PARTISAN!

Far from a purely excessive spectacle of American military violence, Antonio Garcia argues that the ongoing naval-air campaign against Venezuela amounts to the American bourgeoisie’s desperate gasp for profitability in a climate of uneasy speculation.

The Ongoing Farce

The last year has, to put the matter mildly, seen a degeneration in US-Latin American relations. Since the inauguration of the new administration, the US has alienated several of its allies and partners. US-Colombia relations have deteriorated as the United States uses the country as a dumping ground for unwanted migrants, a sore spot worsened by accusations surrounding Colombia’s ‘lacklustre’ anti-cartel operations. In Mexico, the US has half-offered-half-threatened military ‘aid’ to crush cartels in the country, much to the chagrin of the Mexican national bourgeoisie. US-Venezuela tensions have been particularly sharpened by ongoing air strikes against alleged drug traffickers and growing calls for regime change.

Indeed, it seems that the only Latin American countries whose relations with the US have improved are Argentina and El Salvador, with the former receiving billions in US investments and bailouts, and the latter receiving more lenient tariffs.

The bourgeois press has been quick to idealise these developments. Many claim it is an ideological struggle, arguing that the Trump administration is pushing for Latin Americans to elect right-wing governments. These measures serve as both a carrot for ideologically aligned governments and a stick for ideologically hostile governments, rewarding or punishing states according to their adherence to US political dogmas. Others hand-wave their analysis entirely by citing the Monroe Doctrine, the political theory that the United States is the natural hegemon in Latin America, and claim such policies are inherent to the United States’ political culture.

Both of these approaches are intuitive, particularly among the idealist circles of bourgeois ideologues who believe principles, ideology, and culture are the driving forces of history. As Marxists, however, we understand this to be untrue. We are materialists; we know that it is the reality in which we live that shapes our ideas, our outlooks, and our identities. This holds true as we watch the newest bourgeois farce unfold in Latin America. When one looks earnestly at the situation, one finds the United States, guarantor of global capitalism as it currently stands, teetering on the brink of economic crisis. It thus, like the conquistadors of old, comes to Central and South America in search of wealth and conquest to stave off disaster. Capitalism, in its endless greed, must chase these mythical riches to the end of the earth, or it shall starve. We then see these ongoing actions as an effort to ‘save’ America, and by consequence, the world economy, from its contradictions.

…So, What’s Going On?

If one is to understand the US’s actions in Latin America, one must first understand the theory of the ‘tendency of the rate of profit to fall’, and the volume of profit. The rate of profit is how much profit capitalists derive from their enterprises. Innovations that increase productivity tend to raise profits by deepening the volume of profit. However, the rate of profit tends to fall over time. This is because, as more businesses adopt technological innovations across the market, the advantage they previously held is undermined. For example, Henry Ford’s invention of the production line raised his enterprise’s rate of profit, as it allowed for hitherto unparalleled profits; however, this initial advantage subsided as competitors adopted the same technology.

The rate of profit thus falls as capitalists no longer derive higher profits vis-à-vis their competitors. The volume of profit is, in turn, how much profit one can derive from the market. Put simply, the rate of profit is how much profit capitalists derive from the market, whilst the volume of profit is how much profit could be derived from the market.

The United States is then facing the following issue: the rate of profit is falling, and with it, trillions of dollars in speculative investments are thus in jeopardy. It must therefore rejuvenate the rate of profit before the immaterial nature of these investments tanks the economy. This is a problem that the American bourgeoisie is aware of, yet has been impotent to solve. The United States has been teetering on the edge of a recession since 2022, never quite reaching the threshold of economic crisis, whilst never entirely escaping the ‘danger zone,’ either. American tech giants are contributing to the current AI boom through unprecedented investment in digital software and the physical infrastructure underpinning it.

However,  in the last few months, economists have warned that the AI bubble is coming close to popping. Share values are reportedly the most stretched since the dot-com bubble, and many believe AI stocks are overvalued. Every company that has a use for AI has adopted it or is adopting it, meaning that any additional profits derived from the technology are distributed across the entire market.

What we have therefore seen is the following: the United States experienced a heightened rate of profit after the COVID pandemic and recession ended, and innovations in AI accelerated economic recovery. This technology has since been widely adopted, gradually distributing these profits across the market, thereby lowering the rate of profit. Worse yet, the United States’ economy relies on the tech sector, whose growth has been centred around AI for the last year or two. There have been few technological developments of real significance, even as huge investments continue to pour into it.

Indeed, there is a nigh-incomprehensible amount of finance capital, up to forty trillion US dollars (USD) according to Forbes, which stands to be wasted should a major innovation not arise. To put that amount into perspective, Australia’s GDP is $1.75 trillion USD, Japan’s GDP is $4.03 trillion, and the United States has a GDP of $29.18 trillion. As months have passed with little to show, the possibility of this catastrophic loss is looming ever larger.

There is thus a need to stabilise the US economy– which supports much of the global economy– to minimise the damage of this impending disaster. As the preferred solution: i.e. innovating new technologies that heighten the rate of profit has, thus far, failed, the volume of profit must instead expand. This can be done by opening up new markets and by intensifying the exploitation of existing ones.

Imperialism by the Numbers

We then return to the US’ approach toward its Latin American neighbours. To this end, we find starkly differing situations between countries the United States has chosen to antagonise, and those it has chosen to align. The United States’ bloc holds a massive trade advantage with Mexico, being responsible for approximately 80% of the country’s imports. Competition is more dogged in Colombia, where the United States’ bloc controls ‘only’ 60% of imports. China, in contrast, is the origin of 17% and 21.1% of imports, respectively. Moreover, Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela hold massive trade deficits with China, which is significant because China is the only imperial power capable of economically rivalling the United States.

There is thus a steadily increasing influx of Chinese commodities into Mexico and Colombia, which threatens to pull them away from the United States’ bloc. On the other hand, Argentina has been a consistent battleground for inter-imperialist competition, with its Chinese trade deficit being balanced by a similarly-sized deficit with US allies such as Germany, Thailand, and Japan. Meanwhile, there is little competition for El Salvador- the United States’ bloc controls approximately 83% of imports, with the Chinese only holding 15%. Ironically, American imperialism even dominates in its longstanding ‘rival’ Cuba, which receives approximately 78% of its imports from the US’ bloc compared to only 12.7% from China.[1]

As Marxist economist Nikolai Bukharin noted, the import of capital and commodities leads to the integration of a state’s market with that of whoever it imports from. Thus, states with greater Chinese imports are more economically integrated into the Chinese imperial bloc than the American one, and vice versa. It then becomes obvious that US policy preferences toward different Latin American states reflect the US’s ongoing inter-imperialist struggle with China to divvy up the world. Its recent aggression toward these states is thus an expression of American desperation as it seeks to not only defeat China, but also save its own economy from collapse.

This data, which covers only commodity imports, not finance or industrial capital, is useful for showing the general trends in these states’ shifting allegiances but does not capture their gestalt. We must also examine capital imports such as investments and ‘aid,’ which define our conclusions. In this regard, we find fierce economic competition between the American and Chinese bourgeoisie. Venezuela has attracted substantial investment from Chinese financial institutions, most notably in its oil sector. Hundreds of wells have been opened or reopened, and billions of dollars have entered the country, with the Venezuelan bourgeoisie openly welcoming the aid.

A similar affair is underway in El Salvador, with the United States investing millions of dollars into opening detention facilities in the country. This particular flashpoint is indicative of American finance capital’s dominance in the country, with more than 20% of El Salvador’s foreign investment originating from the United States alone. Spain, another member of the American bloc, has also been investing heavily in El Salvador, investing more than all other countries combined during the first three quarters of 2024. Cuba, too, has been the subject of several reforms in the US, which have opened the door to larger investments in Cuban businesses and supported new aid programs in the wake of Hurricane Melissa.

Spain, too, has been vital to sustaining U.S. economic power in Cuba, accounting for 23.6% of the country’s imports. Other states have found steady flows of finance capital from both blocs. Argentina has wavered between inviting investments from China and the United States, using both to finance infrastructure and to recover from the country’s longstanding economic woes. Colombia once took a similar approach, utilising Chinese finance for water management and energy projects, whilst taking American investments for its military and police spending. This trend has declined sharply in recent months as tensions between Washington and Bogotá have spooked American investors. 

In contrast, both the US and China have been steadily investing in Mexico, with American finance capital currently outpacing Chinese funding. That said, Chinese investment in Mexico has increased dramatically in recent years, rising from $85 million in 2020 to $710 million in 2024. Thus, though American finance capital still dominates Mexico, Chinese incursions have undermined this domination far more than they have in El Salvador or Cuba.

The Farce and its Future

This data helps refine our view of the American bourgeoisie’s approach to Latin America. On the one hand, there is still the opportunity for economic proliferation. Several states, El Salvador, Cuba, Argentina, Mexico, and, until recently, Colombia, are all places where the US can export finance capital, thereby expanding the volume of profit by integrating these states’ markets. However, the ease by which this may be done differs between countries. El Salvador and Cuba, both of which are economically integrated into the US’ bloc, can be freely and peacefully invested in.[2] Argentina, which has been dependent on foreign finance, too can be seen as a reliable market which will always accept American capital. Mexico and Colombia, in contrast, are becoming more intertwined with Chinese finance capital and imperialism. They are therefore less reliable markets and more likely to become closed-off to American investments in the future.

Thus, as both Lenin and Bukharin understood, the only alternative option is armed confrontation. If these states are unable to be won via economic conquest, then military conquest shall have to follow. This is especially pronounced in the United States’ hostility toward Venezuela, a state solidly integrated into Chinese imperialism.

We therefore find three differing approaches taken by American imperialism in Latin America. For states already integrated into its bloc, we find an intensification of prior policy. Investments are surging in these countries as the United States struggles to deepen the volume of profit, and thereby raise the rate of profit, before the AI bubble bursts. In countries where it must compete with China, it has once again intensified its current approach whilst readying its military should economic conquest fail. Finally, in states where American imperialism is at its weakest, outcompeted by Chinese capital, the United States has fallen back on armed force to re-open the markets.

These approaches represent a continuation of imperial policy, and nothing more. They are economic solutions to economic problems. The United States, an imperial hegemon within world capitalism, is teetering on the brink of an economic crisis and is attempting to expand its volume of profit to minimise the coming damage. Thus, just as the imperialists of old opened China and Japan by force to expand their volumes of profit, so too does the United States now do the same. These are policies that every imperial power under the sun has practised, from the United Kingdom to Imperial Japan, from the French Republic to the Soviet Union.

It is not the consequence of right-wing politicians, nor some deeper evil inherent to American political culture, but rather a typical behaviour within the imperial stage of capitalism. To be sure, these ideological and cultural attitudes certainly help justify these behaviours, but other justifications have been readily found when imperialism was administered by left-wing governments or non-American states.

This issue is not a matter of principles, ideology, or culture, but one of bourgeois economics. It is only from the sober view of Marxism that we may recognise this fact; and it is only when armed with a steady, conscious understanding of imperialism that the working class can meaningfully overturn it.

---

[1] To be sure, Cuba’s economic re-integration into the US’ bloc is demonstrative of the successes of US unipolarity, as well as its failures. On the one hand, it certainly bolstered the US’ bloc’s economic power, causing several states to politically (i.e., Poland, Germany, Romania, Bulgaria) and economically (ibid, in addition to states such as Cuba) integrate into its bloc. Yet, on the other hand, the failure of Cuba’s bourgeoisie to politically align with the American bourgeoisie demonstrates the limitations of US imperial domination. The US’ victory in the Cold War did not result in ‘the end of history,’ and the theorised end of inter-imperialist conflict that would emerge therefrom. Whilst it certainly advanced the interests of the US’ bloc and its collective bourgeoisie, it did not eliminate the antagonisms between national bourgeoisies and their states. Thus, on the one hand, Cuba’s re-integration into American imperialism reveals the farcical nature of their continued conflict, which appears more akin to protectionist manoeuvres by the United States than genuine attempts at regime change. On the other, Cuba’s failure to politically integrate into the US’ bloc reveals the failings of liberal theory, which proudly proclaimed the coming of world peace after the fall of the USSR. Of course, Marxist theory knew this would be the case. Since the days of Kautsky and his theory of ‘ultra-imperialism’ Marxists have critiqued the attitude that a unipolar world order would lead to the end of war and imperial conflict.

In addition, the facts surrounding Cuban reintegration into US imperialism make clear the nonsensical nature of idealist conceptions of American foreign policy. Cuba, despite being a self-styled ‘socialist state’, is not only an economic stronghold of American imperialism, but, as we shall soon see, a useful dumping ground for America’s surplus finance capital. To know this fact and then claim that the United States is motivated by right-wing ideology or the Monroe Doctrine is absurd. The leftist- though certainly not socialist -government of Cuba stands in clear opposition to both ‘goals,’ and this has not stopped the Trump administration from continuing the thaw that prior governments began.

[2] For the sake of clarity, it is important to note that the investments into economically-integrated states differ in how they expand the volume of profit. Whilst integrating new states widens the volume of profit, investing in integrated states deepens the volume of profit. Widening it entails conquering new territories, resources, and populations whom a given bloc may exploit, whilst deepening it signifies an intensification and innovation on pre-existing exploitation.