Monopoly

[HitchFan42]

This is a question for mainly Marxists on here, but its general enough that it could apply to any Leftist on here able and willing to answer. I've recently been looking through Joseph Schumpeter's book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy which, although it holds something of a positive view on socialism, does have some criticism of its proponents. One criticism that stuck in my mind was one he gave of Marx and Ricardo, stating more or less that their theories were incomplete because they gave no insight into the nature of monopoly in capitalism. Is this the correct interpretation of Schumpeter's statements? Is he correct when he makes this accusation? And for those who are more literate in Marxist and socialist theory than I, what perspective do you think about the role of monopolistic practices in the capitalist system? Thank you in advance for any answers, and for indulging my limited knowledge on this.

[Gracchus R.]

Their is no insight because Marx see monopoly as something inevitable in capitalism and Ricardo theorie of comparative advantage (which I can be wrong about because I have not read it integraly) propose a kind of national orientation that I see as being a kind of a nation monopole in some specialisation.

Schumpeter said that (for what I remember), but in my opinion he is wrong, even if I cannot show you an evident quote of Marx providing proof that he is wrong (and someone here will probably do it).

Schumpeter saw the good reasonning of Marx, but I think that he principaly try to appeal the communists by giving some credit to Marx and to communism. He is clearly against communism, want to convert some folks to his ideology by claiming that is stay scientific and neutral (he is neither). At least, he say that capitalist will fail one day, but he say that his theorie is a proof that capitalism can survive bcause of the innovations. He contradict himself here.

[Maraam]

I can barely remember back to when I read Capital, but to like Gacchus said:


Their is no insight because Marx see monopoly as something inevitable in capitalism

Later authors have written extensively on monopolies from the Marxist point of view, notably Lenin, who talked about it in the first chapter of his Imperialism, The Highest Stage Of Capitalism (I can't post links yet, but it's on Marxist Internet Archive)

I couldn't find a neat quote that summarized the theory from that chapter, but here's something surprisingly relevant, showing that these critiques of Marxism have been around for at least a century!


Half a century ago, when Marx was writing Capital, free competition appeared to the overwhelming majority of economists to be a “natural law”. Official science tried, by a conspiracy of silence, to kill the works of Marx, who by a theoretical and historical analysis of capitalism had proved that free competition gives rise to the concentration of production, which, in turn, at a certain stage of development, leads to monopoly. Today, monopoly has become a fact. Economists are writing mountains of books in which they describe the diverse manifestations of monopoly, and continue to declare in chorus that “Marxism is refuted”. But facts are stubborn things, as the English proverb says, and they have to be reckoned with, whether we like it or not. The facts show that differences between capitalist countries, e.g., in the matter of protection or free trade, only give rise to insignificant variations in the form of monopolies or in the moment of their appearance; and that the rise of monopolies, as the result of the concentration of production, is a general and fundamental law of the present stage of development of capitalism.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Marx claimed that monopoly was inherent in the system of competition and that the only way to destroy monopoly is to destroy the greatest monopoly of all, private property. While it is in everyone's general interest not to have monopoly competition means everyone works in their self-interest, and under capitalism that means everyone works to try to have a monopoly (another example of an alienated and contradictory society under capitalism). If something cannot be monopolized, then it doesn't even become a product to sell. Marx makes the point in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts that if land was as accessible as air, then no one would pay rent or buy land. Monopolies can be divided up, etc. but as long as private property and competition exist, so will monopolies necessarily. I'm not at all familiar with Schumpeter's work but I will say that if you accurately describe his criticism of Marx then he is wrong.

I think monopolies in capitalism are an interesting phenomenon. I agree with Marx that as long as private property and competition exist, so will monopoly. However monopolies have a dual character. They organize the forces or production in a very efficient way and, in the shell of them, show elements for future socialist planning. Of course i'm not saying "monopolies are the gateway to socialism!" by any means but it is an observation that has been made by Marxist thinkers time and time again and I don't think for no reason.

[0zgurluk]

I couldn't find a neat quote that summarized the theory from that chapter, but here's something surprisingly relevant, showing that these critiques of Marxism have been around for at least a century!

[Evil Stalinist Overlord]

If Marx didn't focus too much on Monopolies that's probably because they'd only become prominent in the latter Nineteenth Century. As Maraam pointed out, their Communist characterization was elaborated by Lenin.

[HitchFan42]

Awesome, thank you guys for the input. But of course if anybody comes across this thread with anything else, feel free to leave anything you know or think.