From the Liberal Party to the Conservatives, alarm bells are off about the state of Canadian sovereignty, but what is really the risk?

Introduction

As we approach one month of the Trump-Vance administration in the United States, we have seen one recurring theme from bourgeois politicians on all sides of the political spectrum: Canada as the 51st state.

Politicians from all ruling cartel parties have opposed this proposition. From Pierre Poilievre to Jagmeet Singh to Justin Trudeau (alongside both Freeland and Carney), the Canadian ruling class is now seemingly concerned with Canadian sovereignty.

However, when we examine the state of the Canadian economy, we can only ask ourselves one thing: how sovereign is Canada to begin with?

The state of Canada-U.S. relations

Currently, Canada operates as a depot of cheap resources for the U.S., selling raw materials at discounted rates and receiving finished goods in return. Of course, it is not the Canadian workers who benefit from selling our crude oil at clearance bin rates, but rather our capitalist class. It is them who have set up the Canadian economy for their own benefit. They have made sure to utilize all the resources of the people for this aim, ranging from our vast mineral collections, to our expansive forests filled with timber.

This arrangement is not something new for Canada, which began as a resource-extraction colony for the British empire. Even as Canada developed a national identity, our core infrastructure was continuously controlled by Britain, and our industrialization was further limited by laws such as the Navigation Acts (1651-1849), which allowed Britain to restrict the trading partners of its colonies with impunity.

With the American Revolution in 1776, the United States broke free from being a resource-extraction colony for the British, and ushered in an era of rapid industrial expansion. This allowed it to slowly overtake the British empire, which was losing colonies left and right, as Canada’s main trading partner.

During the Second World War, the United States invested large sums of money into Canadian arms manufacturing in order to support itself and its allies. This move, although necessary in the context of WWII, continued long after the end of the war. American capital continued to flow into Canadian manufacturing and resources, thus increasing its influence over Canada and its economy.

This relationship can be explained with the Leninist conception of imperialism. As Lenin explained in Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, monopoly capitalism, as was seen in both Britain and the U.S., inevitably leads to the export of capital to weaker nations, ensuring continued profits for the monopolists.

This is exactly what happened in Canada. Over time, Britain and the U.S. created a situation in which we lack the infrastructure to create our own commodities from our raw materials. This leaves us with two options: we can either work to develop said infrastructure, or sell our materials for commodities in return. Of course, the workers of Canada would significantly benefit from the former, gaining jobs and cheaper commodities. However, the self-serving rulers, whose wealth depends on serving foreign monopolies, would much prefer the latter.

By ensuring we are not economically independent, the ruling circles have prevented us from achieving genuine political and territorial independence. If our economy can be crippled by tariffs imposed by another state, we are not as independent as we are told; rather, we are a vassal of that nation.

Despite what our rulers say, Marxists know independence is not an abstract idea but rather a concrete material reality. Nations are not independent because they have their own flags, currencies, and national anthems. What makes nations independent is the ability to set their own path in accordance to their own needs. This is precisely what Canada lacks. Canadians are given a pseudo-independence, where they can choose their path with the condition that a supra-national entity gets an unchecked veto power.

But surely statehood is worse?

Many have been claiming that no matter how bad things are in Canada, statehood would always be worse. The reasons range from an attachment to the symbolic sovereignty we have, to a fear of a potential “Americanization” of social policies in Canada.

1. Total loss of national sovereignty
   
   Our “national sovereignty” is already nothing more than fiction. The United States government controls Canada through exploitative agreements like the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, buying up of key Canadian industries, supra-national entities like NATO and the IMF, and economic sanctions and tariffs, which are weaponized against nations in order to push for pro-American policy or regime change.
   
   Trudeau’s humiliating submission to the U.S. imperialists when they threaten him with tariffs exposes this to the world. As does the fact that Canada has aligned itself with every morally repugnant decision the U.S. government makes without so much as questioning it, such as our support for its various imperialist wars and regime change operations.
   
   Those who are concerned with any further loss of sovereignty fail to analyze the situation for what it is. Canada has never been a sovereign nation, and has always been subservient economically to another state.
   
2. Americanization of social policy
   
   Many people have also raised concerns that social policies will take a more reactionary form, especially in contexts such as healthcare, workers’ rights, and education. But those concerned with this should look at the backsliding of these policies within “independent Canada.”
   
   Even before the threat of becoming the 51st state, the Canadian ruling class had been engaging in anti-social governance. The slashing of funding for education and healthcare alongside the consistently anti-worker attitudes of all levels of government should be cause for concern for all progressive forces.
   
   Of course, the Liberals only weep about this when the perpetrators are our neighbors down south, and never when it is them who are to blame! They criticize the “loss of rights” that would come with integration into the U.S., but fail to mention their crushing of the CUPW and Teamsters strikes in 2024.
   
   All individuals concerned with the rise in reactionary sentiment should identify and fight it here, and quit pretending it is only a problem in the United States.

Eventually, all arguments for statehood being “worse” than nominal independence fall flat. They simply end up defending the illusion of sovereignty because those who defend this position take comfort in that illusion.

What’s in it for the U.S.?

When we look at the prospect of a full annexation of Canada by the United States, we should ask ourselves what the U.S. stands to gain. Of course, when we look at the fact that the U.S. has complete impunity when it meddles in the affairs of Canada (much to the chagrin of those who love to whine about Chinese foreign interference), we see that there is nothing that the U.S. could gain from integrating us.

The Trump administration has revealed to a wide audience what Marxists, anti-imperialists, and genuine patriots have known for a long time: the political elites here are complete lapdogs of the American capitalists. When Trump threatened tariffs, Justin Trudeau personally flew to Trump’s residence to plead with Trump. Trump then presented Trudeau with a list of requests in order to prevent tariffs, which Trudeau will comply with no matter what the requests are.

This leads us to the logical conclusion that the threat of annexation is virtually non-existent. Quite pathetically, we are so subservient to the United States that an annexation would be a purely symbolic move.

What is the solution?

As Canadians, the first task is to identify the fact that the ruling cartel parties have no interest in protecting Canadian sovereignty. Clearly, since they have never had any issue with selling away to foreign monopolists our resources, land, and jobs before. Now, they are attempting to fool the masses into believing they stand for Canada’s independence. This is the defining characteristic of bourgeois nationalism. A hollow rallying cry that appeals to national pride, all while the same “patriots” sell Canada away to the highest bidder.

In contrast, socialist patriotism fights for genuine national liberation through class struggle. It means breaking free from the shackles of imperialist control and forging our own path under the control of the workers. Only revolutionary patriotism can unite the workers of Canada against our common enemy: our ruling class- to build an independent and socialist People’s Republic.

Furthermore, as students and future workers, this issue is of paramount importance to us. How will we be able to with the constant barrage of attacks on workers and the lack of anyone who will defend them? We have to support workers wherever possible and coordinate events to educate and organize youth in support of progressive causes.

Of course, this will not be an easy task, but in the immortal words of shoku Enver, this year will be harder than last year. However, it will be easier than next year.

For peace, independence, and socialism!