.. . They were led by Lenin on the one hand and Kautsky on the other. Though Lenin was the radical and the latter the moderate, Kautsky set forward his theory of “hyper imperialism” by which he stated that the monopolization of capital would lead to a more direct takeover of the state apparatus. He predicted that all monopolists from every industry would unite and directly run the state from a quasi-democratic government.
Although essentially political in nature the theory reflect in today terms, the phenomenon of merger. It would not stop here for Kautsky, who went on to theorize that the phenomenon would reach international proportions. A “One World” economy and government would be created by uniting all common industries on an international scale. Lenin believed that international co-operation was impossible due to what he called “petty bourgeoises” prejudices. He argued that Kautsky overestimated the enlightenment of the capitalists and did not understand the national question from an international angle.
Kautsky was right. Today mergers with telephone companies from different countries, as well as car manufacturers is common place such as Scotiabank merging with the bank of Thailand or the merger of “Sprint”with “Deuth Telecom”. Also the creation the UN as a proto-type of world government, is proving correct the foundations of Kautsky’s theory. Also the EU, an even better example has united many European companies in an attempt to counter the influence of US and Japanese capital. By merging, 5 monopolies will be minimized to 4 with the 2 who merged as one concentrating 40% domestic capital in their hands as well as likely doubling, their profit.
The purpose is to eliminate or “buy out” the other monopolies or to merge and create one “super enterprise”. To achieve total dominance, the monopolies artificially lower prices to put the small business out of business. After they have asserted total market control they double and sometimes triple the prices to make up for the loss. For this reason, mergers should be viewed with suspicion because the benefits they appear to offer at first will in the end cost everyone who does not have any means of capital (98% of the total population) in their possession. The Consequences of the Export of Capital In its pre-monopolist stages, it was a general facet of capitalism to export goods.
The monopolization of capital, however, has brought about the export capital itself. Because the attainment of profits reaches such extremes in capitalism a natural result of this is a surplus of capital. This surplus is not used to better the living standard of the masses (for this would cut into bourgeois profits), but to enrich the bourgeoisie. The monopolist bourgeoisie then export the surplus, capital to less developed countries where land, labour and raw materials are cheap and capital scarce. Lenin said: “The need to export capital arises from the fact that…capitalism has become overripe and..cannot find a field for profitable investment.” The export of capital however, is the privilege (in a large scale though), of the main imperialist countries, USA, France, Canada, Britain, Japan.
This phenomenon does wonders to accelerate the development of capitalism in backward countries, though draining their resources in the process. The Imperialistic Conclusion of the Monopolization of Capital Regardless, this is the world economy and what results is the hegemonistic stage of the division of the world among capitalist associations. Trusts, cartels and syndicates and the like now seek to cement their influence on a worldwide level as they have outgrown their shoes in their domestic countries. Since politics is driven by the conquest of profit, it is only natural that spheres of influence and trade wars (1994 U.S-Japan) become more frequent. The U.S, an imperialist powerhouse now has practically a monopoly over the western hemisphere and over much of the world. But the monopolist bourgeoisie have developed monopoly capitalism to such a level, that wars between those nations for land have become redundant.
Now the “War” is for “markets”, eg: auto industry, technology, food, clothing etc..And the weapons are tariffs, blockades, embargoes. However the international monopolist bourgeoisie deal differently and very viciously with less developed countries (especially with those in possession of raw material eg: oil). When the Arab States sought to assert control over their oil industry, these States were labelled as renegades and dealt with military (eg: Iran, Iran, Libya). It is part of the tyrannical nature of monopolism to liquidate its opponents at home and abroad. The less developed nation are pawns forced to fight one another (Bosnia, Rwanda.) Simply so that the imperialist nations can keep their armies their (under the guise of the UN).
We have now seen how the capital liquidates domestic competition, manipulates the banks and the proceeds to manipulate its political “superiors”. As a monopolist system, it exploits the world market and degrades other nations. It has caused international unemployment. It dominates the media. The New Imperialism From a Philosophical Angle The proposition of corrective measures to stop the development of monopolies is a futile concept because nothing is stopped, only delayed. Some have proposed limiting what percent of the market a monopoly can control. This does nothing as it will facilitate the above mentioned export of capital and all such ideas are confined to the same petty-bourgeoises notion which concludes to one degree or another in the export of capital. Since this is the pinnacle of monopoly capitalism, a new imperialism is born, a new system of colonies! The post-Soviet economy is wild, unpredictable and much more difficult in the imperialist countries than the economy in the Soviet times.
With the onslaught of unemployment, a drop in the standard of living the era of the red terror will be looked upon as a golden age. Now the release of imperialist tensions has ultimately destroyed that. The 50’s were the height of the red terror but also of imperialist cooperation-so the living standard in the imperialist countries was generally comfortable. Now the threat is gone and cooperation has turned into suspicion. The monopolization of capital is not so much a threat because of its national implication or influence within its own border but specifically due to its international hegemony, which threatens the well begin of most of our specie. It is a stage in the development of humanity much as feudalism, capitalism and others preceding those. How we emerge out of it as race is not determined by our own conscience, but by buying and selling.
Imperialism has taken away our individual voices more so than capitalism and has restricted our destiny and future to buying and selling, and has left humanity in its bulk naked to savagery.