3 ms·
Marx literally wrote about this in Das Kapital over a 100 years ago laying out the mechanisms of capitalist consolidation: The splitting-up of the total social
by yogthos 6y ago
Marx literally wrote about this in Das Kapital over a 100 years ago laying out the mechanisms of capitalist consolidation:
The splitting-up of the total social capital into many individual capitals or the repulsion of its fractions from one another, is counteracted by their attraction. This last does not mean that simple concentration of the means of production and of the command over labour, which is identical with accumulation. It is concentration of capitals already formed, destruction of their individual independence, expropriation of capitalist by capitalist, transformation of many small into few large capitals. This process differs from the former in this, that it only presupposes a change in the distribution of capital already on hand, and functioning; its field of action is therefore not limited by the absolute growth of social wealth, by the absolute limits of accumulation. Capital grows in one place to a huge mass in a single hand, because it has in another place been lost by many. This is the centralization proper, as distinct from accumulation and concentration.
The laws of this centralization of capitals, or of the attraction of capital by capital, cannot be developed here. A brief hint at a few facts must suffice. The battle of competition is fought by cheapening of commodities. The cheapness of commodities depends, coeteris pribus, on the productiveness of labour, and this again on the scale of production. Therefore, the larger capitals beat the smaller. It will further be remembered that, with the development of the capitalist mode of production, there is an increase in the minimum amount of individual capital necessary to carry on a business under its normal conditions. The smaller capitals, therefore, crowd into spheres of production which Modern Industry has only sporadically or incompletely got hold of. Here competition rages in direct proportion to the number, and the inverse proportion to the magnitudes, of the antagonistic capitals. It always ends in the ruin of many small capitalists, whose capitals partly pass into the hand of their conquerors, partly vanish. Apart from this, with capitalist production an altogether new force comes into play - the credit system.
In its beginnings, the credit system sneaks in as a modest helper of accumulation and draws by invisible threads the money resources scattered all over the surface of society into the hands of individual or associated capitalists. But soon it becomes a new and formidable weapon in the competitive struggle, and finally it transforms itself into an immense social mechanism for centralization of capitals.
- julienfr112 6y agoWell, Marx predicted that : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit... . The exact opposite of what we are looking at.
- sudosysgen 6y agoExcept that the rate of profit has fallen and is falling, with small fluctuations year over year. It is possible for monopoly and industry power to crush worker power, while the rate of profit increases. In fact, this is exactly what he predicted. The mechanism for this to happen is simply accumulation of capital. Another reality is that the profits of many industries such as the financial industries are not predicted to fall according to Marx, only that of commodity-producing industries. An absolutely huge part of modern profits is not profits according to the definition used at the time, and not realizable or even intangible. If you look at the rate of profit in commodity-producing industries, you will find that it is exceedingly thin in a great many cases, and that often profit is only realized via financial instruments (for example, the sale of new cars).