On Fri, 2 May 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (**excerpts only** below):
> Isn't it important to look at specific sectors of the economy rather
> than just the overall amount of foreign control?
I agree, but the tendency has been to look only at sectors with high
foreign control and **ignore** how Canadian capital has overal control
(as I previously noted, four-fifths of the economy, by assets). In
particular, Canadian control in finance sectors has been downplayed
because of a long-standing myth that finance capital never developed in
Canada; that there are few links between financial and industrial sectors
in this country.
> What would be interesting would be to
> look at the relative changes in certain areas dominated by foreign control.
> For example what has happened in the following?:(from
> Rotstein INDEPENDENCE THE CANADIAN CHALLENGE Mclelland and Stewart 1972)
> Percentage of Non-Resident Ownership by:
> Assets Profits
> Petroleum and Coal 99.7 99.7
> Chemicals 81.3 88.9
> Tobacco 84.5 82.7
>
I don't have all the sector data at hand, and there have been several
changes in how they are defined. The point here is that the large decline
in foreign control in the 1970s and 1980s was ***across the board***, in
all major sectors, including those always cited, e.g.
manufacturing: 58.3% in 1971 to 44% in 1988
mining: 69.4% 41.9
utilities 8.4% 3.3
petroleum 94.4% 65.0 (by revenues)
89.6 59.8 (in 1980 by assets, last data I have)
Since it is the US that has always been the nationalists' target, it
is worth noting that during these years, US control declined **more** than
all foreign control, e.g. US control of manufacturing dropped from
the peak of 48.3% in 1970 to a low of 24.4% in 1987. I don't think this
can be explained by the mild nationalist measures like Trudeau's Foreign
Investment Review Agency. Canadian capitalists **never lost** control of
the economy; they accepted massive US FDI and then were able to regain
a good chuck of the **now much larger** base for further accumulation.
Stats Can reports foreign control under new categories after 1988, e.g:
-energy 23.3% in 1988 to 18.4% in 1994
-chemical and textiles 53.8 66.6
-wood and paper 27.2 27.3
-minerals and metals 22.3 23.2
-transport 5.7 6.7
-deposit accept inst. 12.9 11.
> Here is an illustration of the manner in which different measures give a
> vastly different picture. (Statistics Canada, 1969)
> COMPARISON OF PHARMACEUTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS OPERATING UNDER FOREIGN AND
> DOMESTIC CONTROL: (%age)
> (1969)
> Under Foreign Control Domestic Control
> US European Total
>
> Number of establishments 34.7 8 42.7 57.3
> However a different measure gives a radically different picture:
> Number of production workers 61.2 10.5 71.7 28.5
> or total employees 66.2 12.6 78.8 21.2
> or value added from
> manufacturing 74.5 13.1 87.5 12.5
>
> Surely it is these sorts of figures rather than gross percentages that give
> some idea what is coming down the line.
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
What I see from this data is that it seems like foreign firms in this
sector are larger and more capital intensive than domestic firms. This is
generally true; most foreign investments are fairly large scale. But what
is the point? Are you suggesting that what is "coming down the line" is
fewer jobs **because** foreign investors **create fewer jobs** than
Canadian investors?
> THe MAI is just a further
> step towards assuring that people cannot use the state in ways not approved by
> international capital. Is this not the case? Burgess seems to rail against
> bourgeois nationalism and the national bourgeoisie. However, it is not the
> national bourgeoisie per se that the new policies are directed against it
> is directed against people adopting a national policy that would conflict with
> the interests of international capital.
We should not ignore that policies like NAFTA and MAI are ***also***
directed by imperialists against their rivals. My plea is to keep our eyes
on capitalism and not get drawn into supporting one bourgoisie against the
other. And, unfortunately, capitalist governments currently
stand in the way of the "people adopting a national policy that would
conflict with the interests of international capital". The only place I
can think of where this is happening is Cuba.
>A national policy includes such things
> as using
> one's energy resources to serve the needs of one's citizens first and foremost
> and being able to charge others more if the demand is there or restricting
> export--all impossible for oil and gase resources under NAFTA if I understand
> it correctly. We now have
> such things as control of marketing such as the Canadian Wheat Board, marketing
> boards etc. but new rules and agreements attempt to dismantle them.
> National policies might involve subsidies
> if it were thought to be in the public interest etc. and protection from
> foreign imports etc.etc. But all this is being eroded.
I think we should oppose the FTA, NAFTA and MAI, but **not for nationalist
reasons**, because this only deepens the hold capitalism has over us all.
I am not an expert on NAFTA and it is hard to get 2 people to agree on
what the energy provisions really mean, but I'm told there is
nothing to prevent rebates to Canadian consumers, and the restrictions
against reducing exports are in terms of a running share of market (and so
can be reduced over time, just not **instantly**). I mention this because
I think that, unfortunately, ***for a change**, the right has been more
honest than the left about the actual contents of the FTA and NAFTA.
But in any case, my question is still why socialists would want to
subsidize ***Canadian*** capitalists with lower energy costs, or deny
power to fellow workers in the US during some cold snap? And even if you
are right about FTA or NAFTA provisions, are these really **any
different** than other pro-capitalist laws and institutions that all
struggles against oppression and exploitation face?
> I hear nothing from Burgess about
> such matters or nationalisation.
> In fact nationalisation and taking into public ownership seems to be the
> last bloody thing the left ever talks about nowadays. A fucking disgrace.
> By the way Canadian farmers voted in favor of retaining monopoly marketing of
> barley just recently. Some light in the gloom.
>
I can't agree more with your apparant frustration that the left hardly
talks about nationalization, public ownership, economic planning etc.
And I agree it was a tremendous victory that farmers turned back the
effort to gut the Wheat (marketing) Board. My point is that Canadian socialists
have spent most of their time and effort attacking **US** imperialism
when these are the kinds of things we should really be discussing and
acting on.
Bill Burgess
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
home (604) 255-5957
fax c/o (604) 822-6150
