Tag: Profit

  • 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. ↩︎
  • Ask the Editor: They Don’t Make ‘Em Like They Used To

    Ask the Editor: They Don’t Make ‘Em Like They Used To

    To the editor,

    Is there a Marxian understanding of the adage: “They don’t make them like they used to”?

    Cheers,

    Helen.

    [Sent via email]

    Hi Helen,

    This question reflects noticeable shifts in production over time, beyond simple nostalgia for the past. Walter Benjamin wrote an influential essay touching on this subject in 1935, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” He describes the deteriorating aesthetic of artwork as mechanical processes were able to churn out assembly line copies of artifacts. Aura, derived from the uniqueness of a piece and the social and spatial location of where it was produced, is obliterated by machines. He writes that, “even with the most perfect reproduction, one thing stands out: the here and now of a work of art—its unique existence in the place where it is at this moment…The here and now of the original constitute the abstract idea of its genuineness.”1

    Even earlier, in 1818, Arthur Schopenhauer arrived at a similar conclusion as he observed the early fruits of industrial output:

    The apprehended Idea is the true and only source of every genuine work of art…Machines mince very fine and mix up what is put into them, but they can never digest it, so that the constituent elements of others can always be found again, and picked out and separated from the mixture.2

    Whether it is Benjamin’s aura or Schopenhauer’s “apprehended Idea,” both thinkers identified a romantic fault line whereby products once had these characteristics and then did not.

    But what to say of today, now that the artisan guild and independent craftsman have been extirpated from the economic landscape? What is being registered with “they don’t make ‘em like they used to” is an unfavourable comparison between commodities of today versus some vague past era, as in film, automobiles, appliances or furniture. But industrial production has been dominant for centuries now, as Schopenhauer attests. 

    As usual, it is Karl Marx who is able to transcend the particularities of Benjamin’s aura, Schopenhauer’s Idea and plain old subjective nostalgia. He explains commodity fetishism this way:

    A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses.3

    For example, Benjamin bemoans the transition from the live theatre to the recorded film—just as Schopenhauer regrets the replacement of artisanal textiles to the power loom’s churn. What they are witnessing is the abstraction of labour by machines as well as the deterioration of the social relations in which their own lives were situated. Nostalgia for the past necessarily includes a level of discomfort with the present.

    As capitalism develops, it is the logic of exchange-value that drives the production process. Labour becomes more and more distant from the consumer. Newer technology, like artificial intelligence, extinguishes a range of human inputs. Varying combinations of sweatshops, resource extraction techniques and machine calibrations are utilized to produce everything from smartphones to dollar store items. Planned obsolescence is integrated into the very design of commodities, like a kill-switch to force more consumption.

    As it stands, profit is at the heart of production. This is why commodity production contains an accelerating tendency toward social deracination—the outsourcing of jobs, predatory lending, vulture capitalism, rampant financial speculation and unaffordable costs of living. An economic primacy of use-values must be developed in order to replace the indifferent pursuit of profit.

    Human flourishing should be at the heart of production and democratic decision making. When this occurs, “they don’t make them like they used to” acquires a different meaning: the very things that once deducted from our time and wallets now form the bedrock of leisure and productivity. 

    In sols.


    1. Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Penguin Books, 2008): 5. ↩︎

    2. Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Volume One (Dover Publications, 1969): 235. ↩︎

    3. Karl Marx, Capital Volume One (Penguin, 1992): 164-5. ↩︎