1929 Wall Street grave marker. God help us.

Will Canadian tax spur a wave of takeovers?

quote:

---

Canadian Oil Sands, the largest income trust in Canada, declined 11 cents to close at 27.30 dollars on the Toronto Stock Exchange after a 9.9 percent drop Wednesday.

The decline in Canadian energy income trusts will make them more attractive to foreign companies interested in acquiring natural gas and crude oil assets, said Gordon Tait, an analyst at BMO Capital Markets. The new tax structure also removes a disadvantage foreigners faced when buying a Canadian trust. Under the current rules, a trust loses its tax exemption if it is controlled by non-Canadians.

---

[ 02 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

The new tax structure also removes a disadvantage foreigners faced when buying a Canadian trust. Under the current rules, a trust loses its tax exemption if it is controlled by non-Canadians.

---

Silly, silly me.

[ 03 November 2006: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

quote:

---

Is an alternative to the neoliberal juggernaut possible?

---

quote:

---

Somehow we'll find a way because we have to.

---

quote:

---

Cueball: [Isn't it]... possible for the NDP to break through into left wing politics? It's a lost cause, really?

---

Without massive extra-parliamentary action a federal NDP majority would be quickly undermined and subverted by capital strikes, foreign interference, etc. Either that or their program would get watered down to a liberal platform. An NDP breakthrough really only matters to me if there's some real socialist meat left on their bones or a willingness to "keep going".

No matter whether it is nationalisation,tax structure or challenging the American interpretation of NAFTA,Canada will pay a price.

Yup. More evidence of Canadian imperialism.

P.S. There's another (now closed) thread on the same topic over here.

[ 07 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

The ndp were commy when they wanted x amount of people to work for a company to be from the area of exploitation...The ndp were commy when they required x amount of reinvestment in the area of exploitation.

All while the US was doing all those things to protect themselves from exploitation under the democratic umbrella of american sainthood. A real double standard.

quote:

---

Of course, state funding for social/political organizations always has an element of co-optation. In the case of international assistance, the federal government would prefer activists join the Canadian University Services Overseas and go teach somewhere in Africa than organize to oppose the capitalist system at home. It’s a way of directing activists towards issues the government finds less politically sensitive as well as making them dependent on the federal government.

---

ETA: The Yanks prolly threatened the Libranos with a ban on Canadian beef, unfit for consumption in the EU according to their strict standards, unless Ottawa kowtowed to Warshington's military expansionist agenda in Central Asia. Or something.

[ 07 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Fidel: The Yanks prolly threatened the Libranos with a ban on Canadian beef, unfit for consumption in the EU according to their strict standards, unless Ottawa kowtowed to Warshington's military expansionist agenda in Central Asia. Or something.

---

I think Liberal Cabinet Minister Bill Graham actually mentioned US threats, without being specific about what those threats were, if Canada didn't participate in the US bombing, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan following Canada's "failure" to join the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq.

I think you're using "imperialist" a little subjectively there, Fidel. However, Canada is an unusual imperialist country; we have the highest level of foreign ownership of any such country in the world. But that doesn't make Canada a "vassal state" or a semi-colony controlled by a comprador business class. It's complicated. Nevertheless, that same business class leans towards economic integration and political collaboration with the (clearly) imperialist interests of the US.

And I think Hurtig does reveal some important truths about our own oligarchs. Up until about the 1980's or so, they'd run the gammit wrt monopolizing our lives in Canada. Ordinary Canadian's lives were basically controlled by a handful of billionaire families and about five conglomerates, and affecting how much we pay to live from the malls where we buy groceries and clothes to rents and mortgage rates.