Results 1 to 6 of 6
Which is more efficient pre-monopoly or monopoly capitalism?
Which is more efficient pre-monopoly or monopoly capitalism? Both socialists and libertarians agree that the current capitalism is state-monopoly. But libertarians neoclassicals argue that all the faults belong to the state-monopoly, and that pure capitalism would be "perfect competition". It would seem that the limited role of the public sector should in theory be more like socialism than the private sector. I believe Lenin agreed with a German social democrat who said that the German post office was an example of socialism. In the USA that would be an insult but in Germany that was a high compliment. There is a lot of populism against government bureaucracy and waste, but thats more focused on "welfare queens and crazy multicultural art funds" rather than $5000 army hammers.
As for private monopolies, from the social Darwinist tooth and claw perspective, monopolies are competitive in the sense that they were competitive enough to kill off their competition. The point of competition is to win.
The market socialist Oskar Lange argued that socialism was more like perfect competition NCL than monopoly capitalism.
Thoughts?
You have to look at state production that bourgeoisie really has interest in. A prime example would be militaries vs private military contractors (mercenaries), militaries are far more efficient in taking and holding territory then mercenaries as they militaries have far more fixed capital at their disposal. Your average mercenary company can't call in napalm strikes or large fuel-air bombs on enemy positions.
Would they be more efficient for what group? For business or for workers? More efficient at doing what - making money, transporting resources, promoting technological development?
"Pure Capitalism" is what we have had and it became modern capitalism as we know it - the drive towards monopoly is a basic feature of "pure capitalism". The logic of capitalism is to compete - if you don't then you go out of business and someone else becomes the big monopoly.
Wanting "small jeffersonain capitalism" without eventually having monopolies is impossible. It's like wanting a bunch of puppies while at the same time not wanting to ever have a bunch of dogs.
It's not state monopoly capitalism because the state doesn't have a monopoly on all of the MoP, but yeah, I think monopoly capitalism is more efficient. I remember reading somewhere that monopoly capitalism is actually more competitive than early industrial capitalism was, and as capitalism develops it requires more and more capital to revolutionize the MoP, meaning that only the state and monopolies can do it, like how the state shouldered the burden of funding the creation of computers. That's one of those cases of free competition being a fetter on production, free market capitalism would be technologically stagnant. As pointed out above monopoly capitalism is a necessary stage in the development of capitalism.
Well just look at the largest state company AT&T before it was broken up. Yes they didn't have a wide variety of phones but they built and ran the worlds most advanced telecommunications network at the time and the US military turned to AT&T for all their telecommunications R&D and out of that R&D we got Unix and the predecessor of the Internet.
Most monopolies don't evolve out of competition. Most of them evolve out of economies of scale (particularly during times of crisis), natural monopolies, and government intervention (bailouts, intellectual property, regulation).
