>The word "monopoly" is thrown around, as if J.P. Morgan were still
>walking the earth.
Well, Lenin wasn't such a simpleton. He writes, for instance, that "monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do _not_ eliminate the latter, but exist over it and alongside it" (emphasis mine, Lenin, "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism," _Marxism: Essential Writings_, ed. David McLellan, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1988, p. 153). On one hand, it is true that "[f]or the last 20 years, it's been the policy of many governments around the world to promote competition, though deregulation and the dismantling of import barriers" as you note. On the other hand, intra-firm trade is estimated to account for 40-60% of total global trade, depending on studies. A large part of the FDI flow is attributed to cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Moreover, economic control is exercised even without mergers and acquisitions, for instance via the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Lastly, outsourcing & subcontracting simply make the mode of economic integration more flexible, without lessening the degree of integration of production & concentration of wealth. To sum up, while the mode of economic integration has changed since Lenin's days, we have & will not return to the days of "laissez faire" mythologized by anarcho-capitalists -- calls for "free trade" & "deregulation" notwithstanding; the capitalist world economy is more socialized than ever.
You correctly point out the virtual disappearance of violent rivalries among imperial nations, due to the USA's hegemony over Japan & Europe; the Second World War & the Cold War were the decisive moments in the creation of the Empire. This does not bode well for the proletariat, however. During the era of inter-imperialist rivalry, revolutionary socialists could play one empire against another (e.g., the German government allowed Lenin to cross Germany en route from Switzerland to Sweden in a sealed railway car, hoping to disrupt the Russian war effort); while the USSR existed, nationalist and/or socialist movements could gain valuable Soviet assistance if and when their objectives coincided Soviet interests. Today, leftists of all stripes have much less room of maneuver.
It's tough going against the wishes of the Empire, even in minor details, not to mention in such fundamentals as the ownership of the means of production, when there exists no countervailing power.
Ultra-imeprialism indeed. :(
Yoshie