Tag: Finance

  • Historical Nihilism and Canadian Capitalism

    Historical Nihilism and Canadian Capitalism

    The first thing to understand about Canada is that it is a company turned into a country.1 It is from this kernel that all else sprouted. First Nations across the country are the keystone to Canadian history. And the settlement of New France, with its importation of the seigneurial system along the St. Lawrence river, must be acknowledged. But the process of state formation in North America’s most expansive territory begins with a British-chartered monopoly, a fur trading outfit called the Hudson’s Bay Company.

    Crazy as it sounds, there was a time when beaver hats in Europe were so fashionable that it drove grizzled trappers deep into the boreal forest in search of pelts. Solitary months drifting in canoes, scavenging off the land, marrying into First Nations communities—everything to get in on the beaver trade.

    The Hudson’s Bay Company streamlined the pelt procurement process by establishing trading posts along the great Arctic gateway to the Atlantic. Métis and Indigenous trappers would trade pelts for Made Beavers, a unit of currency that could be exchanged for European goods at the post. These included axes, flintlock muskets, kettles and the iconic HBC point blanket. 

    Canada thus entered the global commodity market as a repository of raw materials to be shovelled into the global furnace of production in exchange for high-value finished products. The fur trade leveraged a claim to nearly four million square kilometres of land—Rupert’s Land—named after the Hudson’s Bay Company’s first governor, a man who never set foot on the territory. Of course, those who had occupied the land for thousands of years were never considered to have claim to it. That is because their traditional economy did not produce commodities and was therefore considered unproductive in Lockean terms. HBC’s claim was premised on their exclusive ability to monetize the land.

    When Canada became a country, it was as a British check on American expansion. Beaver money had to be converted into something more stately and Rupert’s Land had to be purchased from HBC’s British board of governors. Hudson’s Bay Company continued to own and operate trading posts on the land they occupied.

    Hudson’s Bay Company post in Aklavik, Northwest Territories, 1956. Image: Library and Archives Canada.

    The history of Hudson’s Bay is emblematic of the country that it kickstarted. Commodity production creates and destroys. Monopoly capital works like a zombie contagion, converting pristine nature into undead objects for sale and human bodies into lurching agents of accumulation. Beavers were turned into hats and Cree into commercial trappers. When the resource ran dry, nations of people lost their commercial utility and suddenly became barriers to novel means of settler commerce. 

    Reflecting the shift from the fur trade to settler commerce, HBC trading posts rapidly transitioned to general merchandise stores servicing the influx of European farmers, loggers and merchants. As cities grew and banks became more prominent, these merchandise shops became voguish department stores luxuriating in downtown Beaux-Arts constructs.

    The British company was only acquired by Canadian billionaire owners in 1979; coincidentally this was about the time that the national constitution was patriated from London. Throughout the 20th century, The Bay was the crown adorning Canada’s golden age of brick and mortar retail, and millions of HBC point blankets draped over Canadian beds are a visible legacy of this era.

    Sold to American financiers in 2006, The Bay abandoned any ambitions of serving a useful function in the age of Big Tech and financial oligopoly. By 2008, the company made its final transition from department store to “holding company that owns many billions of dollars of real estate.”2 Being taken over by financiers is always the harbinger of a “last stop” before liquidation, which occurred unceremoniously in 2025. 

    In Manitoba, the Southern Chiefs Organization was gifted Winnipeg’s flagship HBC department store and are right now transforming it into a mixed-use facility that includes a First Nations cultural centre, residential complex and independent shops. They have seized a limb of the once-zombifying monopoly and are turning it into an institution to support the living.

    Manitoba First Nations offered a roadmap for resolving historic colonial contradictions and seizing national identity from the clutches of foreign capital. Predictably, political leadership took nothing from this experience. They stood idle as The Bay’s 95 other locations shuttered and 355 years of history—4,400 artworks and artifacts—were auctioned off to the highest bidder.

    From Winnipeg. The Bay had flagships built in all major canadian downtowns. image: wikimedia commons.

    The enslaving logic of profit destroyed The Bay; it is destroying the country. Canada’s Big Six banks control 93% of banking assets. In unison, these same banks walked out on commitments to curb pollution almost the moment Donald Trump won the US presidency, irrespective of domestic opinion. The country is embroiled in a housing crisis culminating in $2.4 trillion worth of mortgages and the highest household debt in the G7. Manufacturing has been in decline since World War II, and tariffs pressure what’s left to move south of the border. Professional ice hockey was once a communitarian experience hosted by the public broadcaster in English, French and Punjabi. Since 2026, the national pastime has disappeared from public airwaves, stowed behind the paywall of a price-gouging telecom monopoly. 

    The economy is extractivist; it exports cheap natural resources and imports expensive finished goods. This has created a climate of persistent low wages and unbearably high costs on everything from basic foodstuffs to energy to housing. Over the last five years, homelessness and lethal drug addiction have created apocalyptic conditions in cities and towns alike. 28% of the country is at poverty-level. Owing to economic distress, 43% of people under 35 are outwardly in favour of American annexation.

    As these very serious crises mount, the latest brainwaves from Canada’s Goldman Sachs-trained prime minister include privatizing airports and putting hundreds of billions of dollars on the national credit card for obsolete weapons of war. A zombie corporation is defined as an unviable business that generates just enough cash flow to pay the interest on its debts and cover basic operating costs, but cannot pay back the principal debt or fund new growth. This now defines the entire country.

    With so much attention paid to American hegemonic decline, the sorry state of countries that uncritically hitched their wagons to the fortune of US power is often overlooked. The decades-long political and economic dependency of the American satellite states is now backfiring as the Trump administration attempts to vassalize allies.

    This should not have been an entirely unforeseen outcome, as accumulation by dispossession driven by finance capital has been in full swing across the world since at least the 1980s, economically ruining many countries en route.3 For Canada, Hudson’s Bay was only the canary in the coal mine, the acid test for the neoliberal crises that now surround us. Although there are proven socialist fixes to the economic trade wars and social decay confronting Canada, the capture of the national elite by private capital will doubtless prevent their implementation.

    Thanks for reading!


    1. Paraphrasing Cody Caetano in Rollie Pemberton, “Is It Offensive to Wear the Hudson’s Bay Point Coat?” The Walrus, March 5, 2026. ↩︎

    2. Richard Baker quoted in Don Gillmor, “The End of Hudson’s Bay,” The Walrus, March 26, 2025. ↩︎

    3. One notable exception to this global trend is China. ↩︎
  • In Brief: China’s Marxian Paradigm

    In Brief: China’s Marxian Paradigm

    In China today, the fingerprints of American capitalist excess are hard to miss, as the golden arches and the KFCs stand lined up next to Walmart stores. The history of China’s economic development is a pretty simple story as told in the West: Mao’s Soviet-style economy was abandoned by Deng who swung open the doors to western capitalism and everything we see in China today is the mere culmination of decades of market magic. With this story lodged into our heads by so many western journalists, whose understanding of Marx is even less than their understanding of China, it is no wonder why Beijing’s trajectory is wide open to interpretation.

    The sequence of human history is one of modes of production. Societies organize around productive forces and, as these forces evolve, so does a new social formation eventually sublate the previous one existing. The Greek polis represents a sublation of Neolithic communal society, just as Medieval Europe represents a sublation of the Roman Empire.1

    The process is not mechanical and it has varied wildly depending on the region in question. For example, the capitalist mode of production was concretized only after a significant period of violent primitive accumulation driven by erstwhile feudal merchants who amassed vast sums of wealth at the expense of European peasants, African slaves and New World Indigenous clans. What capitalism has allowed us to do by way of revolutions in technology, science and philosophy, is gain a self-awareness of this historical process and ask the question: if capitalism is a sublation of the feudal mode, what might represent a sublation of the capitalist mode?

    The capitalist mode of production has brought with it a material abundance previously unknown to humanity. This helps to explain widespread resistance against any effort toward revolutionary change. On the other hand, capitalism has also carried over imperial tendencies toward warfare, environmental destruction and the deracination of the community. It is these noxious aspects of capitalism that have formed the basis of western populist demands and global revolutionary politics.

    Marxism-Leninism emerged from an impoverished Russian Empire long-mismanaged by Tsars wielding absolute power. For the Soviet Union, it expressed the post-revolutionary desire for rapid modernization without the capitalist hallmarks of colonial extraction and working class exploitation. With near-universal public ownership of production, these two aims were largely successful and the USSR experienced an improbable rise to superpower status, all the while providing housing, healthcare, free education and employment to all. 

    Mao Zedong was obviously heavily influenced by the Soviet experience but he recognized that his China of 1949 was even less developed than 1917 Russia, thanks to the compounded effects of Japanese invasion, civil war and a century of humiliation at the hands of European colonial powers. At its founding, the People’s Republic of China was almost an entirely illiterate, agrarian economy suffering from a massive drug addiction epidemic and in a state of chronic famine. 

    Mao set his modernization program along the lines of mass literacy campaigns, accessible medicine and large-scale irrigation projects. He recognized the feudal landlord class as a vestige of feudalism and a barrier to progress. That class was eliminated with land reforms. But, as a historical materialist, Mao also saw the bourgeoisie as an important ingredient to Chinese modernization. Adopted in 1949, the Chinese flag even includes a star each for the national and petit bourgeoisie, against a red background representing the revolution.

    Soviet socialism was a sublation of Russian feudalism that practically skipped the capitalist mode altogether. But it collapsed under a heavy burden of economic embargoes and repeated military confrontations against combined capitalist powers that had centuries of wealth accumulation under their feet.

    Relieved of sanctions in 1979, China has been determined to build socialism in the East along the timescale of how capitalism was built in the West: a period of wealth accumulation and technological advancement that will make it possible to transcend the global capitalist economy. Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping, rejected western capitalism and he modelled his own reforms on Lenin’s New Economic Policy.

    China has not engaged in foreign colonization or the subjugation of other lands. As a Global South country long-preyed upon by the West, they have recognized that their path to modernization must necessarily be different than it was for imperial states. With particular attention to Volumes 2 and 3 of Marx’s Capital, Beijing has instead constructed a public sector designed to capture the surplus value of their capitalist workforce and channel it toward the development of new productive forces.

    As Marx described liberal states, the surplus value produced by workers is claimed as rent, interest and profit. In liberal states, the disposal of this enormous surplus is decided by the private whims of financial firms, landlords and corporations—leading to the socially disruptive practice of outsourced labour and the curious phenomena of “dead money.” In addition, the circulation of surplus value in the form of loans, banking fees and debt-financing are tallied as part of the national gross domestic product—despite producing no value whatsoever. This has led the economist Michael Hudson to decry GDP accounting in the United States as “a travesty that credits the financial sector with producing a product, not as imposing zero-sum transfer payments.”2

    As a Marxist state, China treats surplus value as a social product rather than a private gain. Because much of the banking, resource, construction and manufacturing sectors are under state ownership, they are able to convert surplus value that is captured in the form of interest and profits and push a dramatic material transformation of the entire country. Where private ownership exists, party cadres operate within the enterprise to ensure compliance with national planning. China’s ability to build at breakneck speed is also facilitated by maintaining an extremely low cost of goods and services through strategic deflation and the “purging of rent-seeking profits” from the economy.3 This conscious suppression of price and profit are virtually unthinkable for a liberal country.

    The fault line between China and the West is therefore not one of “capitalism vs. socialism” but “liberalism vs. Marxism.” At this point in history, every country on Earth contains elements of both socialism and capitalism. In liberalism, capital accumulation is treated as an end in itself—and the result is a sprawling financial services sector that cannibalizes national industry in exchange for abstract financial products. In Marxism, capital accumulation is treated as an evolutionary step between industrial capitalism and socialist transformation. The result of this treatment is a country that looks like China.

    By compressing surplus value formation into material production rather than financialization, China is betting on a transformation of productive quantity into social quality, one that will eventually lead to a sublation of private capitalism by public socialism. This is not meant as an explicit endorsement of vanguardism, nor is it meant to praise each aspect of Chinese governance or policy decision made by Beijing. We should take lessons from China and adapt them to our own national circumstances. But that can only be done with recognition that their meteoric rise is resultant from the application of Marxist theory at the commanding heights of the economy.

    Thanks for reading!


    1. John Bellamy Foster explores the communal aspects of antiquity in “Marx and Communal Society,” Monthly Review, Vol. 77, No. 3: 47-64. ↩︎

    2. Michael Hudson, “Finance Capitalism versus Industrial Capitalism: The Rentier Resurgence and Takeover” in Review of Radical Political Economics, 2021: 12. ↩︎

    3. See: Kevin Walmsley, “Top China execs forecast more deflation and falling profits ahead,” Substack, Nov. 2025. ↩︎
  • In Brief: Who Are the Globalists?

    In Brief: Who Are the Globalists?

    Question:

    Who are the “globalists” that are referenced so often?

    —P. K.

    Hi P. K.,  

    It seems the right will do anything but name capitalists as their enemy. While “globalism” can mean many things—including recognizing the global impact of local actions—the right tends to use the term as a sort of conspiratorial umbrella with which to shade their centrist opponents. In this vein, a globalist is someone who advocates trading off national sovereignty to a multinational governing body, such as the European Union or United Nations. Previous years have seen fixation with the World Economic Forum and their “Great Reset Initiative,” an alleged scheme to end personal property ownership through mind-controlling vaccines and outright seizure.

    From a Marxist perspective, the frustrating aspect of the right wing globalist conception is the truth embedded within it. Globalization is characterized by multinational firms outsourcing employment, corporate-drafted free trade agreements, international warfare and the financial takeover of the economy by hedge funds, asset managers and banks. These trends have been a chimera for the left for some decades now, and past protests in Quebec, Seattle and New York attest. 

    The membership of corporate clubs like the WEF is drawn directly from the global capitalist ruling class. Meanwhile, international trade agreements like the USMCA and political organizations like the UN and OECD are subsidiary to the reality of global commerce and economic interdependence. In other words, “globalism” is a mental image projected by the actually existing liberal capitalist economic order. The right seeks to alter the image while the left wants to smash the projector.

    Incredibly, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels perfectly diagnosed the problem in 1848:


    The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.1

    The “great chagrin of Reactionists” toward globalization during Marx’s lifetime has clearly never gone away—it is the root of the “globalist” slur. Many millions of people around the world rightfully bemoan the loss of local industries and a cosmopolitan economy that rapidly revolutionizes culture. But the right has never wrapped their arms around the problem, as evidenced by reflexive conservative support for corporate-friendly rates of taxation and deregulation that lubricate the globalization machine. 

    The reason why corporate-funded media and think tanks are so hostile to socialism is because it is the only remedy to what ails the capitalist economy. Unfair trade and the outsourcing of labour and capital is impossible under a system of nationalized finance, rational economic planning, public ownership of strategic industries and worker owned enterprises. Exceptionally low rates of taxation on workers are also possible under a system that allocates public sector surpluses toward infrastructure, as China proves. Facts are stubborn things and capitalism will one day have a final reckoning that puts an end to the contrived “globalist” contention once and for all. 

    In sols.

    Send your questions to the Reclamation: editor@thereclamation.co

    Footnotes:


    1. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Bourgeois and Proletarians” in The Communist Manifesto. ↩︎
  • Ask the Editor: Is Democracy Compatible with Capitalism?

    Ask the Editor: Is Democracy Compatible with Capitalism?

    To the editor,

    Is political democracy compatible with capitalist economies?

    Thanks,

    Matt.

    [Sent via email]

    Hi Matt,

    This is a complex question that hinges on subjective definitions of democracy. Democracy literally means “people rule,” derived from the ancient Athenian concept of demokratia. The basic definition is straightforward but the practice has varied wildly along with popular conceptions that are serpentine, at best.

    For example, ancient Athenians would dismiss elected representatives as non-democratic and oligarchic by nature. Athens had a direct democratic system that filled bureaucratic posts by lottery and passed laws with an assembly open to all citizens. On the surface, this appears even more in the spirit of “people rule” than what we have today. But when we adjust for the exclusivity of Athenian citizenship, only about 25% of the population was enfranchised since women, slaves and foreigners were forbidden from political participation. For older and more inclusive examples of “people rule” we could look to the consensus-based decision making among many tribal societies.

    Democratic models antiquity and beyond only takes us so far, however. The argument could be made that “purer” forms of democracy which developed in the context of a tribe or city-state are simply not compatible in a modern world of teeming metropolises and complex nation-states. There is merit to this argument from a historical materialist perspective.

    Consensus-based decision making is a logical outgrowth of highly interdependent individuals that hunted, gathered and sheltered as small communities. Cohesion and cooperation between members was the best guarantor of productivity and individual survival. In antiquity, on the other hand, the exploitation of slave labour was the productive basis that made a caste of citizens in the polis possible. This economic dependency on slavery elevated the role of military conquest and contributed to the confinement of women to the domestic sphere. Citizenship in the classical world was inextricably linked with military service and politics became the sole domain of a kind of warrior caste.

    What these historical examples illustrate are models of democracy that arose from economic practicality rather than lofty idealism. The same is true of modern democratic forms, which were spawned by a nascent bourgeois class looking to wrest control of government from the European aristocracy of the 17th and 18th centuries. This is why property qualifications were an important feature of early voting rights across the West, just as military service was an important feature of citizenship in antiquity. Capitalism favours commercial expansion and classical slave economies favoured military conquest, and this is reflected in the democratic forms that each system produced. 

    A unique aspect of industrial capitalism is the massive leap in productive capacity and potential. This has largely made material scarcity artificial and wholly dependent on access to money as the medium of consumption. Because of this, class struggle within capitalism has produced some benefits for the restive masses, including universal suffrage and a basic social safety net.

    Whereas strict parameters used to be put around those who can vote, it is now a case of parameters around those who can feasibly win office and pass legislation. Liberal governments all over the world are managed by financial elites with the ability to fund political campaigns, media networks, lobbyists and public debt. Capitalist democracies therefore achieve the appearance of popular legitimacy through multiparty elections but the actual governing process is nonetheless channelled by elite class interests. 

    Is democracy compatible with capitalism? If throwing a ballot every few years into a system subordinated to moneyed interests is the working definition of democracy, then yes—democracy is not only compatible with capitalism, it is capitalism’s “best possible shell,” as Lenin wrote.1 On the other hand, if we were to define democracy as “people rule” with popular decision making that extended from the workplace up to specific line-item national legislation, then capitalism is completely antithetical to it. Outside of tribal society, direct democracy is an unrealized ideal that awaits a radical economic transformation to give it shape.

    In sols.

    Send your questions to the Reclamation: editor@thereclamation.co

    Footnotes:


    1. Vladimir Lenin, “The State and Revolution” in Essential Works of Lenin: “What Is To Be Done? And Other Writings (CreateSpace, 2012): 382-3. ↩︎
  • Ask the Editor: “Online Shopping and Overspending”

    Ask the Editor: “Online Shopping and Overspending”

    Dear editor,


    There’s too much out there already. I’m online shopping and overspending. I can’t say exactly when it started, it crept up on me sometime after I started my current office job. I’m reading promotional emails at lunch and browsing my socials and Amazon after dinner. I am getting at least one new package every day.

    The worst part is I’ll start browsing for something that I think I need to buy, like tablecloths, and end up with a couple of belts. I’ll forget about the tablecloth until the next day and it happens again. Money can get tight when I need it unexpectedly or for a social obligation. It all seems so wasteful and I’m feeling guilty. What can I do?

    Thank you,

    Patricia.

    Dear Patricia,

    You are a human being. There is a side to our nature that is thoughtful, caring, cooperative and holistic. This is where the guilt stems from. Then there is another side that is impulsive, greedy, hungry and competitive. This is where the overconsumption stems from.

    It is a deafening fact that we exist in an economic system that appeals to the worst side of our nature and it makes us miserable. We do not choose these circumstances but we are wise to understand them. 

    In Lacanian terms, what is happening is repetition stemming from a lack. In the process of becoming fully developed subjective individuals, a split develops between conscious and unconscious, ourselves and others, who we think we are and who we really are. The resulting void is the lack that causes desire.1 When you intend to buy one thing only to buy something else, as in a trance—that is not important here. It may feel as though you are filling a void with that flash of dopamine that is transmitted once your item is on its way. But this is a void that cannot be filled, it can only be distracted from and kept away at a distance. The impossibility of complete satisfaction will drive repetition, resulting in deflation upon realization that the void remains.

    Knowing this won’t fix your problem but hopefully it helps break the current pattern of repetition. Scroll to the bottom of those promotional emails and unsubscribe yourself from all of them. Replace browsing time with another activity, preferably off-phone. Make a conscious effort to buy exclusively from brick and mortar stores, where possible.

    Consider Heraclitus: “Always having what we want may not be the best good fortune. Health seems sweetest after sickness, food in hunger, goodness in the wake of evil, and at the end of daylong labour, sleep.”2 Once novelty, need and planning are incorporated into your purchases, they will feel gratifying once more.

    In sols,

        Your editor.

    Send your questions to the Reclamation: editor@thereclamation.co

    Footnotes:


    1. Calum Neill, Jacques Lacan: The Basics (Routledge, 2023): 56-58. ↩︎

    2. Heraclitus, Fragments (Penguin, 2003): 69. ↩︎