Hi -
Has anyone thought to compare Canada with Norway or Taiwan or Austria (?) or
Ireland or Scotland?
-Nico
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Bill Burgess
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 3:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: Pomocanadianism
In reply to Doug's question, I think it was Kari Levitt who coined the term
"rich dependency" to describe Canada; others have suggested terms like
intermediate country, 'go-between' imperialist, advanced resource
capitalism, etc.
No one disputes there is a big material difference between Canada and the
Third World, but what is often suggested, particularly in terms of
political strategy, is that Canada shares to a very significant extent the
Third World's oppression and superexploitation by US imperialism. IMHO what
this misses is what is the cardinal distinction -- between greater US and
lesser Canadian imperialism on one side, and the greater and lesser
imperialized or semi-colonial countries on the other, e.g., Mexico or
Argentina to Haiti.
I've been reading about the CPC debate on this issue in the 1920s. At its
founding in 1921 it was more or less assumed Canada was in the imperialist
camp; in the mid-1920s the CPC began to claim that Canada was a dependent
semi-colony; but by the end of the 1920s this was rejected and Canada was
defined as an independent imperialist country. The CP still considers
Canada imperialist _in purely formal terms_ but has dropped the independent
adjective (because Canada is considered an adjunct of US imperialism). In
practice the CPC has long been more Canadian nationalist than the NDP.
Without being able to provide the details, I think one way of answering
Brad's question of why Canada and Australia thrived and Argentina did not
is that the latter was not able to make the transition to imperialist
status. Canada and Australia developed the economic base and class
structure necessary for admission to the imperialist club despite their
formal political status as colonies (later 'dominions'). Argentina did not,
despite its formal political independence. Many apply to the club. Only a
few are allowed in.
I think the (pomoCanadian?) attitude of being "at the margins" reflects
_envy_ of major imperialist status.
Bill
>Bill Burgess wrote:
>
>>Actually, Canada has often been compared to Argentina by (some) Canadian
>>political economists and leftists. While they would not deny the _degree_
>>of Canadian dependence is less, they they often do suggest that Canada
>>is dependent "in the same way" as Argentina - or to take a more recent
>>example, Mexico in the context of NAFTA. The traditional dependency
>>argument is rarely made any more, but its logic persists in the Canadian
>>left-nationalist response to current events. While nationalism in nasty
>>imperialist France or Germany is regarded with suspicion, Canada, you
>>see, is in a different category...
>
>How do they deal with the fact that Canadian incomes are 3 times Mexico's
>(according to the World Bank's PPP estimates) - and a hair higher than
>France and Germany's even?
>
>Doug
>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
