Skip to main content

Free competition and Monopolies

Image
By

I found Lenin’s critique of imperialism quite interesting. In several sections, he criticized Kautsky’s argument for peaceful democracy as reactionary and simply another form of bourgeois reformism. He further states “Kautsky‘s theoretical critique of imperialism has nothing in common with Marxism and serves no other purpose than as a preamble to propaganda for peace and unity with the opportunists and the social-chauvinists, precisely for the reason that it evades and obscures the very profound and radical contradictions of imperialism: the contradictions between monopoly and free competition that exists side by side with it…”(p. 260). The constant opposition of free competition and monopoly is grounded in the idea that free competition decentralizes means of production, such that no one or group of capitalists have a concentrated amount of financial capital.


The critique of imperialism challenges this general relationship by not only claiming this dichotomy as illusionary, but reciprocal in nature. Lenin states that free competition strengthens the centralization of capital in the hands of the bourgeois/capitalist. I agree with this critique in that we have seen this form of imperialism time and time again historically as the US government as well as large transnational corporations call for market deregulation across boarders. Such calls for ‘free flow of information’ draw on principles of democracy, freedom of expression etc, all of which serve the specific economic and political agendas under the guise of free trade. It is during these moments that the positive relationship between free competition and monopoly rears its ugly head, while further exposing true political agendas. I have not formulated an opinion about this yet, but it sure is disturbing. Now I truly understand the Parker Brother's board game, "Monopoly." More surprisingly, I understand why it takes so long for someone to win ever win. Maybe I should go play it a few times and see how I feel afterwards. I'm sure an answer to the this conundrum is bound to surfaces eventually.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...
6 comments
Read more

Whose means justifies their end?

By
I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...
7 comments
Read more

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...
Post a Comment
Read more