Suchergebnisse

A review essay on books by: William K. Carroll, Corporate Power and Canadian Capitalism (Vancouver, 1986); Jorge Niosi, Canadian Multinationals (Chodos, Robert [Tr], Toronto, 1985); Diane Francis, Controlling Interest: Who Owns Canada? (Toronto, 1986); & Linda McQuaig, Behind Closed Doors: How the Rich Won Control of Canada's Tax System $... and Ended Up Richer (Markham, Ontario, 1987 [see listings in IRPS No. 49]). Though these works offer excellent analyses of the capital accumulation process & corporate power in Canada, they neglect the influence of labor & gender & are based on the assumption that Canada is not dependent on the US marketplace & culture. Carroll criticizes the arguments of the Canadian nationalist dependency school that describe the overdevelopment of commercial capital & underdevelopment of indigenous industrial capital. An aggregate statistical analysis of 194 Canadian corporations operating between 1946 & 1985 is presented to describe how the early cycle of US domination gave way to a much stronger indigenous finance capital. Niosi describes how 13 Canadian multinationals have achieved international stature via technological imitation rather than by innovation. It is argued that Marxian theories of finance capital are inapplicable to the Canadian case. Francis combines statistical data with personal anecdotes to describe 32 family dynasties that control a significant portion of Canada's nonfinancial assets. Their "paper entrepreneurship" & ability to buy up corporations without adding to the wealth of the economy are criticized, & attributed largely to weak legislation & regulatory policies & tax breaks that benefit the rich. McQuaig systematically demonstrates how the rich accumulate wealth by draining income from the lower & middle classes -- again with the help of the Canadian tax system. It is concluded that more attention must be paid to the growing cross-fertilization between the women's & labor movements & their effect on corporate power & capital accumulation. K. Hyatt

There has been a recent tendency, with deep historical roots in structural-functionalism and elite analyses, to insulate the state from class formations and struggles. Reacting against classical Marxist and neo-Marxist attempts to locate certain features of state policy in the class struggles of capitalist formations, there has been a reversion to "explaining" state policy solely by the "internal dynamics" of state administration and the motives and intentions of their incumbents. Leslie Pal's critique of my work in his article is yet another attempt in this tradition. After critiquing my "narrow" use of "relative autonomy" and "rigid" reliance on "class struggle" to account for the introduction of theEmployment and Social Insurance Actof 1935 and theUnemployment Insurance Actof 1940, he offers an alternative classless "model" which relies heavily on actuarial ideology and federal-provincial relations in the dynamics of internal state administration. In light of his use of my work as a point of departure, I will make only a few salient points. My comments are divided into two parts: theoretical assumptions and the class nature of actuarial ideology.

La relation entre les genres et les classes marxistes est analysée dans les recensements décennaux canadiens et les rapports mensuels sur la main‐d'oeuvre entre 1931 et 1984. Pendant cette période, la distribution des hommes et des femmes au sein de la petite bourgeoisie, des familles a travailleurs bénévoles, de la bourgeoisie et de la classe ouvrière est examinée. Une analyse du personnel de surveillance et de direction, des professionnels, des employés dans la vente et les services cléricaux et des collets bleus au sein de la classe ouvrière, y est aussi incluse. Ayant comparé les proportions selon les sexes (les femmes comme un pourcentage de l'homme) entre ces classes et la main‐d'oeuvre, tant dans les secteurs agricoles qu'ailleurs, on a conch que la femme se retrouve plus rapidement prolétarisée que l'homme. Ceci est basé sur: (1) la sous‐représentation des femmes relativement aux hommes dans les classes qui possèdent des biens (la bourgeoisie et la petite bourgeoisie); (2) la détérioration progressive entre 1931 et 1984 dans la position des femmes relativement aux hommes dans les classes propriétaires; (3) la sur‐représentation croissante des femmes relativement aux hommes au sein des familles à travailleurs bénévoles dans les établissements appartenant à la petite bourgeoisie; (4) la détérioration progressive de la position des femmes relativement aux hommes parmi les postes de surveillance et de direction; (5) la concentration croissante des femmes dans les services cléricaux ou de vente au sein de la classe ouvrière et (6) la ségrégation croissante des femmes dans les occupations non productives de la classe ouvrière. Les implications de ces découvertes sont discutées au terme de l'étude, particulièrement en ce qui concerne les femmes sur la ferme ou dans les postes cléricaux et de direction.The relationship between gender and Marxist classes is analyzed in the Canadian decennial censuses and monthly Labour Force Surveys between 1931 and 1984. During this period, the distribution of women and men among the petty bourgeoisie, unpaid family workers, bourgeoisie, and working class is examined. Also included is an analysis of managerial and supervisory personnel, professionals, clerical and sales employees, and blue‐collar manual workers within the working class. After comparing the sex ratios (women as a percentage of men) between these classes and the labour force in both the agricultural and non‐agricultural sectors, it is concluded that women have been undergoing a much more rapid proletarianization than men. This is based on: 1/the under‐representation of women relative to men in property‐owning classes (bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie); 2/the progressive deterioration between 1931 and 1984 in the position of women relative to men in the property‐owning classes; 3/the increasing over‐representation of women relative to men among unpaid family workers in petty bourgeois establishments; 4/the progressive deterioration in women's position relative to men in managerial and supervisory positions; 5/the growing concentration of women among clerical and sales positions within the working class; and, 6/the increasing segregation of women in unproductive working‐class jobs. At the end of the paper, the implications of these findings are discussed, particularly for women on the farm and in managerial and clerical positions.

In Van Den Berg and Smith's comment that precedes this reply, I note their concession to the major conclusions of my 1982 comment. They no longer directly challenge my conclusions 1 / that there has been a general increase in the exploitation of labour by capital in the twentieth century despite fluctuations from decade to decade, nor 2 I the positive correlations between the rate of surplus value and strikes, especially between 1945 and 1966. Instead, they concentrate on minor methodological points that have little bearing on the thrust of my research. In this lies their major weakness: by narrowly focusing on a partial 'critique' of my critique of their 'critique' of my original research (Cuneo, 1978), Van Den Berg and Smith lose sight of the original research hypotheses, and end up trying to defend errors committed in their original commentary.

The staple thesis, as put forward by its Toronto adherents, portrays Canada as in a position of international dependence determined not by Canadian SC relations but by reliance on extraction of raw materials as an economic basis. An alternative analysis, focused on relations between capital & labor, is presented for the period 1840-1849. Canadian capitalists in this period extracted surplus labor from Ur productive labor, transportation labor, commercial labor, & Ru petty commodity producers. The basic exchange was of the surplus labor of Canadian petty commodity producers, extracted by Canadian merchants, for the surplus labor of English Ur industrial workers, extracted by English capitalists. Canada exported such materials as wheat, flour, beef, & pork to GB. The Corn Laws in GB in this period made food expensive to laborers. In 1843, Canadian grain was exempted from 80% of import duties imposed by GB, due to opposition of English industrialists & merchants (with support from the Wc) to the Corn Laws; but this was followed in 1846 by repeal of the Corn Laws & establishment of free trade. This policy change impaired the economic growth of Montreal & Quebec by reducing Canada's trade with GB. Riots & arson followed, accompanied by a movement among the mercantile classes for annexation to the US, which was stopped in 1854 by British intervention with the support of Toronto interests. The analysis of the Toronto staples school is insufficient, since it takes into account only relations between capital & commodities, rather than relations between capital & labor mediated by commodities. W. H. Stoddard.

Capitalism has maintained its position through mediation of contradictions between classes, according to Marxist structuralism. Examined is an expression of such mediation, the development of contributory unemployment insurance, heralded by capitalists as a fair way to share wealth with the working class. A review of Canadian working class agitation for noncontributory unemployment insurance during the Depression argues that contributory insurance represents government's attempt to placate more conservative workers while using police repression & other tactics on the more radical unemployed. Some provisions proposed by the Communist Worker's Unity League have been implemented in changed form in contemporary benefit programs. Noted are the debilitating effects of splintering the working class, the isolation of the chronically unemployed, the creation of labor camps, & the eventual legitimizing of a contributory pattern. 1 Table. D. Dunseath.

Cet article présente une analyse comparative des théories marxiste‐instrumentaliste et marxiste‐structuraliste du capitalisme d'État dans une étude de cas basée sur l'introduction de la Loi d'Assurance‐Chômage canadienne de 1941. Il examine l'influence de l'accumulation de capital, du contrôle social du travail et du salaire de survie ouvrier sur cette législation. Cette analyse révèle que l'État fédéral a Créé l'assurance‐chômage pour contrôler l'agitation sociale parmi les ouvriers non‐employés et pour contribuer à sa propre accumulation de capital dans le contexte historique de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Les capitalistes se sont systématiquement opposés à l'assurance‐chômage d'État de 1920 à 1941, bien que leur opposition se soit quelque peu tempérée au cours de la crise des années 1930. Les organisations ouvrières ont systématiquement défendu l'assurance‐chômage depuis 1919, le radicalisme de certaines de leurs revendications culminant au cours de la crise. L'État fédéral ayant imposé l'assurance‐chômage malgré l'opposition des milieux d'affaires canadiennes, on peut affirmer que la théorie marxiste‐structuraliste qui accorde à 1'État une certaine indépendance vis‐à‐vis des milieux d'affaires, ce qui lui permet de satisfaire certaines revendications de la classe ouvrière, est la théorie qui rend le mieux compte du cas présenté.Using the introduction of the Canadian Unemployment Insurance Act in 1941 as a case study, the comparative validity of the Marxist instrumental and structural theories of the capitalist state is considered. The bearing of the interests of capital accumulation, social control of labour, and labour's wage subsistence on this legislation is examined. The analysis mainly shows that the federal state introduced unemployment insurance to control unrest among the unemployed and to assist its own accumulation of capital in the context of World War II. The capitalist class consistently opposed state unemployment insurance between 1920 and 1941, although its opposition weakened somewhat during the Depression of the 1930s. Labour organizations have consistently supported unemployment insurance since 1919. The radicalness of some of their proposals reached a high point during the Depression. Because the federal state introduced unemployment insurance largely over the objections of Canadian business, it is concluded that the Marxist structural theory, in which the state displays a relative autonomy from business and thereby accommodates some working‐class demands, is the most valid theory for the case under examination.

Un modèle théorique de quatre contradictions de classe est proposé pour le Canada considéré dans le contexte de ses relations avec les Etats‐Unis et certains "tiers pays." Ces contradictions s'appellent l'exploitation de la classe industrielle, l'oppression de la classe de distribution, l'oppression de la classe de consommateurs et l'oppression de la classe financière. L'exploitation de la classe industrielle trouve son origine dans la théorie de Karl Marx d'exploitation d'une classe par une autre; l'oppression de la classe financière et des classes de distribution et de consommateurs peut être considéréé comme en étant directement ou indirectement dépendante de l'exploitation de la classe industrielle. L'exploitation de la classe industrielle se trouve située à l'intérieur de la sphère de production canadienne, dans laquelle les investissements américains au Canada représentent une part considérable tandis que l'oppression des classes financière, de distribution et de consommation se trouve située dans la sphère de la distribution, qui tend àêtre plus nationalement contrôlée par la classe capitaliste canadienne. Par conséquent, la dépendance du Canada envers les Etats‐Unis se trouve expliquée par la dépendance de l'oppression des classes financière, de consommation et de distribution par rapport à l'exploitation de la classe industrielle. Etant donné que les investissements étrangers dans les tiers pays provenant du Canada reflètent la division à l'intérieur du Canada entre production et distribution par nationalité, la domination relative du Canada dans les tiers pays s'explique par la dépendance de l'oppression des classes financière, de distribution et de consommation dans ces pays par des capitalistes canadiens du pays même à la dépendance de classe du Canada par rapport aux Etats‐Unis par le biais de l'exploitation de la classe industrielle. Quelques conclusions ont pu en être tirées pour une théorie des transformations structurelles aux échelons national et international.A theoretical model of four class contradictions is proposed for Canada considered in the context of its relations with the United States and "third countries."1 These contradictions are industrial class exploitation, circulation class oppression, consumer class oppression, and financial class oppression. Industrial class exploitation is rooted in Karl Marx's theory of class exploitation, and circulation, consumer, and financial class oppression are viewed as directly or indirectly dependent on industrial class exploitation. Industrial class exploitation is located within the sphere of Canadian production which is largely supported by us investment, while circulation, consumer, and financial class oppression are located within the sphere of circulation more of which tends to be indigenously controlled by the Canadian capitalist class. Therefore, the dependence of Canada on the United States is traced to the dependence of circulation, consumer, and financial class oppression on industrial class exploitation. Since foreign investments in third countries originating from Canada reflect the internal Canadian division between production and circulation by nationality, Canada's relative dominance in third countries is traced to the dependence of circulation, consumer, and financial class oppression in these countries by indigenous Canadian capitalists on Canada's class dependence on the United States through industrial class exploitation. Some implications are drawn for a theory of structural transformations at the national and international levels.

Onze évaluations du taux de plus value de Marx ou de l'exploitation de classe sont présentées aux industries manufacturiàres canadiennes, pour les années allant de 1917 à 1971. Les analyses suggèrent que I'exploitation de classe a augmenté d'une façon dramatique au Canada, surtout depuis la deuxième guerre mondiale. Il est aussi expliqué que I'exploitation de classe et les conflits de classe qui en résultent sont largement démontrés par les grèves et les mises a pied. L'exploitation de classe peut expliquer jusqu'à 56 pour cent du désaccord dans les conflits de classe. On y conclut que l'approche marxiste pour l'analyse de classe offre beaucoup de possibilités quant à l'étude des inágalités sociales.Eleven alternative estimates of Marx's rate of surplus value or class exploitation are presented for the manufacturing industries of Canada between 1917 and 1971. The analyses suggest that class exploitation in Canada has dramatically increased over time, especially since the Second World War. It is also shown that class exploitation generally has a positive effect on overt class conflict measured by strikes and lockouts. Class exploitation explains up to 56 per cent of the variance in overt class conflict. It is concluded that a Marxian approach to class analysis has much potency in the study of social inequality.