60 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Many of our experts agree that if the Indian government made use of those sums, which were spent on subsidizing the sale of American grain on the internal market, to effect agrarian reforms, positive results would have been appreciable at the time. But so far no changes have been made: in 1966 India concluded a new agreement with the United States for additional grain deliveries (amounting to 167 millon dollars) subject to the same conditions as before. Mass dumping of "surpluses" on the Indian market enabled the US government and monopolies to gain a firm foothold in the private sector of the country's economy and start putting out feelers for Indian finance since almost all the earnings from sales of these surpluses were either placed at the disposal of the US embassy in India or made subject to embassy control when distributed in the form of loans, credits or subsidies. The US embassy here used this money not infrequently for interfering in India's internal affairs as was the case, for instance, during the 1967 elections. Seventy-five per cent of the money made from these grain sales , was spent on long-term loans for construction of projects agreed on by both parties in advance, 5 per cent on financing Indian firms linked with American capital, and 20 per cent was placed at the disposal of the US embassy in India. The US government's rupee deposits in this country had reached six thousand million dollars in 1969. The conclusion can thu^ be drawn that deliveries of American grain "surpluses^' to India not only led to stagnation in local agricultural production, disorganized the Indian market, caused losses in the state budget and intensified inflation as a result of increased grain prices, but also promoted deeper penetration of the Indian economy and Indian finance by American capital. Other motives lie behind the dumping of agricultural produce. The government subsidizes the export of ^surpluses" out of its own budget, to which end, strictly speaking, PL 480 was really introduced in the first place. If it is from this angle that we evaluate American "gifts" to the developing countries they will appear essentially as another type of dumping, seeing that the consumer is given no reduction on the retail prices for those commodities which the country in question receives as "gift". Collective Colonialism Foreign monopolies often resort to creating assembly plants on trading basis, which are given the grand titles of "factory" or "workshop,^ where certain types of machinery or equipment are assembled or adjusted using parts and units manufactured in leading capitalist countries. This practice is often found in many countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa and is used With particular enthusiasm by the American and West German monopolies to create the illusion that they are promoting the development of industry designed to produce means of production in these countries, while in actual fact they compel the developing country to import, from the leading capitalist countries not merely