This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.

MIM on Kanada

Discussion of parasitism and the national question in Canada

See also our article on how Kanadians themselves do not see a distinct Kanadian culture

by International Minister, May 11, 2003

Most of the phony communist organizations in the world recognize that there has to be a separate vanguard party for Canada, while failing to recognize one for Blacks, Aztlan etc. In fact, that is a tiny and superficial question compared with the fact that most phony communist organizations see Canada as a separate nation, while they do not see separate nations for Blacks, Aztlan, First Nations, etc.

What this is is a capitulation to the labor aristocracy of Kanada and the government placed borders. It has nothing to do with Stalin's theory of the national question.

According to Stalin, we should look at some various factors 1) connected land mass/integrated economy 2) psychology & culture 3) language. One thing Stalin did not say should be counted--he did not say a territory is a nation because imperialist governments set up borders to say so. It is MIM's contention that Kanada is less deserving of being thought of as a nation than Blacks are, but the phony communists give Kanada more separate treatment than Blacks.

1. Land mass--Canada continues with U.S. territory. There is no more reason for saying Kanada is separate than the Black nation--a tie. When it comes to Hawaii, of course, there is no comparison: Hawaii has a better basis for claiming nationhood than Kanada does.

2. Economy--in actual fact, white Kanadians are from the same economic history as Amerikkkan whites relatively speaking. Blacks have a history of slavery to recall. First Nations also have a different economic history. In contrast, whites in Kanada and the united $tates are both now and in the past massively petty-bourgeois. The economies of Kanada and the united $tates overlap quite a bit and so does that of the various internal semi-colonies, but even in terms of economics, there is more basis for separating the Aztlan nation and its undocumented workers than the Kanadians--advantage to national status: internal semi-colonies. The integration of Kanadian and Amerikkkan economies is more complete than the integration with the undocumented workers.

3. Language--obviously Kanadians speak the same language as Amerikkkans. Some southerners and Blacks would have a better claim to having a separate dialect of English than Kanadians. More importantly, Aztlan speaks Spanish and many First Nations are trying to preserve their languages: advantage for declaring nationhood, again internal semi-colonies. (See also our position on Quebecois imperialist nationalism.

4. Psychology--obviously there is nothing that compares with the genocide against Blacks, First Nations etc. between Kanadians and Amerikkkans. Even though super-profits reach the internal semi-colonies, the difference is that these groups can at least recall a history of exploitation and have that basis to sympathize with the world's exploited and oppressed. Kanadians and Amerikkkans do not.

This brings us to the last point that MIM would like to sharpen regarding the trend of history since Lenin. Marx and Lenin both told us that exploitation and the correspondent parasitism would increase until imperialism died. For the foreseeable future that means Amerikkkans are going to have reactionary political views--and that is likely to get worse, not better, because of the underlying growth of parasitism. If there is any point in talking about trends in history, we Leninists must surely mention the growth of parasitism or none at all. Yet, the vast majority of organizations calling themselves "Marxist" are trying to get various oppressed nationalities to "integrate" with the empire and form multinational organizations as if there were no national question, only a question of racism. This is an obviously obtuse strategy given the increasing distribution of super-profits until the day that major territories can be ripped away from imperialism. We should not be encouraging oppressed nationalities to think more like whites or to integrate with the enemy. We should also make the most of whatever relative shortage of super-profit distribution there is for oppressed nations, not to mention the continuing super-exploitation of a good portion of the Aztlan nation. Nor should we ever be telling the internal semi-colonies to "wait" for the labor aristocracy. We should always be seeking to accentuate the history of exploitation and oppression that internal semi-colonies faced, as the best basis for seeking sympathy within imperialist countries with the international proletariat. In the meantime, the imperialist enemy will be pumping out everything from Disney movies to cabinet positions to make the oppressed nations forget their differences with whites, while the imperialists' less sophisticated allies in the labor aristocracy will be handing the international proletariat the oppressed nationalities as allies on a silver platter with their daily acts of racism and national supremacy ranging from the Vincent Chin murder to kicking off all Arab-looking people from planes.

The next time someone tries to attack MIM's line on the national question and parasitism, just ask yourself, "what is the critic saying? What is the critic using as a reference point? Why are Blacks, First Nations, Aztlan etc. NOT nations according to the critics but Kanada is?" As soon as we get concrete in our comparisons, we will find that the MIM critics' positions amount to not much at all.