ResoluteReader

Monday, June 15, 2026

Crystal Gail Fraser & Sara Komarnisky - Talk Treaty to Me: Understanding the basics of treaties and land in Canada

I picked up Talk Treaty to Me at a left-wing bookshop in Halifax, Nova Scotia, as part of my reading during a trip to Canada this month. Indigenous struggles over land, social and ecological issues have come to the forefront frequently in the last few decades as social movements by Indigenous people have fought to defend and extend their rights, and these have meshed with wider environmental and social struggles. The First Nations people of what is now called Canada have made a global impact with some of their struggles, but there have also been bitter right-wing back lashes against them - including the racist attacks on Mik'maq fishers in Nova Scotia - documented in a book I reviewed recently Contested Waters.

Talk Treaty to Me is not a pure history of the First Nations. Rather, as the title suggests, this is a book that is designed to educate Canadians about the history of the treaties that shape contemporary debates about First Nations' social and political issues. But history cannot be ignored. The history of treaties in Canada includes the history of treaties made between Indigenous people before European settlers arrived. This is important because sometimes there's a crude suggestion that First Nations people could not understand treaties because they had no concept of them. It is true that Europeans arrived with completely different understandings of land ownership and use, commodity exchange and culture. But First Nations people always made treatments. The authors quote Elder Danny Musquq, of the Keeseekoose First Nation:

All of the agreements they [First Nations] have had between one another as peoples and as nations were always based on [land] use - on how they were going to use that land. And.. when... I say... the use of that land, we had agreements between one another, hunting territories that we shared, trapping lands that we shared, gathering lands that we shared, medicinal lands that we shared [sacred lands,... lands that were designated for the shelter and safety of all people.

Crucially these treaties were different to those made with Settlers. One historian Leanne Beasamosake Simpson has described a treaty between two First Nations, which "did not involve interfering with one anothers' sovereignty as nations. It represented harmony and interconnection, as bot parties were to be responsible for taking care of the dish.

The "dish" referenced here, refers to the "Dish with One Spoon" concept, an understanding about how to share land and resources, equitably and sustainable. The authors of this book comment that this agreement is "vastly different from how Canada acts as a treaty partner today".

In my review of Sheldon Krasowski's book No Surrender: The land remains Indigenous I described some of the ways that treaties made by European settlers and the British government were constructed on falsehoods and deliberate subterfuge. Krasowski's book is referred to by Fraser and Komarnisky several times, and they also cover similar ground. These are stories of racism, lies, and deliberate attempts to sideline and undermined Indigenous communities and Nations and take away their land and resources.

In particular the authors write that the 1876 Indian Act

Was created to control and oppress Indigenous Peoples. As a mechanism of assimilation and genocide, it controlled movements on and off reserve via a pass systeml it criminalised cultural ceremonies and celebrations; it enfranchised First Nations persons who earned a postsecondary education or joined the miltary; it altered the identities of First Nations women and their children; and it imposed a system of governance for Indigenous Nations radically difrerent from their own systems. The Indian Act, by every means, was designed to obliterate Indigenous cultures, traditions, languages and governance.

This process continued into the 20th century, the authors write about how "Indigenous northerners were not consulted even though their Lands were being used, sold, and exploited by both the federal and territorial governments." A foundational moment for contemporary relations between Settlers and First Nations came in the 1970s when the first modern treaties were signed. This was a period when Indigenous movements were reasserting themselves and fighting to extend their rights at the same time as pushing the boundaries of existing treaties. "At their best", the authors say, more recent treaties, "provide frameworks for the management of Lands, wildlife, resources, and programs and services and ultimately a plan for how Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous peoples and our governments will relate to each other." The authors encourage readers living in Canada to find out what treaties cover the areas they live in to understand how their own role in taking these forward.

The problem is that Treaties don't always match up with the interest of government and big business. For instance, the British Crown and then the Canadian state signed treaties that said one thing, but allowed them to institute highly repressive and genocidal policies. This is because First Nations peoples might be talking about "treaty rights" at the same time that the government is thinking about "rule of law". The Indian Act, in many places, "violated the spirit and intent of treaties" causing appalling damage and harm to individuals and communties. Explains that the authors explore include the "Indian Residential Schools" which devastated the lives of young people in an attempt to systematically destroy Indigenous cultures and assimilate people into Settler society. Thousands of lives were lost and there are ongoing generational traumas for many people today.

These issues matter however not just because individuals and communities need restitution, support and reconcilation. But because solving the legacy of Treaties and the Indian Act and what has happened to First Nations peoples is not just about creating new treaties. What is needed are completely new relations to develop that are based on breaking existing social, political and economic relations. One key example of this is the "Land Back" movement. This means, the authors say, starting a "process of regaining Indigenous sovereignty and political authority over Indigenous lands". Ultimately it means "getting Lands back under the jurisdication of Indigenous people".

Such questions are crucial - but they are a challenge. Increasingly activists and socialists from Settler backgrounds are recognising the need for "Land Back" demands and similar changes. One of the fascinating things about reading Talk Treaty to Me as someone who comes from a former colonial power, but doesn't live in Canada, is how the authors take time to recognise that non-Indigenous readers might find the ideas and language challenging. But this is not just about language. It is also about recognising that settler colonial powers like Canada cannot give "Land Back" without undermining their own right to exist. This is why, as the authors point out, "Canada is more concerned about protecting its statehood, soverignty, and economy than about implementing human rights". Giving "Land Back" or offering proper restitution for past and present genocidal policies would be a challenge to corporations that want to extract resources and wealth from land and people, and undermine Canada's very existance. As the Mohammed Mamdani has written of the US in the context of a discussion on Settler Colonialism:

Engaging with the native question would require questioning the ethics and the politics of the very constitution of the United States of America. It would require rethinking and reconsidering the very political project called the USA. Indeed, it would call into question the self proclaimed anticolonial identity of the US.

Similar the existence of the Canadian state itself is incompatible with offering genuine restitution to First Nations peoples. Thus the project becomes a revolutionary one - and one that out of necessity needs the unity of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in the struggle against Canada and capitalism. In this process new Treaties will be written, but they will be done in very different contexts, which see all the signaturies fully empowered.

Crystal Gail Fraser's and Sara Komarnisky's book is aimed at a Canadian audience, but it covers material that is relevant to everyone who is fighting for social and environmental justice. It is deliberately challenging to its readers and takes on difficult questions. But it is an engaging and important read. I'm glad I was able to read it during my time visiting Canada and engaging with activists here.

Sunday, June 14, 2026

Ken Follett - A Column of Fire

A Column of Fire is the third book in the Kingsbridge series - Ken Follett's incredible popular novels set around the mythical Cathedral town of Kingsbridge. One of the reasons for their popularity in my opinion is that they focus on the ordinary people of the town, artisans, traders, workers and servants, and their relationships and working life. The first novel, which centred on the building of the cathedral, is particular good in its portrayal of the people who created the building and those who supported them.

A Column of Fire still has Kingsbridge at its heart, and the cathedral is the centrepiece of one or two key events, but this time the book is very different. If the first two novels placed Kingsbridge's inhabitants at the centre of the story around which historical events took place, this one places one or two inhabitants of Kingsbridge, and their families, at the heart of historical events.

This means that the novels scope is much larger, to the detriment of the characters. The novel's principle focus is the life of Ned Willard, whose family are prosperous merchants. At the start of the novel he is returning to Kingsbridge from learning the family business in Antwerp, and is desperately in love with Margery, the daughter of the local Earl. Their romance is stopped by the dynasty building ambitions of her father, and Ned has to leave Kingsbridge to become a courtier working in the service of the new Queen, Elizabeth.

Further tensions arise as Margery is a devout Catholic and Ned is Protestant. Ken Follett here is able to construct the complicated religious conflicts of the era around the tensions between the two. Ned is present at many of the key events of this era, including the Saint Bartholemew massacre, the Armada and so on. While the reason for this is of course his service as a spy for Elizabeth, it's on occasion a little implausible.

The networks of Catholics trying to overthrow Elizabeth are only part of the story. Follett has included other aspects of the period - including the slave trade and international commerce with Spain and the New World. Some of Ned's family become incredibly wealthy, and peripheral characters, such as former slaves are shown to also become rich - after they are liberated. While Follett doesn't downplay the violence of slavery, its a little too much in the background.

Ned's central role in key historical events allows him to become the modern reader's viewpoint. He's liberal and kind, bemoaning the violence of both sides, while desperately trying to avoid England collapsing into Civil War.

A Column of Fire is an enjoyable read - like the other books its packed with cliff-hangers, sex and violence. It's a decent holiday read and should be enjoyed on that basis.

Monday, June 01, 2026

Donald A. Bowman - My Battle of the Atlantic

The corvette convoy escort ships from World War II have gained a remarkable amount of fame for a small ship that was designed to fill a military gap. As the submarine war against Allied shipping escalated in the first years of the war, convoy protection became an urgent requirement. Yet no ships existed to fill this role, and navies had little experience, despite similar events in the First War. The corvette was created to fill the gap, and almost 300 were built through the war on both sides of the Atlantic.

The corvette is famous because it is the centerpiece of Nicholas Monsarsat's novel The Cruel Sea, and the subsequent film. Monsarrat also wrote a biographical work on his experience on the little ships. Monsarrat served in the Royal Navy, but corvettes were also used by the Canadian Navy as a key part of their commitment to the Allied war effort. Donald A. Bowman served on HMCS Edmunston escorting convoys to and fro across the dangerous Atlantic. This short biographical account of his experiences begins with his early training, and follows him through the war until HMCS Edmunston is decommissioned. Bowman was on the ship for almost its entire service life. The ship thus takes on a personality of its own.

Bowman's experiences are typical of many servicement. Hours of cold, discomfort and boredom, interpersed with moments of terror. But like any other disperate group of people forced together to work as a team, he also recounts the occasional fun and laughter. Interestingly though, he makes the point, that he never saw an enemy - alive or dead - through the war. Notably though he points out that this is the reason he volunteered. By doing so he could chose the service to be in, and this meant he could avoid the army and having to bayonet people or live in trenches. The shadow of World War One hung over his generation.

Bowman's book is very candid. He describes his sweet and lengthy marriage, and his honeymoon,cut short by the demands of the Navy, after just a couple of days. But readers will really want to know about the time on the ship. This is usually discomfort. The ships had "an open bridge... watchkeepers exposed to the weather" food was terrible:

By the fifth day at sea, bread was mouldy. The galley could not cope with baking bread for ninety-six crew. Hardtack biscuits were availale, but found few takers. A menu staple was "British Bangers" otherwise known as sausages.

The ship was crowded. Ninety-six crew in a space intended for sixty-five. And it was shared by lots of rats and cockroaches.

The corvette HMCS Sackville in Halifax, Nova Scotia

There's plenty here about life at sea. Refuelling, anti-submarine tactics and the stress of convoys at night. If that was it there would still be much to reward those interested in Naval warfare. But Bowman is equally candid about the stress and stress of life on the ship. His final chapters detail the suffering he experienced from what is now called PTSD. Googling Bowman's life beyond the book you can see the stories he tells here and how they continue to affect him. This is especially true of Charlie, a fellow trainee, he met after the war whose life was destroyed by his experiences in the war. Bowman's trauma comes in part from the loss of confidence he says he experienced as a result of taking off the uniform, which removed his sense of place in society. He also suffered terribly from the after affects of brain and hearing caused by the explosions from the "hedgehog" anti-submarine weapon. But it is actually the horror of what Charlie experienced that remains with Bowman, and every Remembrance Day "the futility of war visit my mind all day and late into the night, as I remember Charlie". Those looking for a sanitised miltiary adventure will not find it here, and nor should they.

This short book is thus much more than a memoir. It's an attempt to understand the war from the perspective of someone who was only a small cog. It's fascinating and when I visit the last corvette, HMCS Sackville in a few days time, I hope to see HMCS Edmunston's flag that Donald A. Bowman donated in memory of his friends and comrades.

Thursday, May 28, 2026

Hossam El-Hamalawy - Counter-Revolution in Egypt: Sisi's new republic

The Egyptian Revolution of 2011, was perhaps the important event of the 'Arab Spring'. It was a seminal moment for me, and a generation of activists who saw Revolution on the TV and social media on a nightly basis. I, like many other activists, followed events closely. The fall of the dictator Hosni Mubarak was a joyous day.

Hossam El-Hamalawy was an activist, socialist and journalist during those days. This, his analysis of the Egyptian state's evolution and the change and continuity it experienced during and after the Revolution is based on close study of events and documents, including leaked papers, and interviews. Some of it, including references to the imprisonment of activists and events during the Revolution is based on his own experiences.

Friedrich Engels' described the state as a collection of "special bodies of armed men" whose position seeks to defend the status quo, and expand capital's interests. This is nowhere more clear than in Egypt. In the decades before the Revolution the Egypt state had a huge, and overlapping, network of organisations, police, army, informers, spies and agents who watched, punished and restricted anyone expressing dissent. This included trade unionists, socialists, human rights campaigners and Muslim activists who questioned or challenged the existing setup. At the same time, Mubarak was a master at using the state against itself to prevent any threat to his position- giving its leading figures overlapping mandates, turning favourites against each other, bolstering one organisation against another, carefully manipulating the system to protect his position.

In February 2011 the Egyptian military deposed Mubarak. They did this under pressure from below and to try and limit the revolution. El-Hamalawy argues that we cannot see this event as part of a disguised plot by the generals to give themselves power through a coup even thoug this is what happened in July 2013 when Sisi took power from th elected President Morsi. El-Hamalawy argues:

While it is impossible to know every general's thinking, informed accounts suggest the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces aimed for a quick end to the uprising, a return to normality and troop withdrawl. One general explained the priority was to 'restrain the unrelenting revolutionary impulse, so that it does not smite the state's military, security, and economic apparatuses.

Crucially, says El-Hamalawy, "the generals were eager to transfer power to an elected [civilian] government as long as their interests were protected." This is further confirmed by a US State Department report that said the Army preferred "after the Mubarak experience" a situation like in Turkey, were "the army mainstains its status... but stays in its barracks under a democratic order"and is the "guarantor of democracy".

No doubt the military wanted a say in events. But they were not, at that stage, trying to dominate. What changed? Here the importance is the old saying that "Revolution is not an event, but a process". Morsi, who replaced Mubarak, was unable to hold back or end the Revolution. In fact, as El-Hamalawy says, his election became a focus for further radical demands.

The coup that Sisi led in 2013 was a response to the ongoing revolution, not the revolution per se. But it was, from the generals point of view, a necessary one. El-Hamalawy writes that "by the Spring of 2013, the country had become ungovernable". Industrial disputes were escalating and the capitalist class were "abandoning" Morsi after ongoing "mass protests". It was, a classic moment when the working classes were no longer willing to be governed in the older way, and the ruling classes were unable to govern in the old way.

Post coup Egypt demonstrates a strengthening of the state in both its size and its scope. The military is more powerful, and has managed to displace other forces such as the police as the chief instrument of control. The military have also extended their roots further into Egyptian society. Military capitalism, writes El-Hamalawy, "expanded massively in scale and scope after the coup":

From about $300 million in the early 1980s, the post-coup military's civilian involvement - via debt-financed projects run directly by the army or in partnership with local and international capial - rose to $200 billion over five years... this equalled two-thirds of GDP. Civilian employment in such ventures also grew from about two million in December 2016 to five million by September 2019.

He continues:

The repressive apparatus generals, with the military at the centre, have become predatory elites who sometimes cooperate with the civilian bourgeoisie but also seize their capital by force.

Repression, punishment and violence against dissenters has reached new levels. The Egyptian state is building some of the largest prisons on the planet, and modelling them on US prisons. Sisi's government has placed itself at the heart of every Egyptian cultural and political institution - from soap operas to mosque sermons. It is difficult to be optimistic about the situation in Egypt in the short term, though El-Hamalawy finds evidence for the "slow revival of dissent" and occasional strikes and protests. More importantly he notes that Eygptian society is also under enormous strain - not least from the global context of Trump and Israel's War on Iran and genocide against the politicians. These tensions are reflected within the state itself and El-Hamalawy notes that "cracks in authoritarian security coalitions rarely stay small".

Any hope we have for a renewed mass struggle will lie in the growth of confidence from below and the breaking open of disagreement within the state. For those studying Egypt Hossam El-Hamalawy's book is a must read. Despite at times the detail being a little overwhelming the book gives a clear picture of the way that Sisi's current government rests on a seemingly powerful, but inherently unstable, state-machine. There's much here on the specifics of Egypt. But the analysis will be useful for everyone trying to understand tensions in other states globally.

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

John Foot - Blood and Power: The rise and fall of Italian fascism

The rise of global far-right and fascist parties and movements is something of great concern to working people. It is, perhaps, the most dangerous time that the left has faced since the 1930s. While fascists and right-wingers have evolved and changed, as this penetrating article by Richard Donnelly shows, their core purpose remains intact. They aim for the complete destruction of democratic structures and the left, while using radical, right-wing, rhetoric to gain support through a critique of the system.

In organising to stop the right activists should learn from the past. Two strands of fascism dominated European politics. One of these was Hitler's Nazis in Germany. The other was Mussolini's fascists in Italy. The latter is not discussed as often as the former, so John Foot's Blood and Power is an important read. Foot begins:

Italy invented fascism. Out of the chaos of the First World War, in which nearly 600,00 Italian soldiers lost their lives, a new movement emerged which preached hatred for politicians and love for the fatherland. Fascists embraced violence, both in their language and on their streets.

The violence was needed. In the early 1920s the myriad of local fascist leaders out of whome Mussolini was to emerge was the sole leader faced a powerful foe - the working class movement and mass socialist organisations. As Foot says, the fascists were "overshadowed" by a "socialism uprising" at the end of World War One. One cannot downplay the scale or significance of the Italian workers' movement in this phase. The opening chapters of Foot's book are a sweeping, but powerful and inspiring account of a working class in open and confident confrontation with the state.

While Italian fascism was nationalist and racist, and later embraced antisemitism, it's core ideology was one of counter-revolution and patriotism. It was the perceived threat (even after the struggle had receded) from the workers' movement that gave Mussolini's fascists a chance to organise and a ideology to coalesce around. Italian fascism cannot be understood without seeing the centrality of counter-revolutionary politics. In 1914, for instance, the northern Italian city of Ravenna had been the centre of a major workers' revolt against World War One. The story itself is inspiring. But in July 1922 it was the scene of a brutal counter-revolutionary strike by the fascists:

Thousands of armed blackshirts descended on the city... The 'march on Ravenna' was carried out like a military invasion. It took place out in the open, during the day, and was accompanised by a selective purge - the victims being socialists, republicans and trade unionists... At least nine people were killed in Ravenna alone... but the attacks ranged across a vast area.

By the summer in Ravenna and Cremona, Ferrara, Bologna and countless other places, the fascists squads were in control, and "the state, police prefects, army and carrabinieri were all reduced to the role of onlookers, and often took sides, providing logistical assistance to the violent gangs".

The speed at which fascist gangs did defeat democracy and the left is breathtaking. In city after city, town after town, village after village fascist gangs smashed, murdered and broke local and regional organisations of trade unions and socialists, democratic organisations and elected bodies. It was systematic. One thing that should be recognised by all activists today, is that democratic organisation in any form - whether it was local councils or national government, was in no way a barrier to the fascists. Their deployment of extreme violence at the slightest provocation (and usually with no provocation at all) saw democratic institutions fall almost instantly. It seems incredible, but democracy as a set of ideas and institutions could not (and often did not try) to stop fascism. Foot writes:

Local democratic institutions fell, one by one, to fascist pressure. Forty [fascist] councillors had been elected to the provincial administration of Cremona... in May 1922. But this formal, democratic procedure was completely ignored by the local fascists. They did not recognise elections. In that same month, local fascist leader... Roberto Farinacci, insisted that he be allowed to speak as the 'forty-first councillor'. Farinacci had not even been a candidate in the elections... When asked who had elected him, he replied, 'I elected mysefl'. It was the last meeting of that provincial council.

He concludes "Election results and democracy had come up against fascist violence and the latter had won".

This begs the question, could the fascists have been stopped. There's no doubt that the left could and done so. Tom Behan's remarkable book The Resistable Rise of Mussolini shows how this happed in one location. The key was left unity and militant mass mobilisation. Certainly there was resistance and the fascists were held back temporarily in places. But there was not enough. One problem was clearly that the left (in a broad sense) did not understand that everyone was threatened. Too many liberals and moderates thought the fascists were only targetting the revolutionary left, but "moderates were often targeted in the same way, and with even more violence, than those on the far left". Tragically, in a number of key cases, such as when the fascists took out the left stronghold Bologna in November 1920, the leader of the radical left, the Mayor Ercole Bucco, backed down from armed defence, despite having a massive majority in the city. Foot concludes:

Bucco's actions that night also seemed to confirm the overall historical judgement on maximalism. They talked the talk, but were incapable of organising a real revolution. Local fascists on the other hand, were emboldened.

Time and again the left was to fail. In January 1921 the Socialist Party left split, and the Italian Communist Party walked out. Foot regards this as a mistake. He says that "at a time of mass fascist violence directed against socialists, the main political organisations... divided into two, weakened any sense of opposition or even defence". This was, of course, a dangerous time. The trick would have been if the Communist Party had been able to respond in a way that would have built left unity in an anti-fascist alliance while maintaining independence. This failed to happen, and probably it was too late after January 1921. Had the CP prepared the ground by organising like this, the split could have been much more productive in terms of anti-fascist mobilisations. I was reminded of Clara Zetkin's analysis of fascism in Italy:

Fascism... is not at all the revenge of the bourgeoisie against the militant uprising of the proletariat. In historical terms, viewed objectively, fascism arrives much more as punishment because the proletariat has not carried and driven forward the revolution that began in Russia.

At the start of this review I mentioned the ideology of Italian fascism. It is notable that while the fascists were appalling racists, many Jewish people were members. Mussolini's alliance with Hitler and his adoption of a vicious antisemitism shocked them. Italian fascism was not more benign than in Germany. Jewish people were hounded, murdered, arrested and lost everything. Many were sent to Concentration Camps, particularly later in the war. Foot's analysis of fascism in power is an important counter to those today who argue that Mussolini was not as vicious. The Italian fascist state was a violent, repressive and murderous entity - and its violence extended into Africa with the occupation of Ethiopia.

Nonetheless fascism in Italy was weak. It seemed extremely powerful, but the contradictions of economic and imperilaist policies undermined its position. By the time it had entered the war, the longer anti-fascist and anti-war traditions of the working class were beginning to make themselves felt. When Mussolini's regime eventually fell, it was a surprisingly quick series of events. This period, and the subsequent German take over of Italy, is well told by Foot.

Foot's book concludes with an analysis of Italian fascism in the context of contemporary Italian politics. It is clear that the failure of the Italian state to properly come to terms with, or confront, the legacy of Italian fascism - including its failure to prosecute or challenge many of its key figures - has left a belief that Mussolini's time was "wonderful". Foot's expose reminds us that it was for a few people - those who were frightened by the rise of a powerful workers' movement. But the reality for millions was the opposite.

It is an excellent (and extremely readable) account of a period of history we ought to study more. I would have liked more accounts of anti-fascist resistance and further analysis of how the left could have stopped fascism. Nonetheless this is a very useful read.

Monday, May 25, 2026

Lis Angus - That Other Family

How would you react if suddenly, out of the blue, you discovered that everything you were certain about your parents was untrue? This is what happens to Julie Walker in Lis Angus' latest thriller. Julie lives a happy life as the mother of three teenage kids, happily maried to husband Matt, with a decent job at Ottawa's main public library. One day she meets Frances Boyle at work. Frances brings with her some photos of her family and there in the middle, unmistakably is Julie's father. It turns out that Julie's beloved father had two entirely separate families.

For most people this would be a shattering revelation. Frances wants to meet Julie's mother - to her, she's the other woman. With Julie's and Frances' father dead, only her mother can offer an explanation to both women. Before Frances can meet her though, Julie heads out to talk to her mum. To her surprise, when she tries to gently break the news, Julie's mum knows all about the other family. Shock piles on shock for Julie. How could these secrets have been kept quiet for so long. Then her mum spills the beans. The other family is no ordinary family. They're part of a major criminal gang. The sort of criminals bound by honour and committed to revenge. Had they known of the other family the lives of Julie's mum and dad would have been worthless.

Despite some waryness from Julie, Frances bonds with her and her family. Julie's worries seem to disappear. Then, one early morning while Julie's family is out, their house explodes.

So begins Julie's quest for the truth. She's desperate to protect her family. But every turn she's met with official disbelief - even Matt isn't sure things are real. As the threats get closer again, Julie's faced with betrayal and violence from an unknown enemy. Why are the Walkers' being targetted? More importantly, who is targetting them?

Lis Angus is a thriller writer based in Ontario. That Other Family is her second novel, and it is full of delightful twists and turns, tension and a genuinely original plot. The novel is set in an area that Lis knows well. Her acknowledgements include a thanks to an Ottawan librarian for showing her around the library which features in the book! But the landscape and the small towns and villages around the city are clearly drawn from personal knowledge. It makes for an even more realistic story.

That Other Family is a tight piece of writing that lovers of thrillers will enjoy. But there is no morose detective solving the crime, no muscley heroes despatching the bad guys. Instead there's a mother fighting for her family and that's the best sort of hero.

Alistair Macleod - No Great Mischief

Preparing for a trip to Nova Scotia and Cape Breton one is struck how the interconnected history of Indigenous people and immigrants remain central to the region, and indeed the formation of modern Canada as a whole. Alistair Macleod's No Great Mischief focuses on the immigrant experience, those who left Scotland to settle in Nova Scotia, to work its land and mines and build a better life. It is a sweeping history of shared identity and the challenges of building a new life.

The novel begins however, in the modern era, with Alexander MacDonald, a successful dentist, visiting his alcoholic, elder brother Calum. Through a series of flashbacks we begin to construct their shared history, the tragedies that have left the MacDonad children orphans, and the struggles they have fought in the Uranium mines and the fields of Canada. Tragedies outnumber the good times. These are lives, like most immigrants, of long days of hard work, of low pay and accidents. Their are good times, often fuelled by music, dance, poetry and drinking. But while the flashbacks return as far back as 1779 when the first MacDonalds fled Scotland to settle, it is perhaps only Alexander who has broken free of the endless cycle of poverty and death.

Immigrant identity looms everywhere over the novel. Strangers who share the characteristic red hair of the MacDonalds, and claim heritage to the original clann Chalum Ruaidh, stop each other in the street to bond over shared history and family. It's a fierce defensive mechanism that brings conflict with other immigrants groups in the mines and the fields. It creates a culture that pervades contemporary Nova Scotia in many different ways.

The book is hard to characterise. It's focus on groups in the rugged landscape means that the place itself is part of the story. The rocky coasts and barren landscape. There is, for me, a frustrating lack of presence of Indigenous people whose culture would have been in conflict with the immigrant experience. Perhaps the story would have benefited from inclusion of some of the great working class struggles that Nova Scotia has seen - particularly in the mines. But this is a celebration of brotherhood and solidarity in other ways, the fight to preserve identity and to stand true to who you are. Its a lovely book that will linger as I explore Cape Breton.

Sunday, May 24, 2026

V.I. Lenin - Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

Lenin's short book on Imperialism is perhaps the best known of his extensive writings. So well known, in fact, that the edition I've just read is number 96 of the Penguin "Great Ideas" series. Make of that what you will. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism remains a key reference point because of the continuation of imperialism itself. It is a succinct presentation and defence of the Marxist understanding of Imperialism, defended by Lenin principly (and deliberately) through reference to bourgeois commentators and statistical sources and defended by Lenin from critiques on the left, most prominently Karl Kautsky.

The book is itself limited, or rather it is very much of its time. Lenin acknowledged this because he was writing for the censor. Written in 1916 it needed to bypass Tsarist censorship and thus Lenin's conclusions and language are deliberately mitigated. Michael Kidron, his his own discussion of Lenin's work noted more critically that "have all been lost sight of in an uncritical, almost universal, acceptance of its central themes. This is all the more strange since much of what he analysed has clearly either gone or become much less important than in his day."

Kidron goes on to make some sharp criticisms of Lenin's work. Recognising it as a brilliant piece of revolutionary work at the time, but acknowleding that it has its limits and is very much of its time. Lenin himself acknowledges this in one of the prefaces written after the Revolution when he notes that the book was limited by lack of research material while writing in exile. Kidron's criticisms focus on the changing role of banks and finance capital, which was central to Lenin's analysis and he argues, a over generalisation from the German economic situation. The changing importance of capital export from developed economies to the developing world is also something noted by Kidron.

These criticisms remain important and Marxist theorists such as Alex Callinicos have continued to develop the theory of imperialism for a new years, 60 years after Kidron's critique and over a century since Lenin's. Nonetheless Lenin's book remains crucial to understanding modern imperialism because it offers a Marxist account of the interaction between capitalist development and imperialist structure. Lenin argues that his left critics, such as Kautsky continually misunderstand imperialism prescisely because of their neglect for context.

So what does Lenin argue? Imperialism, says Lenin, arises out of a stage in capitalist development when monopoly capitalism (existence of gigantic firms that have swallowed up most, or all, of their competitors) comes to dominant and can obtain massive profits from exporting capital into delveloping countries. This is faciliated, Lenin argues, when banks have reached such proportions that they control finance capital and can deploy it to further their own interests and those of other capitalists. This then goes further, as Lenin writes, "the 'personal union' between the banks and industry is completed by the 'personal union' between both and the state."

This union between capital and the state means that the state itself can and must intervene in the interest of its own national capital in the world. While this can lead to war, Lenin also highlights that imperialism is more than war. It is the intervention of the state in trade, economic relations and colonial development, in the interests of its capital. Two countries, he writes

England and France are the oldest capitalist countries, and... possess the most colonies; the other two, the United States and Germany, are the front rank as regards rapidty of development the degree of extension of capitalist monopolies in industry. Together these four countries own 479,000,000,00 francs... nearly 80 percent of the world's financial capital. Thus... the whole world is more or less the debtor to and tributary of these four international banker countries, the four 'pillars' of world finance capital.

Such a relationship rests on the ability of the state to deploy military power if required, as Thomas Friedman famously said in 1999:

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

It is this analysis that makes Lenin's work such a crucial starting point for anyone trying to analyse the modern world. Think of US intervention in the Middle East, or Russia and Ukraine's war. We cannot understand these without understanding the "economic essence of imperialism", to use Lenin's words. Take Ukrain and Russia. Russian aggression began the conflict, but it was Nato and Western interests attempt to hold back Russia's economic interests that identify the conflict as a proxy imperialist one.

But there are aspects to contemporary imperialism that remain absent from Lenin's book. One of these is the question of "sub imperialism", those nations who have broken from colonial domination and now exert their own economic and political interests, sometimes militarily. Israel in the wider Middle East, or Iran and UAE in Syria and Sudan. Lenin's work is dominated by an attempt to explain World War One and link this understanding to a fight against "opportunists" whose siding with their nation state had so badly damaged the socialist movement. Nonetheless, understanding how the development of capital in post-colonial countries and regions has led to sub-imperialist clashes, hinges on the same recognition as Lenin developed in understanding the rise of the Great Powers in the colonial era. If Lenin's work doesn't anticipate these developments, it does, at every stage recognise that colonialism needed to be resisted by those workers and peasants in colonial states. Had he lived to see this era, he would no doubt have analysed it as succinctly and clearly as he does in this work.

Related Reviews

Lenin - The Development of Capitalism in Russia
Lenin - The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution 1905-1907
Lenin - Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
Lenin - Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?
Callinicos - Imperialism and Global Political Economy