>>> dhenwood at panix.com 07/12/00 01:24PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
>CB: Actually, isn't capital becoming more centralized ?
Ownership is; production isn't.
))))))))))))
CB: I agree that the points of production are becoming more territorially scattered around the globe.
The better meaning of "capital" is to refer to the ownership of the means of production, not the means of production themselves. Capital is a relationship , not a thing.
(((((((((((((
> Monopolies are centralization , and today the monopolies are
>transnational rather than national. Pretty soon there will be one ,
>big company running the whole world, the ultimate centralization.
No, that will never happen.
(((((((((((
CB: I have to say that I am glad that you are taking this definite position ; and that is my main response, as I have often chided you for not taking a definite position. I am curious about your reasoning in reaching this conclusion, though. My statement "one big company" is a bit of an exaggeration, but I am thinking ever greater concentration of ownership.
((((((((((
Which is why it's wrong to use the word "monopolies" to describe very big companies. GM, Ford, and Toyota are all very big, but they compete against each other. Ditto Disney and Bertelsman. The closest thing to a monopoly today is Microsoft, and it's under legal attack, with Linux nipping at its heels.
(((((((((
CB: In general, monopoly in Marx and Lenin refers to what Samuelson et al. call oligopolies. Even though GM, Ford , DC, and Toyota are not "mono" in the sense of one company, the concentration of ownership and control creates a qualitatively different situation compared to free competition. They are in monopoly competition. This is especially significant for anyone who would try to become a new car company. It was part of the process by which all the other car companies were pushed out of the carmaking business. Monopoly pricing becomes possible. Influence and control of the state is much more effective, thus, monopoly is state-monopoly.
((((((((((
>The workers of the world must unite in one big organization to
>counter this, so our movement must be more centralized.
Why?
((((((((((((
CB: Because the bourgeoisie are centralized, and a centralized structure defeats a decentralized structure in competition. It is a class war, so for the same reasons that a centralized army will defeat a decentralized army. This is why Marx and Engels emphasized UNITY of the workers of the world. Unity is centralization.
((((((((((
Centralized under whose command?
((((((((((((
CB: A CENTRAL committee.
(((((((((((
On what principles?
((((((((((((
CB: Democratic centralism
(((((((((((
If you emulate capital, don't you run the risk of becoming indistinguishable from it?
(((((((((((
CB: In the political and military struggle with the bourgeoisie, there is no choice but to match their centralization, because the more centralized competitor beats the more decentralized competitor. So, workers organizations and socialist countries must be centralized politically. When there are no capitalist states, the state and political centralism can whither away.