[lbo-talk] New Imperialism?

[T Fast]

>
> No need to coerce Level Two (Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia): 
> they get a pretty good deal. High standard of living, low military bills. 
> Of course they can't run their own foreign policies, but that's a small 
> price to pay. It is funny to sit in Toronto, a prosperous and comfortable 
> city, and hear Leo Panitch talk about Canada's subordinate role. Canadian 
> oppression is not visible to the naked American eye; maybe there are some 
> subtleties that Canadians can see that I miss.
>
> Doug

What is funny? It is both true that the Canadian state and capital are 
subordinate to the US state and Capital in many respects and that Canada 
benefits from this subordination.  This has been Leo's observation for the 
last 25 years.  It also underpins, partially, his theory of American 
Imperialism. It works precisely because it creates the potential for 
positive sum outcomes for significant sections of capital and workers in 
advanced capitalist countries.

In a patriarchal society marriage offers many benefits to women who "choose" 
to get married.  But I don't find it funny when the wife of wealthy husband 
complains of her subordination.  Although I would find it funny if I thought 
that she should be grateful for her subordination given she could be married 
to a poor husband.

Nor do I find it funny when workers at Wal-Mart complain of the relative 
shitty working conditions  vis-a-vis Costco workers. Even though I could 
argue they ought to be grateful they are not unemployed.

And just because Costco workers are relatively rich in virtue of their 
subordination to Costco and not Wal-Mart it does not make their complaints 
funny.

So explain to me why you find Canadian subordination to the US so funny-- is 
it because we are better off then Porto-Rico?

Travis