>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/18/01 01:41PM >>>
-clip-
>CB: Isn't this in part because a lot of the "imports" into the U.S. are
>from U.S controlled transnationals from their capital and production
>outside of the geographical U.S. ( the "U.S." still exporting capital
>muchly ) ?
I don't think that the identity of the company selling the products is
important economically. The products -- and the economic effects -- are the
same, no matter who produces them.
Politically, however, the fact that US imports are so often products of
US-based multinationals undermines the protectionist political coalition.
(((((((((
CB: Yes, the second paragraph above is what I was referring to here. You were
mentioning that U.S. powers that be corporate sector, Dem or Rep , is still pro-free
trade/ anti-protectionist, and I was mentioning this as an underlying cause of that.
(((((((
(On net these days, the US is _importing_ tremendous amounts of capital.)
(((((((
CB: What is the comparison between US export of capital and export of goods ? The
classic Leninist distinction of imperialism is the transition from predominance of
export of goods to predominance of export of capital. It does not foreclose import of
capital at the same time, from other imperialist nations. Even more import of
_capital_ than export of capital, as you say is the fact today. The ongoing current
account deficit ( import of goods greater than export of goods) is consistent with
"less" export of goods as characterizing U.S. and thus U.S.retaining a classical
imperialist profile. Especially since, as just mentioned , much of the "import" of
goods to the U.S. is from U.S. company controlled capital that has been exported
producing those "imported' goods.
(((((((((
>But as was just said elsewhere, there is no escape in this capital chasing
>its tail for, ultimately capital is its own chief barrier, i.e. Marx's
>critical insight that the chief barrier to capital is capital itself
>('Capital' vol 3 and the 'Grundrisse') and therfore, at a certain point,
>capital has to *attempt to escape its own laws of motion*. and "in fact,
>capital moved from its 'progressive' phase of free
>competition, free market, free trade etc to the imperilaist epoch, where
>it has to try to escape the law of value through interfering with all
>these things. It attempts to escape its own barriers through export of
>capital, monopoly, foreign trade, the division of the world into oppressed
>and oppressor nations, state intervention etc etc etc. This was an
>*objective* trend. One which is clearly still with us....
this is very abstract. I was talking on a much lower level of abstraction.
(((((((
CB: Yes, I realize I am supposed to proceed from the abstract to the concrete and here
I go in reverse, but we aren't dogmatic here. There is a place for discussion of the
abstract in this analysis at some point ?
((((((((
Currently, the US economy is not in a period of export of capital or
monopoly (though the latter is slowly reviving).
((((((((
CB: The fact that there is net import of capital doesn't mean that there isn't
enormous absolute ( though not relative) export of capital , does it ? Isn't there
still enormous amount of export of U.S. based capital today, even if Japanese and
European export of capital to the U.S. is more than U.S. export ?
Not a period of monopoly ? How so ?
(((((((((
Foreign trade is
increasingly with us, as is the division of the world into oppressed and
oppressor nations (though the nature of that division has changed). State
intervention is also a constant. It's always been part of capitalism's laws
of motion.
>And so at some point, might the U.S. hegmonic powers that be contradict
>their main tendency to adhere to and promote "free trade" and oppose
>tariffs in the U.S. ? Won't depression in the rest of the world ( the
>could be deepening world depression you mention above ) eventually cause
>political instability there, forcing the U.S. world hegmonic corporations
>to circle the wagons around the U.S. ? Or can the current balancing act be
>maintained for decades ?
I see the possible shift to US protectionism as more of a _result_ of a
crisis than a cause at this point. That is, it seems quite unlikely given
the current balance of political power, so that only if & when the
competitive austerity causes a world depression should we see a rise of
protectionism.
(((((((((
CB: Educational for me, doc.
