[Marxism] Which "Americans"?

[S. Artesian]

JB writes:

 The underlying material basis for this culture is an economy that is to a 
substantial degree an extraordinarily successful parasite. We often speak of 
"the U.S. and other imperialist countries," but IN REALITY, American 
imperialism is different, for two reasons  NO OTHER country can pull the 
trick the United States does, or at least on  nothing like the same scale, 
of importing valuable commodities (and often  with a large component of 
unequal exchange, i.e., if precisely the same  commodity had been produced 
in the U.S. or Europe or Japan, its price would  be higher) in exchange for 
nothing more than U.S. currency or currency  equivalents, like treasury 
bonds or other dollar-denominated financial  obligations. And because the 
U.S. dollar is the main reserve currency, even  as the economies of other 
countries grow, and their local currency float  increases, there is a strong 
tendency that leads them to keep MORE dollars  in reserve to back their 
currency. That means those dollars never go and buy
anything FROM the United States. The "effective demand" on U.S. goods and 
services that other country's sales to the US would allow them to make is 
sacrificed to the need to back the local currency.
___________

Those who wish to extend and enhance the analysis Lenin presented in his 
Imperialism really ought to dig a little more deeply into the numbers and 
statistics so often used to determine that the US is a "parasite"; that the 
US trades paper for valuable commodities; that the accumulations of dollars 
in foreign central banks are there and stay there to protect local 
currencies.

Behind the surface of the numbers that leads to this (mis)characterization 
of the US and the real nature of US imperialism, or advanced capitalism, or 
whatever you want to call it, is a reality that is pretty much the opposite.

Let's look at those old bones that rattle in the closet every month-- the 
balance of trade deficit, which according the just released numbers from the 
BEA expanded again in July.

The critical component in these numbers is the value of the imports and 
exports  exchanged with RELATED PARTIES.  Related parties are, for the US, 
foreign based subsidiaries of US owned corporations and the US based 
subsidiaries of foreign corporations.

In 2000, total US goods imports measured 1.205 trillion dollars;  imports 
from related parties were 563.084 billion;  exports were 780.418 billion; 
exports to related parties were 196.596 billion;
adjusting both exports and imports for this "intra-corporate" trade there is 
a net deficit of approximately 60 billion dollars-- 1/10 of the amount so 
frighteningly trumpeted by those who have for so long been predicting the 
end of US dominance.

And this 60 billion is more than eclipsed by the US surplus run in the 
services category of international trade.

In 2006, total imports were about 1.84 trillion, with the related party 
portion at 863 billion mark; exports were at 1.04 trillion with the related 
party portion at 280 billion.  The adjusted deficit in goods trade is about 
222 billion, nothing to sneeze at, but certainly not the bronchial pneumonia 
or the asthmatic wheezing of parasitic old man wrapped in a blanket, 
clipping coupons.

While US imports grew by 50% in the 2000-2006 period, related party imports 
exceeded that growth; exports grew 33% and related party exports grew 42 
percent.

And what single factor can accout for the biggest part of the quadrupling of 
the raw number for the adjusted trade deficit?  How about oil?  Imports have 
increased some 9%, with the price tripling.  Oil works for me. The bill for 
US crude imports in 2000 was approximately 73 billion dollars; in 2006 it 
was approximately 281 billion.

Now let's consider all those dollars, all those US Treasury notes, bills, 
GSE instruments held by central banks.  The fact of the matter is that these 
reserves are held in other central banks as a direct manifestation of the 
overproduction of capital and the falling rate of profit-- in that profit 
accrues in greater and greater masses with fewer and fewer opportunities for 
profitable reinvestment in production.  In the less advanced countries, like 
China, Russia, with restricted domestic markets, the underdevelopment of 
agriculture, the lack of agricultural productivity limits the consumption, 
productivity of the whole society, and overproduction manifests itself in 
reserves of  financial capital all dressed up with no place to go, except 
into instruments of debt, debt trade, etc.

I would suggest that Marxism really does depart from monetarism, really does 
reject the notion of "fiat money," really does discount "fictitious capital" 
as the cause for both capitalist expansion and contraction, and that we, as 
Marxists, need to look more closely into the actual circuits of capital to 
understand both those circuits, and the prospects for class struggle in both 
advanced and less advanced countries.