The Capitalist Economic Structure and Illiteracy

Let us begin our critical evaluation of the contention that illiteracy was one of the primary causes of the poverty and unemployment of the 1950's and 1960's in Canada by examining evidence that suggests illiteracy was itself the product of the capitalist economic structure. This provides a useful background for weighing the liberal claim that illiteracy possessed an independent causal significance

The Concept of Uneven Development

A particularly significant theme in Canadian economic history is that of uneven development. From the point of view of the critical perspective, it plays an important role in the explanation of why Canadian workers entered the 1950's and 1960's period with particularly low levels of educational attainment (and high levels of illiteracy). Let us first briefly examine the concept of uneven development, and then examine its relevance in historical context.

In the view of Marxists, the capitalist accumulation process always develops "unevenly". That is, the economic growth and prosperity, i.e. "overdevelopment", of particular regions, industrial sectors, social classes, etc. occurs at the expense of the stagnation and decline, i.e. "underdevelopment" of others.11 We saw in an earlier chapter how this process operates at the level of social classes: the growth and prosperity of the capitalist class comes about through the extraction of the surplus produced by another class---the working class---which itself stagnates. Uneven development at the level of social class in turn creates the conditions for other forms of uneven development, e.g. at the regional and sectorial levels. For example, the stagnation and decline of one geographical region or country--its underdevelopments occur because the surplus value which is being created there through the labour of the working class and other subordinate classes (e.g. independent commodity producers like farmers and fishermen) is appropriated by the capitalist class located in another region or country. The latter region or country in turn is overdeveloping at the expense of the former. (Uneven development at the regional level is normally referred to in terms of "metropolis-hinterland" or "centre-periphery" relationships.)

Uneven Development in Historical Context

The concept of uneven development is a valuable tool for linking developments in the economic sphere with social phenomena-including education. Let us explore the economic background to the 1950's and 1960's period in Canada, focussing particularly on this link.

Two interacting forms of uneven development, sectorial and regional, have been particularly significant in Canadian economic history. On one hand, economic sectors developed unevenly. Owing to the character of the British colonial occupation of Canada, the Canadian capitalist class was founded on the activities of commerce, finance and transportation, as befitting a "middleman" role in the international staples trade. That is, indigenous capitalists were engaged in extracting, transporting and selling raw materials ("staples") like fish, fur, grain and timber to markets in the metropolitan country (Britain, and later the U.S.), and in turn importing and selling goods manufactured in that country.12 The fractions of the capitalist class involved in trade, finance and transportation created and maintained economic, political and social conditions in Canada which favored their own interests, and thereby prevented the full emergence of an important competing fraction--Industrial capital. As a result, industrialism has never attained the hegemonic position that . it enjoys in the U.S. and other western nations.13 Thus, Canada has been marked by uneven development of economic sectors--i.e. overdevelopment of the primary resource extraction sector and the tertiary sector, including trade, finance and transportation, and underdevelopment of the secondary processing and manufacturing sector. An important consequence of this has been continuing political and economic dependency of Canada on metropolitan powers like the U.S. That is, the activities of resource extraction and trade are highly dependent on the demands of manufacturing, and since the manufacturing sectors which consume Canadian resources have historically been located in Britain, and then the U.S., the Canadian capitalist class has been highly dependent both economically and politically on the lead of foreign capitalists. Particularly in the recent past (since World War II), the growth and well-being of the Canadian capitalist class has hinged on an unequal and dependent junior partnership with U.S. capital.14