¹ Trachtenberg, A., ed., Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Letters to Americans, 1848–1895: A Selection, trans. Mins, L. E. (New York, 1953), 204.Google Scholar

² Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin Institute of the Central Committee, Communist party of the Soviet Union, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, on Britain (Moscow, 1953), 514.Google Scholar

³ The institute which is concerned with economic and political developments in the private-enterprise countries, especially of the West.

⁴ Anglo-Amerikanskie Protivorechiya v Kanade/Anglo-American Conflicts in Canada. By Sushchenko, V. V.. Moscow: State Press of Political Literature. 1956. Pp. 184. (Hereafter cited as Sushchenko, Anglo)Google Scholar

Kanada i Anglo-Amerikanskie Protivorechiya / Canada and Anglo-American Conflicts. By Mileykovsky, A. G.. Moscow: State Press of Political Literature. 1958. Pp. 504.Google Scholar (Hereafter cited as Mileykovsky)

See also Sushchenko, V. V., “Osobennosti Finansovogo Kapitala Kanady / Specific Features of Financial Capital of Canada,” Mirovaya Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 07, 1959, 94–107.Google Scholar (Hereafter cited as Sushchenko, “Specific Features”)

Throughout the paper, the translation from the Russian is mine.

About the consequences of collaboration between Canada and the United States in the field of defence see Rigin, Yu., “Suverenitet i Bezopasnost' Kanady pod Ugrozoy / Threat to the Sovereignty and Security of Canada,” Mirovaya Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 06, 1959, 104–6.Google Scholar

⁵ E.g., Sushchenko, , Anglo, 96.Google Scholar

⁶ See, e.g., on the one hand, Chang, T. C., Cyclical Movements in the Balance of Payments (Cambridge, 1951), 24 ff.Google Scholar; and, on the other, Staley, E., World Economic Development (2nd ed., Montreal, 1945), 143–5Google Scholar, and Brown, A. J., Industrialization and Trade (London, 1943), 56.Google Scholar

⁷ Sushchenko, , Anglo, 124–5Google Scholar, and Mileykovsky, 444.

⁸ Mileykovsky, 227. 9

⁹ See, e.g., Sushchenko, , Anglo, 117, 130–2Google Scholar, and Mileykovsky, 405–6.

¹⁰ See, e.g., Sushchenko, , Anglo, 119.Google Scholar

¹¹ It is interesting to note that Mileykovsky (p. 20) calls this policy the “present policy of the reactionary monopolistic bourgeoisie of Canada,” whereas, as every Canadian knows, this policy has been attacked widely by Canadian business and the “bourgeois” press, e.g. by the Financial Post—the “mouthpiece of Canadian monopoly circles” ( Sushchenko, , Anglo, 130 Google Scholar, Mileykovsky, 390). See, e.g., “More or Less Water Carrying?” Financial Post, Oct. 10, 1959.

¹² The academic institutes of the U.S.S.R. have been urged to pay much greater attention to the division of labour and to trade among the various regions of the U.S.S.R., and between the U.S.S.R. and other countries. See, e.g., K. Plotnikov, Director of the Institute of Economics of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, “Zadachi Instituta Ekonomiki Akademii Nauk SSSR / Tasks of the Institute of Economics of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences,” Voprosy Ekonomiki, Sept., 1959, 144–7. See also Alaev, E., “Voprosy Ekonomicheskogo Rayonirovaniya i Razmeshcheniya Promyshlennogo Proizvodstva v Sotsialisticheskikh Stranakh / Problems of Division into Economic Districts and Industrial Location in Socialist Countries,” Voprosy Ekonomiki, Oct., 1959, 90.Google Scholar Similar changes in emphasis are taking place in the teaching of political economy. See, e.g., Khudokormov, G., “Novoe v Programmakh po Politicheskoy Ekonomii / New Elements in the Programmes of Political Economy,” Voprosy Ekonomiki, Oct., 1959, 139.Google Scholar When there are relatively fewer possibilities of increasing income per capita by expanding the employment of available resources, attention is perforce directed to the application of new techniques and a more rational division of labour.

¹³ “The chief implement of economic ‘annexation’ in the hands of American capitalists was and remains the export of capital” (Mileykovsky, 13). “But the laws of competitive struggle under conditions of imperialism lead to the conclusion that monopolies cannot be content only with methods of economic ‘annexation.’ ‘The export of capital,’ V. I. Lenin has shown, ‘… is bound closely with the economic and political-territorial distribution of the world.’” (Ibid.) “A monopoly can be strong and durable only if it succeeds in eliminating its competitors. Imperialists find such ‘ideal’ conditions only in a colonial country. Hence, as V. I. Lenin has shown, on the ground of capital export grows the tendency towards territorial annexation of those countries to which capital is exported.” (Ibid., 14).

¹⁴ “In contrast with vulgar political economy, which is content with the surface of phenomena, Marxist-Leninist economic science, exploring as it does the deep processes, makes it possible to demonstrate that the development of Canadian capitalism does not refute, but on the contrary convincingly corroborates Lenin's theory of imperialism and the general crisis of capitalism.” (Ibid., 3)

¹⁵ See, e.g., ibid., 286, 287.

¹⁶ Ibid., 302.

¹⁷ Canada (Toronto, 1932), 232.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See above, n. 13. “The example of Canada confirms the view that the rule of foreign monopolies over a country's economy… leads inevitably to monopolistic, predatory acts of these monopolies in the field of politics and engenders various forms of political dependence, which undermine the sovereignty of any country which allows wide access to foreign capital.” (Mileyovsky, 52) “This most important thesis of the Leninist theory of imperialism is corroborated by the evolution of American-Canadian relations.” (Ibid., 15; see also 48–9.)

¹⁹ Ibid., 414–15; see also 46, 413–14.

²⁰ Anglo, 17.

²¹ Mileykovsky, 414.

²² Sushchenko, , Anglo, 163.Google Scholar

²³ Ibid., 164–5.

²⁴ Reference is made to his Canada, chap. I. 25

²⁵ Mileykovsky, 46, 413; see also chap, ix, s. 4, and passim.

²⁶ See, e.g., ibid., 237–40, 274–83, and Sushchenko, , “Specific Features,” 101, 104.Google Scholar

²⁷ Mileykovsky, 25–6; see also 22–3.

²⁸ Ibid., 16, 477, and Sushchenko, , Anglo, 12.Google Scholar

²⁹ See, e.g., Mileykovsky, 485.

³⁰ Ibid., 297.

³¹ E.g., ibid., 473, Sushchenko, , Anglo, 9, 16 Google Scholar, and “Specific Features,” 94–6. 32

³² See Sushchenko, , “Specific Features,” 95.Google Scholar

³³ Sushchenko, , Anglo, 111–12Google Scholar, and Mileykovsky, 472–3.

³⁴ Mileykovsky, 416.

³⁵ See, e.g., ibid., 474–5, and Sushchenko, , Anglo, 117, 130.Google Scholar

³⁶ Sushchenko, , Anglo, 18.Google Scholar

³⁷ In order to support their contention that important branches of Canada's production, consumption, and trade have been subject to long-term decline, and that, owing to foreign imperialism and the general crisis of capitalism, her terms of trade and balance of payments have deteriorated, Mileykovsky and Sushchenko compare data relating to single years. Usually the years selected for comparison are hardly adequate: post-war years are often compared with war years. In support of an alleged long-term decline in the consumption per capita of various foodstuffs, Sushchenko (Anglo, 160) compares the years 1952 and 1945. It is a well-known fact that, owing to subsidies and other public policies, the consumption per capita of some foodstuffs, such as milk, reached its highest point in 1945, after which it declined. See Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Canada Year Book, 1947, 362, and 1954, 421. But, compared to pre-war years, 1952 showed increases in the consumption per capita of most foodstuffs. It is interesting to note that, while Sushchenko quotes percentage declines in the consumption of various foodstuffs, he (Anglo, 160, n. 1) refers the reader to Canada Year Book, 1954, 434–6, 590–2.Google Scholar In those pages there is no comparison of 1952 with 1945; the comparison is between 1952 and 1935–9, and for all the foodstuffs listed by Sushchenko (except butter) an increase in per capita consumption is indicated, in some cases a very substantial one. In support of a decline in shipbuilding, Mileykovsky (p. 441) compares post-war years with 1945 when Canada was producing ships for the Allies.

Sushchenko writes that the misery of the Canadian workers is increasing. He notes that “the increase in wages is lagging behind the increase in the prices of food articles,” and he indicates (Anglo, 159) that between 1945 and 1952 the weekly wages and salaries in industry increased by 69 per cent while the prices of foodstuffs increased by 76 per cent But the total consumer price index increased in the same period only by 55.3 per cent Also, for well-known reasons, during the war the increase in consumer prices lagged well behind the increase in wages and salaries. Between 1939 and 1952 the average weekly wages and salary in industry increased by 130.8 per cent, while the consumer price index rose only by 84.3 per cent. See D.B.S.: Canada Year Book, 1954, 715, 1048 Google Scholar; ana Consumer Price Index, 01 1949—August 1952, 25.Google Scholar

In other cases Mileykovsky and Sushchenko support their contention of a long-term deterioration in the Canadian economy by comparing a boom year with a depression year. For instance, Sushchenko (Anglo, 118) compares the number of business failures in 1948 and 1954, and he points to urban unemployment and relatively low farm incomes in 1954 (ibid., 158, 160). He also neglects the effects of bumper crops.

In addition to remarks made throughout this article, a few other cases of doubtful economic reasoning may be noted.

Mileykovsky writes (p. 199) that for a long time the railway companies hindered the settlement and development of the Canadian West because, having seized large areas of fertile land, the companies received “high absolute rent, which was a substantial obstacle to the development of the farm economy.” Surely, high rent is the concomitant of good use of the land and plentiful supply of co-operant factors, rather than being the cause of poor use of the land and exclusion of co-operant factors. Moreover, the income of the railways depended greatly on the amount of produce carried.

In the studies of Mileykovsky and Sushchenko, as in some studies relating to under-developed countries and the ability of their industries to compete internationally, the cost of labour is considered tantamount to the level of wages (e.g., Mileykovsky, 222, 487, and Sushchenko, , Anglo, 24, 112 Google Scholar), whereas in fact it is determined by the relation of wages to labour productivity.

³⁸ In several instances Mileykovsky notes that government expenditures on transportation and other public works have been financed “at the expense of the taxpayer,” a statement which makes one wonder how, in effect, they are paid for in the U.S.S.R. Sushchenko (Anglo, 154) notes that the taxes paid by the working people are rising, without examining whether and to what extent their incomes and the volume and variety of public services also are increasing. In describing “the condition of the workers of Canada” he copies the Marxist-Leninist picture and forecasts of the conditions of workers in Western countries: reserve army of labour, excessive intensity of work, exhaustion of the workers, loss of ability to work, and, hence, high accident rate; also continuous decline in wages and increase in Uie prices of consumers' goods. Similarly, he pictures the farmers of Canada “rapidly” falling more deeply into debt, “misery,” and “ruin,” losing their farms to the banks, and swelling the army of unemployed. But Sushchenko fails to support the existence of such conditions in Canada. For instance, he compares farmer indebtedness in 1953 and 1939 without allowing for changes in prices, farm output, and income. See Anglo, 154, 158, 160–2, 173; also above, n. 37.

³⁹ Sushchenko (Anglo, 154, 157) notes that the armament race “leads to curtailment of production in a number of branches of civilian industry and, consequently, to mass dismissals of workers”; and that “the growth of military expenditures diminishes also the appropriations for public works, even though the latter could relieve the position of the unemployed.” Surely the East has usually taken the view that in the West military expenditures have provided one of the strongest boosts to employment.

Mileykovsky (pp. 497–8) writes that Canadian “state-monopolistic capitalism” has led to “the growth of instalment buying … a means of preserving the market for consumer goods and supporting a high level of prices at the expense of using the future demand of the working people, i.e., a peculiar means of creating a fictitious demand … which only increases the gap between production and the real consumer demand of the society.” Sushchenko (Anglo, 159) notes that “the growth of the indebtedness of Canadian consumers to the stores testifies to the deterioration of the material condition of the Canadian workers.” For similar views see G. Zotov, “Potrebitel'sky Kredit v SShA / Consumer Credit in the U.S.A.,” Mirovaya Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, Oct., 1959, 143. It is not clear how consumer credit increases the gap to which Mileykovsky refers, particularly if the volume of credit outstanding keeps growing, as has been the case; and why the growth in consumer credit is a sign of impoverishment. In any event, the U.S.S.R. has now introduced consumer credit.

⁴⁰ See, e.g. above, n. 11. Sushchenko (Anglo, 14, 82, and “Specific Features,” 96–7) notes that the Canadian chartered banks are called “privileged” commercial banks. Had he visited Western countries he would have found that, like the Canadian banks, universities and drugstores are often chartered or licensed without being privileged.

According to him, Canada's uranium producers are being exploited badly by the United States. “Under an agreement extremely unprofitable for Canada, all uranium ore produced in the country goes to the U.S.A. at low fixed prices” (Anglo, 64). How little did he know of the prayers of Canada's uranium industry to have its American contracts at these “low” prices renewed beyond 1962!

⁴¹ “For the successful solution of the problems that face economic science it is necessary to overcome the serious defects in the work of the institutes of economic research, which were pointed out in the speeches of a number of delegates to the twenty-first Party Congress. As is Known, it was remarked at the Congress that economic scientists still owe much to the Soviet State. …” Plotnikov, , “Tasks of the Institute of Economics,” 143.Google Scholar