Monopolies - A Case Study
Monopolization And Its Implication On A World Scale
The monopolization of the capitalist system is at the base, a degradation, not only of the "free-competition" of the capitalistic (bourgeoises) socio-economic order, it is also, the degradation of the working class and, in fact, the respective systems imminent demise.
During the Cold War competition between potential monopolist nations, USA, France, Germany, England and Canada was highly minimized and co-operation was (ironically) encouraged to counter the Soviet threat. Today, with the fall of the pseudo-socialist states in the Eastern block and the subsequent degeneration of such states in Asia, cooperation has been deemed unnecessary and a general neo-imperialistic takeover, a rat race if the reader will bear with me, has been instigated.
However, it must be understood before the reader continues, the process unravelling before our eyes today, this disaster, is not a recent occurrence. Some economists and political analysts have dated its"birth" to the start of the Russo-Japanese war and the industrialization of the African colonies ( imperialism ).
This being the case, though imperialism is primarily considered a political phenomenon by bourgeoises economists, socialists have cooked deeper into the matter and "unveiled" the economic character of imperialism and it\'s apparent contradictions (this will be dealt with later, as well as an overview of the historic contradictions, economic intricacies and ethical realities of imperialism. It should also be stated, that the term monopoly, "monopolization" will be dealt with from the left-wing point of view, as "imperialism").
The two prevalent schools of economic thought , the left wing (socialist) and the right wing (libertarian, "laissez fare" capitalists ...), have entirely different view on the matter of monopolization of capital.
While the socialist, especially those of the Marxist persuasion (to which the author belongs), claim that the monopolization of capital is the most significant event in the history of capitalism since robotics, the bourgeoises economist refuse to recognize (foolishly), that a change in economic structure has even occurred!
The contemporary bourgeoises media refers to the world market and it\'s expansion. This term is so overused and under analysed that these pseud-master, have managed to use it as a veil, as a euphemism to downplay the historical change, brought about by the fall of the eastern block and the subsequent degeneration of the Asian "peoples\' republics".
The "expanding world market"or the "world market",on its own, has always existed and expanded to new markets, so the above terms , when applied to the monopolization of the world market by the imperialist nations (see above), is an example of false terminology.
The Domestic Consolidation of Capitalist Monopolies
The international hegemony of the imperialist nation is impossible on such a grand scale, without the consolidation of the monopolization of capital, within the respective nation itself.
The monopolization of capital in a single nation is, even though an important transformation, hardly baffling occurrence. It is, in essence, the domination of a single company (monopoly) or of many companies (oligarchies) over their respective competitions. At such a position, these companies wreck havoc on the market. They enter into special agreements (though they are in theory competitors) to artificially "jack-up" prices and inflate their profit margin at the expense of the consumer.
An essential part of the functioning of what leftists term imperialism is the role of the banks without which the monopolization of capital is impossible and anachronistic. The principal role of banks is to serve as middlemen in the making of payments. By managing is such activities, they transform inactive money capital into profit yielding capital as well as placing numerous money revenues at the disposal of the capitalists.
As a result, the banks grow, becoming monopolies themselves, obtaining at their disposal not only the profits of the capitalists, but the bulk of their capital as well. Through this process, the powerful banks "take after" the smaller ones and the market is left with a handful of superbanks having at their disposal the wealth of the whole nation. They enter into agreements to self interest rates and government policies basked on the way these banks function. This is incredibly detrimental because the general well being of the nation is confined and restricted to the demands of the money-making process. As a result over 95%of the population who does not control capital, is ignored. Lenin said it best, "The building of development...of capitalist