In response to Trump’s tariffs, the anger and fear of Canadian workers are being channelled into both Poilievre’s call for a “Canada First Rally” in February, and social media bombardment to “Buy Canadian”. But many people are wondering how to differentiate between the nationalism in countries like those in the G20 versus the fight for national liberation in Palestine and Indigenous communities everywhere. How do we make sure that working class demands and leadership do not get subordinated to partnership, if not leadership, by the Canadian ruling class?
As socialists, it is helpful to discuss nationalism within the context of our revolutionary goals and strategies. In a bottom-up model, socialism is the highest form of democracy, based on the collective power of the working class having control over what we produce in society and how we produce it. A socialist society would be ecologically sustainable and we would free ourselves from all forms of oppression, and we would take control of our lives in a peaceful world.
This requires the complete overthrow of capitalism, even though we often lead the fight for reforms in the here and now. We need mass action from below, not waiting for leaders to show the way, including leaders we may have voted for in our trade unions or in the NDP.
The Communist Manifesto, beloved by revolutionary socialists, ends with the call: “Workers of the world unite!” Yet we are all in different nations, so how does that work?
Capitalist nations
Chris Harman, a British Marxist, argued that the modern nation, with its ideal of a homogenous body of citizens, enjoying equal rights, expressing loyalty to a single centre of sovereignty and speaking a single language, is as much a product of relatively recent history as capitalism itself. The class societies that existed before the rise of capitalism were organized through states. But these states were outside of most of the lives of the masses, in the sense that the exploitation of peasants was at the hands of local lords and clerics who themselves owed only a distant and fragile allegiance to any central state.
Under capitalism, things are very different. The market has an impact on all our lives, from the work we do to the food we eat, to the clothes we wear, and how we entertain ourselves. Capitalists promote a myth that they need only a minimal state, but in fact, capitalism can only operate over the long term if it is backed up by a state which is as pervasive as capitalism itself i.e. a state that issues money, ensures debts are paid (more or less), builds roads and ports, keeps the poor from getting revenge on the rich, engages in wars, and enforces regular taxation on the masses of people.
Anti-colonial nationalism
While the classic 19th century nationalist movements were part of growing capitalism, 20th century nationalist movements were often associated with the struggle of colonial peoples to throw off imperialist rule all across Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. Socialists led the way in many of these struggles, one of the most prominent being Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam. In the oppressed nations, or among people who comprise oppressed minorities within imperialist nations (as would be the case with Indigenous communities, and with Quebec inside the Canadian state), nationalist consciousness is a part of a challenge to the oppressor state and in that way links to the aspirations of socialism.
Anne Alexander, writing about the Middle East, talks about how imperialism becomes internalized, which means that “anti-colonial revolution has taken place alongside the emergence of local centres of capital accumulation and the rise of local capitalist classes.” And that’s a result of the intertwining of the economies of imperialist nations and their colonies. The anti-imperialist sentiment of the working class is usually used to bolster the power of the local capitalist class, which is why, historically, socialists called for peasants and workers to rise up against both their imperial oppressors as well as local capitalists.
Socialists and national liberation
In the early part of the 20th century Lenin developed a Marxist analysis of the national question, including the struggles of national minorities living in imperial countries like Russia. For him, nationalism in an oppressor nation played a different role than nationalism in an oppressed nation. That seems almost intuitive, because when you think of people who are nationalists in places like here, or the US, or European countries, your gut reaction is “Um, this can’t be right.” Ditto when you hear that “we’re all in this together”, used during times of imperialist war or, as we saw recently, during a pandemic; we know this is a not too subtle form of denial of class differences. As Lenin stated:
“A distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation. In respect of the second kind of nationalism, we, nationals of a big nation, have nearly always been guilty, in historic practice, of an infinite number of cases of violence; furthermore, we commit violence and insult an infinite number of times without noticing it.”
In 1920, the Bolshevik government held a conference in Baku, called “The Congress of the Peoples of the East.” Almost 2,000 delegates attended, representing more than two dozen ethnic entities of the Middle and Far East. The speeches emphasized that both national oppression and class exploitation had to be overthrown at the same time, including the seizure of lands from landlords. Lenin’s approach to national liberation was developed through discussions with the Indian socialist MN Roy, who warned that the ruling class of oppressed nations would side with imperialist powers against their own workers – so while socialists in imperialist nations had to fight their own states and support national liberation movements, socialists in oppressed nations needed to resist imperialism and fight their own ruling class.
As Roy explained at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International in 1922:
“In every conflict and struggle we see the interests of imperialist capitalism coinciding with those of the native landowners and the native feudal class. When the popular masses arise and the national movement becomes revolutionary in scope, it will threaten not only imperialist capitalism and the foreign domination. In addition, the native upper classes will join with the foreign exploiters. We see a dual struggle in the colonial countries, directed simultaneously against foreign imperialism and the native privileged classes, which indirectly or directly reinforce and support foreign imperialism… Thus we see that Communist parties are necessary, even if for the moment they are no more than cells. These parties are destined to play a great role and to take over the leadership in the national revolutionary struggle, when it is abandoned and betrayed by the bourgeoisie.”
Tragically, with the betrayal of the Russian Revolution by Stalinist forces came the demise of such internationalism and its replacement with the notion of “socialism in one country.” But let’s never forget, it was the internationalism stressed at the Baku congress and at the Second and Fourth World Congresses in 1920 and 1922, that so beautifully showed how the statement “workers of the world unite” could be brought to life.
Indigenous communities and radical nationalism
The very founding of Canada was highlighted by the oppression and attempted extermination of Indigenous peoples. But when these peoples speak of nationhood, do they do so in the same way as other nations?
To look for a single definition of indigenous identity or nationhood is to look in vain. There are over 600 First Nations and Inuit communities, and dozens of Metis communities, with a total population, according to the 2021 census, of over 1.8 million people, or 5 percent of the total population of the pan-Canadian state. The diversity of viewpoints among these communities is not as great as what these views appear to have in common, namely indigenous communities having control over their lives, lands, resources, laws and governments.
And what do First Nations mean by self-determination? There does not appear to be any single interpretation, but a number of common, general attributes. Ovide Mercredi, former head of the Assembly of First Nations says “The concept of self-government is confusing for many people because we have not had sufficient opportunity to explain what we mean by it. But it is really a very simple concept: First Nations peoples governing ourselves in keeping with our values, customs and traditions and not being ruled by the Minister of Indian Affairs or the Department of Indian Affairs.”
Generally, Indigenous peoples do not recognize the border between Canada and the United States. Indeed, many First Nations tend to be internationalist in their views, mocking the idea that drawing a line on a piece of paper called a “map” creates differences among people.
Despite the fact that Indigenous communities may vary in their conceptions of nationhood, it is obvious they are oppressed societies. For that reason, socialists should always be the first to defend their fight for self-determination, however Indigenous communities choose to define that.
For Indigenous socialist Howard Adams, struggles for self-determination can build alliances with settlers against the common enemy of the colonial and capitalist Canadian states: “Radical nationalism will mean greater class consciousness. It develops the understanding that a native liberation struggle is essentially the same struggle as that of the working class and all oppressed people against a capitalist ruling class. In this way, Indians and Métis can build alliances with workers and other oppressed and colonized groups of white society.” But these alliances are undermined by Canadian nationalism.
Colonial “Left nationalism”
Progressives here are rightly concerned about the white supremacist and colonial logic behind Poilievre’s policies, including calls for a “Canada First Rally” for February 15. But we should be just as concerned about the broad support to “buy Canadian” and similar “patriotic” practices, as a way of standing up to Trump and his tariffs. In too many cases, trade unions are entering into cross-class alliances in the name of protecting jobs and workers’ rights.
This type of “left nationalism” has quite a history in this country. One need only think back to the 1969 “The Waffle Manifesto: For an Independent Socialist Canada.” The Waffle was a group within the NDP that believed the party was not paying sufficient attention to the dangers of the amount of American investment in Canadian resources. As one of its founders, Mel Watkins, expressed, “It insisted that Canadian independence was possible only with socialism, and that socialism was possible only with independence. It was the politics of left nationalism.” US ownership was to be replaced with “Canadian” public ownership.
Writing on the 50th anniversary of the Manifesto, , Watkins briefly acknowledges, “with the passage of time, it is evident that Canada itself is an empire; consider its colonization of Indigenous peoples and the extension of its corporate capitalism abroad (most notably mining) with its disregard for human rights.” Yet he continues to call for a “progressive” nationalism that would be meshed with working class interests, and he lumps together struggles for Indigenous sovereignty and Quebec sovereignty with “multiculturalism becoming the essence of Canadian national identity.”
But the reality is that nationalism for a country like Canada can only be regressive. Nationalization of industry is not the same as workers’ control, as any employee of a Crown corporation can tell you. Instead we need to have the clarity of Lenin, Roy and Adams about the difference between the nationalism of imperialist nations (even if couched in terms of “standing up to the tyrant Trump”) and that of oppressed nations.
Cross-border solidarity, not cross-class collaboration
As we have written elsewhere, cross-class nationalism is a dead end for workers, as it encourages us to think of ourselves as “in the same boat” as the bosses, who are the only ones who will profit from a “Buy Canadian” approach. In fact they will likely use the tariffs as an excuse to price gouge their way to super-profits.
What we need instead is cross-border solidarity, not cross-class collaboration. The United Auto Workers 1945 strike by 10,000 workers at Ford Canada in Windsor was key moment in Canadian labour history. What is less well-known is the immense solidarity it received from US autoworkers. As Don Wells describes:
“The Ford strike was also important because of the solidarity of the mass picketers, the community, and much of the organized Canadian and American industrial working classes. At one point, Detroit supporters and marching bands – about a thousand strong – paraded with the strikers through Windsor.”
More recently, we have seen an excellent statement by the heads of the US and Canadian Amalgamated Transit Union:
“The bond between Canadian and American workers and our shared struggles is much stronger than any political rhetoric. We must resist the narrative that seeks to create division, especially from those who have little regard for the well-being of working people. This is a moment in history when unions are more essential than ever. Workers across both of our countries need to come together and fight against the harmful agendas seeking to weaken the labor movement.”
Bosses and their governments will rely on and try to appeal to the working class, but ultimately will betray them. The key task for socialists is to break down the divisions of the working class along national lines – supporting Indigenous self-determination while opposing Canadian nationalism – in order to form a united struggle from below against all oppression and exploitation, and break these false nationalist alliances that only really serve the capitalist class.
Did you like this article? Help us produce more like it by donating $1, $2, or $5. Donate
