The "Big Business Bang" Theory

Social, economic, environmental ills all have the same cause
By Ed Finn
From CCPA Monitor
2005

After nearly 12 years of editing and writing articles for The CCPA Monitor—about 3,000 of them so far—I’ve come to divide our contributors into two broad categories. Finding suitable one-word labels for them, however, is difficult without being guilty of generalizing. They all concern themselves in some way with social, economic, political, and environmental issues and the struggle for global justice, but some—let’s call them the “specialists”—focus on one particular problem. There’s poverty, pollution, inequality, and war, the myriad problems with health care, child care, education, trade, labour, politics, the tax system, civil liberties, agriculture, and the media. On all of these and many other ills besetting our troubled world, Monitor writers have provided thoughtful, well-documented, often brilliant diagnoses and suggested remedies.

Then there are the writers and thinkers who try to connect these problems and see them all as symptoms of one overall global malaise. Privately, I think of these analysts as “world-viewers.” That’s not a satisfactory label, by any means, but it does reflect the holistic approach they take. (If there were a personal noun—holist? holisticist?—I’d use it, but the lexicographers haven’t yet provided one. So “world-viewer” will have to do.)

Again, a caution against generalizing. Most of our “specialists” are not so fixated on their particular problem that they see it in isolation from everything else. They do see the connections, especially the economic and political ones. Nor do all our “world-viewers” ignore the localized symptoms. They often focus on individual problem areas before taking the global perspective.

The point I want to emphasize is that, in our struggle for a better world, we need both specialists and world-viewers. They complement one another. Without the specialists, the world-viewers would lack the specific information they need to map an effective survival strategy. Without the world-viewers, the specialists would lack a broader framework into which their specific findings could be interlocked and acted upon.

In each issue of The Monitor, we try to offer space to both kinds of commentators. We need contributors who care deeply about a particular social or economic injustice. We need the writers and activists who are passionate about protecting Medicare, about eradicating poverty, about cleaning up the environment, about preventing wars, about developing renewable forms of energy, about saving the rainforests, about replacing free trade with fair trade, about serious political reform. At the same time, we need writers who look at the bigger picture, who see the accumulation of all these separate problems worsening to the point where the very survival of planetary life is at stake.

As someone who has read and edited thousands of articles and essays of both kinds over the past dozen years—and who, as an editor, has occasionally been chided by readers for “filling The Monitor with doom and gloom”—I think we have done a reasonably good job of exposing and describing the problems, but not such a good job on the solution front. Not, mind you, that we’ve neglected the need for alternative policies—that’s what the CCPA is all about, after all—but that perhaps we haven’t made “the one big connection” as effectively as we should.

Is there one big connection between all the social, economic, environmental, and political problems we are concerned about? If we were to take a cause-and-effect approach, could we identify one overriding cause of all the troubles that plague us? If we could, it would certainly simplify, solidify, and intensify our remedial efforts. Instead of dissipating our resources trying to tackle each of the many problems separately, we could come together in a concerted campaign to get rid of their common catalyst. That, in turn, would also avert the looming global collapse.

At the risk of being branded a monomaniac or a simpleton or a crazy conspiracy theorist—or all three—let me give you this common cause: excessive and destructive corporate power. Call it corporatism, neoliberalism, ultraconservatism, laissez-faire capitalism, corporate globalization, the corporate agenda, private enterprise, right-wing fundamentalism, the Washington Consensus, or any of the other descriptive tags applied to a world overwhelmingly dominated by Big Business. Whatever you call it, you’ll find it to be the root cause of virtually every social, economic, political, and environmental problem we are now grappling with. And, by extension, it’s also the primary cause of the rapidly worsening global crisis.

I’ve been nattering on about the damaging effects of corporate power for quite some time, but, on flipping back over the pages of The Monitor for the past few years, I was struck anew by the number of articles on a wide range of issues that did indeed—directly or implicitly--expose corporate blame. Let’s recap some of them:

Health care: Many writers on this subject have traced the deterioration of Medicare to its deliberate sabotage through underfunding and understaffing by politicians eager to justify opening this vital service to private for-profit operators. But, as one headline put it, “Privatization is a health problem, not a solution.” Experts on prescription drugs also question the benefits of the $18 billion a year that Canadians are spending on the products of the big pharmaceutical drug companies, which, as one writer noted, “are hooked on ever-rising profits.”

Poverty: Countless articles have cited the many broken promises by Canadian governments to eradicate poverty, notably the all-party pledge in Parliament in 1989 to eliminate child poverty by 2000. Instead, the rates of poverty and homelessness have soared. Why? Because these social blights stem from the ever-widening gap between rich and poor, which in turn is an inevitable result of an economic system that glorifies greed and bars a more equitable distribution of income. No wonder, as one of our writers put it, “we now live in an era of inequality that is historically unprecedented.”

Pollution: Hardly an issue of The Monitor goes out that doesn’t contain an article deploring the contamination of our air, water, soil, and food by industrial toxins. The release of these pollutants—few of which are tested or regulated—cause most of the cancers that afflict us, but are treated by their corporate makers and dispensers as “just another cost of doing business.” On a larger scale, of course, pollution of this magnitude threatens the viability of the biosphere itself.

War and peace: A recent Monitor index revealed that the arms sales of the top 100 manufacturers of weapons now total more than $236 billion a year. As our writers have explained, wars have become very profitable, so we should expect more of them. At least one-third of the multi-billion-dollar cost of the Iraq war, for example, is swelling the coffers of the big arms corporations. One headline declared that “War is driving the economic agenda we’re fighting.”

Trade: Many experts in this field have described NAFTA and WTO trade deals as essentially “charters of rights and freedoms” for transnational corporations, extending their power and influence to encompass the globe. Far from helping to boost employment and economic prosperity for everyone, these one-sided treaties have worsened poverty and inequality while creating obscene riches for a privileged minority. We now have a global economic system in which the pursuit of profits is unconstrained by any concern for the public good—“a world in which 20% of the people consume 80% of the resources.”

Labour: Corporate leaders have always been anti-labour, accepting unions only grudgingly and always looking for ways to oppose and undermine them. As corporate power has increased—especially the ability to move jobs to regions with the lowest wages, taxes, and environmental laws—so has the corporate attack on organized labour. It’s an attack that has been avidly supported by most governments in Canada, which have not only failed to protect and promote collective bargaining rights, but—as our labour relations writers emphasize--have repeatedly violated these rights themselves.

Taxes: Reductions in taxes on business and the rich, along with lavish tax breaks for these élites, have highlighted the budgets of the federal and most provincial governments over the past 20 years. The non-collection of these billions in corporate tax revenue has unfairly shifted the cost of public services and programs to lower-income taxpayers, while providing governments with a handy excuse for cutting these programs. Globally, we have a tax system that, as a recent Monitor report revealed, allows transnational corporations to hide over $600 billion in tax [evasion] havens.

Agriculture: The plight of our family farms, many thousands already bankrupted or gobbled up by the big agribusiness firms, has been the subject of many Monitor features. The main thrust of our stories has been to stress that the cause of the “farm crisis” and the decline of rural communities has not been the alleged “inefficiency” of small farmers, but rather the failure of the current agricultural system to give them a fair return for their crops. “Farm crisis caused by greedy corporations,” said the headline of one article, which noted that, although the price of a loaf of bread has risen from 50 cents to about $1.30, the share going to the grain farmer--after the millers, bakers, retailers, and other corporate middlemen grab their shares—is still only a nickel.

Politics: Corporations have always wielded a great deal of political clout, being the major funders of most politicians’ election campaigns and being free to propagandize their views during elections and finance strong lobbying pressure between elections. With the even greater power bestowed on them by free trade and deregulation, they now effectively dictate government policies—to the point where some observers fear the conversion of our governance to a form of fascism. As one headline reads, “Governments now see themselves as the political arms of business.” And another heading concludes that “the business of government has become the government of business.”

The media: Numerous Monitor articles have remarked on the transformation of the commercial media into propaganda organs for corporations and their free-market dogma. This is hardly surprising, since the privately-owned newspapers, TV and radio networks are owned by and operated as profit-making corporations themselves. In addition, of course, they depend for most of their profits on the corporate ads that fill their pages and air-time. Little wonder that our media articles carried headlines such as “Commercial press lacks balance and fairness,” and “Democracy can’t work if corporate propaganda prevails.”

* * *

I could go on to cite the damaging effects of corporate influence on our education system, monetary policy, natural resources, civil liberties, science, and a host of other sectors. But I think I’ve made my point that, no matter which social, economic, political, or environmental problem you happen to be mostly concerned about, its origin (and aggravation) can be traced to some aspect of corporate rule.

Isn’t it time, then, to at least think about developing a unified effort to address the common corporate cause of all our problems, including the biggest problem of all, which is the threat to our very survival? (This assumes, of course, that our species deserves to survive, which is not at all a given, and it also assumes my “Big Business Bang Theory” has some credibility. Whatever.)




The "Big Business Bang" Theory II

If unbridled capitalism is the problem, what’s the solution?
By Ed Finn
From CCPA Monitor
2006

If you agree with the case I’ve made that almost all our most pressing social, economic, and environmental problems are caused and perpetuated by unbridled corporate power, the obvious question that arises is: how can that horribly misused power be tamed? How can the barbaric economic system spawned by that power be civilized?

Before any effective reform can even be considered, two prerequisites must be met. First, there will have to be a fairly widespread public awareness of the urgent need to curb corporate influence—an awakening that would-be reformers can build upon. And secondly, the movement to challenge the predominant business élite will need to be soundly led and coordinated.

I’m beginning to think the first requirement has come close to being achieved. The scores of thinkers and activists whose critiques of corporate rule have graced the pages of The Monitor for more than a decade are now more mainstream critics than mavericks. Anti-corporate articles and op-eds similar to those elsewhere in this issue by Maude Barlow, John McMurtry, Naomi Klein and Vandana Shiva are popping up in magazines, journals, and some newspapers all over the world--and of course even more frequently on the Internet.

Corporations and their CEOs are now commonly portrayed as villains in movies, TV shows, and books. The blatant greed and corruption that brought down Enron and other big companies, and the proliferation of insider-trading and other “white-collar” crimes make front-page news. Few people have escaped some personal bad experience with a business project or investment—and most are now aware that by far the biggest polluters of the environment are the industrial corporations and the products they make.

I just finished reading Forty Signs of Rain, a science-fiction novel by Kim Stanley Robinson about the imminence of catastrophic climate change. In it, his protagonist, an environmental activist named Charlie Quibler, writes an angry memo to the executive director of the National Science Foundation, which merits quoting:

“Humanity is exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity for our species, badly damaging the biosphere. Neoclassical economics cannot cope with this situation, and indeed, with its falsely exteriorized costs, was designed in part to disguise it. If the Earth were to suffer a catastrophic anthropogenic extinction event over the next ten years, which it will, American business would continue to focus on its quarterly profit and loss. There is no economic mechanism for dealing with catastrophe. And yet government and the scientific community are not tackling this situation either; indeed both have consented to be run by neoclassical economics, an obvious pseudo-science. We might as well agree to be governed by astrologers. . . Free market fundamentalists are dragging us back to some dismal feudal eternity and destroying everything in the process, and yet we have the technological means to feed everyone, house everyone, clothe everyone, educate everyone, doctor everyone. The ability to end suffering and want, as well as ecological collapse, is right at hand, and yet the NSF continues to dole out its little grants, fiddling while Rome burns!”

Granted, this outburst came from a fictional character, but I’m convinced now that the frustration it reflects is shared by most real-life scientists and activists. They know the gravity of the economic, social, and ecological crises we’re facing; they know what needs to be done to avert the calamity Charlie Quibler is ranting about; but they are just as much at a loss as he is about how to jolt corporate and political decision-makers out of their complacent reliance on a fatally flawed economic system.

This complacency, of course, stems from their belief that, with the demise of communism, capitalism has become the only economic game in town. (Future historians may trace the inevitable collapse of capitalism—whether through economic reform or ecological cataclysm--to the earlier collapse of communism, since that historic event led to the uncontrolled cancerous growth of a globalized free-market system.)

One of our members in Saskatchewan called to speculate that many CEOs might secretly want governments to re-impose regulatory restraints on their business operations. None of them individually can opt out of the current cutthroat system, he pointed out, since that would trigger a shareholder revolt or a hostile takeover, but they might welcome a government “restraining order” that applied to all of them.

There may indeed be some rational business leaders of this kind out there—CEOs who can see past the next quarterly report to the yawning abyss they are careening toward. There may even be some rational politicians who can see past the next election to the disastrous consequences of continuing to serve solely corporate interests. But, regrettably, if such wise corporate and business paragons are to be found, they have yet to make their appearance. All the indicators cast doubt on their existence, and thus on the likelihood of voluntary economic reform.

The desperately needed changes in policies and priorities apparently will only come from the application of strong political pressure—pressure that is strategically focused, concentrated, and unrelenting. Sporadic lobbying will not suffice, nor will the extraction of election promises, nor the currying of favour with MPs and senior mandarins. All of these activities have been carried on by thousands of progressive individuals and organizations for many years, with little or no effect. Only a powerful concerted campaign involving and supported by all the members and groups in civil society will have a chance of succeeding.

And that’s the rub. A few years ago, Tony Clarke of the Polaris Institute and Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians—recent winners of an “Alternative Nobel Prize”—convened a meeting of the leaders of Canada’s major NGOs and unions. Their aim was to do exactly what I’ve been talking about: persuade these social, economic, labour, and environmental leaders to pool their resources--to join together in one big overall campaign to supplant corporate rule with true democracy and a more equitable economic system.

The civil society delegates were verbally supportive. They acknowledged the need for a joint effort. They talked vaguely about bringing it about. But in the two years that have since elapsed, they are all still acting independently and are no closer to forging a common front.

This tendency for each NGO or union to follow its own agenda, and to unite with others only occasionally for demonstrations and meetings, has long been a deterrent to more effective collaboration. I’ve bemoaned this dissipation of effort many times. A column I wrote on the subject nearly ten years ago still applies, and I quote from it in the next several paragraphs.

* * *

The present situation has been likened to a river in which many people—old, young, men, women, white, black, Aboriginal, etc.—are being swept downstream. Strung out along each bank are various rescue teams, one for each category of victims. The anti-poverty group tries to save the poor, the seniors’ group tries to pull out the seniors, the women’s group concentrates on the drowning women, and so on. It’s an evocative metaphor.

Each organization has strong swimmers, and is equipped with ropes, lifebuoys, nets, poles, and other rescue equipment. It prides itself on how many people it saves. Not all of them, of course. Many are carried away out of sight and drown. But to rescue even some is considered a great achievement.

These organizations exist to pull people out of the river, or at least make the attempt. That is their raison d’etre. Their activities are reactive, not pro-active. This is not to say that their leaders are unaware that somewhere upstream there are other groups--the chuckers or flingers or heavers--whose purpose is to throw people into the river. They know that, and sometimes they will even go and try to persuade the chuckers to stop chucking. (They call it “lobbying.”) But that is as far as they will go. They know why the chucking and heaving is going on, and who is responsible. They know that there is a privileged powerful minority whose members are never in any danger of getting wet themselves—so rich that they can easily afford to pay the heavers and chuckers (sometimes called “politicians”) to do their dirty work for them. The more people who get thrown in the river, you see, the fewer left to share the nation’s wealth.

It’s a pathetic sight when the rescue group leaders hike up the river to remonstrate with the political heavers. “Please stop throwing so many of our members in the river,” they beg. Usually on bended knee. The politicians promise to stop eventually. Maybe next year. Or the year after that. But they never do. Or they say they have no choice but to keep filling the river with throwaway people because, after the rich and powerful finish gorging themselves, there’s not enough food or shelter or work for everyone in a system based on the survival of the fittest. Some have to be discarded, and it’s only fitting that they be the weakest and the most vulnerable.

The rich and ruthless élite will sometimes fool the would-be rescuers by replacing one bunch of chuckers with another. The flingers take over from the heavers, or the slingers take over from the hurlers. “Surely,” the rescue groups reassure themselves, “surely this new gang of people-drowners won’t throw in as many as the last crowd.” And they don’t. They throw in more.

It never seems to occur to the rescue organizations to blame the economic system itself for all the drowning victims, or to wonder why the people with the most money and power are never among those sacrificed.

Maybe it’s because the rescuers are so busy saving as many victims as they can, so busy collecting donations to buy their nets and ropes and lifebuoys, that they don’t have time to think about changing a system that is so harmful to so many. Or maybe it’s because they are now so accustomed to their role of rescuers, and so organizationally structured, that they can’t even conceive of a river into which nobody is thrown. How, then, could they justify their existence? On what basis could they continue to appeal for donations?

Now, admittedly, saving people from drowning (or from poverty and hunger) is a noble pursuit. But surely preventing them from being tossed into the river in the first place would be even nobler.

Could it be done? We’ll never know as long as groups concerned about the drowning of the weak and poor confine their activities to pulling them out, instead of joining together to confront and foil their corporate and political assailants.

To desist from such a preventive approach is in effect to tolerate a system in which civility and compassion have been displaced by the law of the jungle. It is to concede that there is nothing to be done to change this brutal system except to rescue and comfort its victims.

* * *

Not much has changed in the decade since I penned those words. If anything, the number of “drowning” victims has doubled or even tripled, as have the number and size of the rescue groups. And the rescuers have come no closer to forging a broad and more reform-minded alliance.

It’s not that they are resigned to a system so unfair that the need for charity becomes permanent. In its latest annual report, for example, the Canadian Association of Food Banks (see Page ) clearly would prefer that hunger be eliminated by political reform so all the food banks could be closed.

Not all the charitable organizations, however, seem so anxious to make themselves redundant. If you read David Ransom’s critical assessment of NGOs (starting on Page ), you’ll see that there’s some legitimate concern about their approach to making the world a better place. Ransom takes them to task for not being as politically active as they could and should be. “Avoidable starvation, preventable illness, and predictable disaster are supremely political events,” he argues. “They result in good measure from people being forced to consume the poisonous brew of free-market economics and fake democracy that is concocted by corporate globalization and neoliberal politics.” What are the NGOs doing, he asks, to find and apply an antidote to this venomous concoction?

Not nearly enough, it seems. Yes, each in its own way, they are doing a great deal to mitigate the hardships inflicted by free-market economics and corporate greed--but that’s still an exercise in trying to save and comfort the victims. It’s still pulling people out of the neoliberal river instead of preventing them from being thrown in.

The rescuers will remain indispensable as long as the current economic and political barbarism prevails. Much more urgently needed today, however, are NGOs committed to pooling their resources in a determined, coordinated, all-out effort to achieve economic reforms--reforms that, if successful, will make their rescue operations (and their very organizational existence) unnecessary.

Might I suggest that Tony and Maude call another meeting of civil society and labour leaders? Maybe they’re finally ready to launch a collective effort to prevent economic victimization rather than trying separately to cope with it.

Maybe they’ll agree it’s time to give solidarity—real solidarity--a chance.



The Big Business Bang Theory (III)

A Canada with Scandinavian-style equality is achievable
By Ed Finn
From CCPA Monitor
2006

Several e-mails have reached me from readers who agree with my “Big Business Bang Theory” and with my call for a united civil society crusade to curb corporate power. But nearly all of them ended by asking how I envisioned a society freed from neoliberalism and how, in a practical way, it could be achieved. A few of the more pessimistic correspondents were skeptical that such an egalitarian system could ever be created—that corporate power has now escalated to the level of invincibility. To think that the bastions of Bay Street can be successfully challenged, said one reader, is to “live in a world of fantasy and wishful thinking

I wrote back to remind her that the same gloomy view prevailed not too long ago about the invulnerability of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall. Victory in a struggle against the might of corporatism will be elusive, but surely not pre-doomed to failure. That sort of thinking can only lead to apathy and despair.

It’s not as if we need to obliterate capitalism. Properly regulated, taxed, and forced to operate in the public interest, business firms can fit constructively into a just society. The wealth that their workers produce can be more fairly distributed. This is evident in several parts of Europe, notably in the Scandinavian nations, where capitalism still thrives. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland may not have developed idyllic societies—but their economies are far more equitable than Canada’s and far less blighted by poverty, hunger, and homelessness. (See the article on Finland on Page , written by a visiting American journalist.) Business firms operate freely and profitably in these countries, but under constraints that make them good corporate citizens.

Nor do the benefits of more generous social programs make such countries “uncompetitive” in the global marketplace. On the contrary, the Scandinavian welfare states are among the most effective economic competitors in the global marketplace.

The trouble with Canada stems from our proximity to the United States, arguably the most socially and environmentally backward industrialized country in the world (as well as the most bellicose). We have allowed our economy to be dominated by U.S. corporations and our natural resources to be pillaged by them. We have bowed to American pressure to “harmonize” our social programs with their far less generous U.S. counterparts. In the process, much of our sovereignty has been eroded, and, with the business Quislings among us pushing for even more subservience to U.S. trade and security demands, we stand in danger of becoming a de facto colony of the American empire.

We can be grateful that the Stephen Harper-led Conservatives did not win a majority in the January election. If they had, the Americanization of Canada would probably have passed the point of no return before their five-year wrecking spree could be halted. The Liberals did a lot of damage in their decade-long majority tenure, too, but a made-in-Canada-for-Canadians approach was still achievable, and will remain within reach even under minority Tory rule.

The tragedy for Canada is that a more equitable Scandinavian-style society has always been achievable, given the resources, the skills, and the values that we share. Ours is—or used to be before U.S. neo-colonialization—a self-sustaining country. Now that we have become one big resource grab-bag for the Americans—shipping them so much of our oil and gas, for example, that we have to import nearly half of what we need for ourselves from abroad—our self-reliance has been lost. It could be regained, of course, but only by political leaders with the requisite courage and patriotism.

Politically, the biggest barrier we face is our outdated, undemocratic, first-past-the-post electoral system, which effectively disenfranchises the millions who cast their ballots for losing candidates. The ensuing allocation of seats in Parliament distorts voters’ intent. Had we voted on January 23 under some form of proportional representation (PR), the NDP would now have 59 MPs instead of 29, and the Greens would have a dozen instead of none.

It is no coincidence that, in the Scandinavian and other European countries with the most equitable societies, elections are held on some PR basis. This democratic system produces parliaments that truly reflect the wishes of all voters, not just the majority or plurality. And the governments that emerge tend to be coalitions of the more progressive parties and movements. (Green MPs have even served as Environment Ministers in several European countries.)

A switch to PR in Canada is long overdue. Ours is one of the few major Western nations that still cling to the undemocratic winner-takes-all system. A PR process would open the door to the formation, sooner or later, of a strong left-of-centre coalition government in Ottawa.

How far and how fast such an administration could remodel our society along Scandinavian lines is debatable. Undoubtedly its proposed social and economic reforms would be warmly welcomed by most Canadians, but they would be fiercely opposed by the business community and the wealthiest among us wanting to maintain their privileged status. The commercial media could be expected to fulminate against “tax-and-spend socialists” and cradle-to-grave coddling. But the most formidable and hostile reaction would surely come from our next-door neighbouring superpower.

The United States would not meekly accept the rise of a strong, independent, decidedly left-leaning government sharing its northern border. Especially not one bent on wresting control of its economy and resources from U.S. corporations and creating a Scandinavian-style welfare state that could make low-income Americans envious and politically restive.

The extent of U.S. antagonism could be tempered if a less belligerent administration were to succeed that of the would-be world emperor George W. Bush. The Pentagon was recently found to have devised a detailed plan for invading and occupying Canada in the event of a communist or socialist revolution here. The strategy was first developed in the 1930s, but has allegedly been kept updated. This should come as no surprise. The U.S., under its infamous “Munroe Doctrine,” has long maintained hegemony over all of North and South America, and to enforce it has invaded or bombed almost every other country in the hemisphere (including Canada) at least once over the past 150 years.

Realistically, however, an American military attack on Canada in the 21st century would have to be regarded as highly unlikely. Even a Bush-like administration, no matter how provoked it might be by a government of Canadian “neo-commies,” would surely not incur the universal public and UN condemnation that such an assault on Canada would generate.

Or am I being naive? Perhaps. Widespread public opprobrium hasn’t had much deterrent effect on Bush’s other international escapades. But I think it’s still safe to assume that no regime in Washington would consider a military reprisal when it has such strong economic and financial weapons it can being to bear on an “unfriendly” and uppity neighbour.

Undoubtedly, the U.S. could make life very unpleasant for any Canadian government—and for most Canadians—without firing a single shot at us. The U.S. wields enormous economic power. It virtually runs the World Bank and the IMF. Its transnational corporations control global markets, and their takeover of key areas of Canada’s industry and resources gives them a stranglehold on our economy. Our options are also narrowly limited by the one-sided terms of NAFTA, which lock Canada into the role of U.S. economic vassal.

This huge imbalance in economic and military power has kept Canadian governments dutifully compliant with U.S. demands and needs--even at the expense of neglecting Canadian needs. None of our governments, federal or provincial, left or right, has dared defy Washington on major economic issues. The Americanization of our economy—if not our culture and values—has been accomplished with hardly a peep of protest from our politicians.

So a sharp reversal of this subordinate role and a repossession of Canadian economic control will be a formidable undertaking. No federal government, no matter how determined, will succeed in such a frontal challenge of U.S. might without a vast wellspring of grit, strategic dexterity, and public and civil service support. Even with all these assets, the struggle will tap the hardihood and nationalist spirit of Canadians to the utmost.

What we have going for us, in addition to these intangibles, is the potential economic self-sufficiency I alluded to earlier. We’re no longer self-sufficient in some essentials, including the vital resource of energy, because we’re exporting so much to the U.S., but we could reclaim our required domestic supplies by abrogating NAFTA and tailoring our exports to real surplus limits. Indeed, getting out of NAFTA would have to be the No. 1 priority of any genuinely nationalist national government.

A trading war with the U.S., once we were freed of NAFTA’s shackles, would not necessarily be weighted in Washington’s favour. The Americans need our oil, gas, electricity, lumber, minerals, and other resources more than we need their TV sets, oranges, and Hollywood movies. Most of the goods we import from the U.S. could in fact be obtained from Japan, China, and Europe, if not quite so cheaply. These countries would not hesitate to flout a U.S. embargo on Canada like the one that has been maintained against Cuba for the past half-century.

Where the U.S. could hurt us, and badly, would be by deploying the combined might of the banks, the money traders, the credit-rating agencies, the WTO, the World Bank and IMF, and of course—and with the most devastating impact—the American transnational corporations, which already own so much of our economy. We could expect an immediate threat of mass business shutdowns, layoffs, and outsourcing. If we stood firm and refused to buckle, our economy could be seriously detabilized, our currency devalued, our unemployment rate tripled. Capital strikes and flights could precipitate a crippling depression.

Could we survive such an assault? Yes, we could—if we had a government and a citizenry committed to defending our country at any cost, any sacrifice. We could, with some effort and some help from other countries, again become internally self-reliant. If Cuba could do it, with far less abundant resources than we have, we too could resist the worst American economic sanctions. Deprived of our oil and gas, which they desperately need to fuel their vast military-industrial complex, the Americans might even capitulate before we would.

* * *

What I’ve been projecting here, of course, is a future that may never become a reality. But I’m convinced it could. In fact, if it doesn’t—if no such genuinely pro-Canada government emerges, and if no overpowering public demand for social justice, democracy, and national identity develops—then my pessimistic e-mail correspondent will be justified in her despair. Because that will mean that I am indeed living in “a world of wish and fantasy.”

Somehow I don’t think I am. I think that most Canadians believe in and yearn for a better country and a better world, that we favour fair-sharing over greed, compassion over indifference, peace over war, Canadianism over Americanism.

What we lack is a political system and a political movement that will give voice to our values and reshape our society to embody them.

This is a vacuum that must be filled. If all of us who hold these noble aspirations work together to harness and empower them, we could surprise ourselves with what we can collectively accomplish.

(Ed Finn is the CCPA's Senior Editor.)