<ellipsis>
I wrote:
>(On net these days, the US is _importing_ tremendous amounts of capital.)
Charles writes:
>CB: What is the comparison between US export of capital and export of goods ?
US net exports of goods and services + net US income earned on foreign
operations = a negative number these days (so the US is spending more than
it's selling and paying income to the rest of the world for their
investments and workers in the US). The magnitude of this negative number
is approximately equal to the amount of capital inflow into the US: the US
is borrowing from the rest of the world and selling US assets in order to
raise the dough that allows the US to over-spend and pay income.
>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.
I don't think the current day fits Lenin's sketch very well at all. Lenin
himself once wrote that Bukharin's book on imperialism was superior. If
anything, the current day approaches fitting Kautsky's story of
"ultra-imperialism" (the rich capitalist powers unified against the world),
but without the positive connotations that Kautsky saw (the ending of the
anarchy of production). The US/NATO against the world is quite different
from the Lenin/Bukharin story of big capitalist powers fighting each other,
encouraging war (of either the military or trade sort). However, the L/B
story applied pretty well until 1945 or so.
>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 ?
you're right that the US _is_ exporting capital, but most people who read
Lenin, etc. interpret it in terms of _net_ exports of capital.
>Not a period of monopoly ? How so ?
Monopoly, like competition, is a normal part of capitalist markets.
However, during the period since 1975 or so, the US has seen an increase in
the degree of competition. The "old system" that had prevailed in the US,
where stable oligopolies (shared monopolies) dominated a world that
couldn't compete very well with US industry, started disappearing in the
late 1950s and especially the 1970s. The rise of competition from Japan and
Germany (and later South Korea, etc.) undermined the privileged situation
of companies like GM and US Steel (now called USX). Technological change
undermined monopolies like Western Union (which went from having a _total_
monopoly in the telegraph services to being one company of several allowing
the "wiring" of money out of town). Deregulation undermined monopoly power
in trucking and airlines, etc. Anti-trust broke up AT&T. The neoliberal
movement aimed at not only promoting "globalization" but also domestic
competition (often in order to undermine labor's power which, if restricted
to narrow trade union, is dependent on the employer's ability to pass wage
increases onto consumers in the form of price increases). Part of the
problem was that the "old system" was thrown into crisis during the 1970s
and policy-makers were looking for a way to restore the system. A serious
series of shocks to the system (such as the 1980-83 recessions) shook up
the _status quo_ again. So by the 1990s, most US businesses lacked the
ability to raise prices significantly.
As Marx wrote in the POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY, monopoly generates competition
(as described above) -- and competition generates monopoly. Now we're in a
new era in which the concentration and centralization of capital is
occurring on a world scale, tending toward the creation of world-wide
oligopolies. We also see a shift toward using intellectual property rights
as the basis for monopoly.
<ellipsis>
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
