On Sun, 18 May 1997, Tom Walker wrote: > In reply to my comments, Bill Burgess wrote, > > >If we agree that nation states are still important, isn't it important > >to also identify exactly who has power in them, and specifically whether > >domestic or foreign capital predominates? Tom relied: > > Yes, it's important to identify who has power but, since the exercise of > power will have different consequences in different situations, I don't see > the need -- or even in many cases the feasibility -- for exact calculation > of the domesticity or otherwise of capital. At any rate, I'd be hard pressed > to see Conrad Black as somehow more benign that, say, the Body Shop just > because he's Canadian, eh? > Not an exact calculation, just one that tries to bring evidence to bear on the common perception among left and progressive forces in Canada that this country is a semi-colony (or something approaching it, or in ever-greater danger of slipping into this status, etc.). I hestitate to risk misquoting Sid S. again, but hasn`t he said this, for example, and connected it to (what I call) a nationalist basis of opposition to the FTA, NAFTA, MAI, etc.? In a similar vein, Paul Phillips also just made a commment to the effect that Canadian military expenditures are insignificant, which I think suggests Canada is not a "real" power. Of course, not compared to the US, and Canadian military expenditures are not as large relative to GDP as they are in a number of other countries, but neither are they insignificant. Im still on holidays and dont have my source (World Competitiveness Report) but if memory serves, Canada is in the mid to upper range of advanced capitalist countries in military expenditures\GDP. Apart from their recent uncharacteristically useful role in flood relief, th Canadian Armed Forces spend most of their time helping keep the world safer for imperialism, and in particular, Canadian imperialism. I agree there is little relevent difference between capitalists x and y in Canada. It is the left-nationalist school that has tended to insist otherwise. Some even suggest that the Canadian government\state acts in substantial part for foreign capital (rather than for domestic capital, as is usually presumed in other advanced capitalist countries). For example, PM Mulroney was characterized as a "traitor" for pushing "free" trade with the US, rather than being understood as representing the best interests of Canadian capital in a context of growing imperialist competition, trade blocks, threats of protectionism, etc. ....Mindful that other Pen-lers are by now probably weary of my "rant" (or was it "rail"?) against Canadian nationalism I will now try to limit myself now to new or different points or useful discussion of the evidence on this question. Bill Burgess
