HG said:
About which part?
crebigsol said:
This is a typical view that can be found in almost all the classic writings for Communism, serving to legitimate the power usurpation movement launched by the Socialists.
It was a quite common belief held at the time and had little to do with whether or not one was a socialist.
"50 or 60 large corporations, each controlled by two, three or four men, do 80 per cent of the industrial business of the country." -
New York Times April 27, 1930. Extracted from
Truth About the Trusts by John Moody (i.e. the founder of Moody's Corporation).
"Moreover, by pyramiding successive buyers of holding companies on one another, a few entrepreneurs with a relatively small investment could dominate the policies of operating companies representing a vast investment at the bottom."
Government and the American Economy by Fainsod & Gordon, p.437.
This was also the time when many (bourgeois, i.e. pro-capitalist) economists were lauding monopoly as a "new form of capitalism" superior to the old ways of competition, for absorbing economic crises, for example.
The fact is that the most typical government of Capitalism, the USA, is working hard aiming at pushing forward various anti-trust laws during this period, although not completely successful.
"Thus, [regarding the Sherman Anti-Trust Act] antagonism to trusts became an ostensibly bipartisan policy, but it was in fact believed in strongly by the leaders of neither party." - ibid. p.451
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act wasn't enforced for years. Moreover, the legislation against monopolization were against (in the late 19th century) the trust proper and not against monopolization in general. The trust movement
was brought to a standstill at the end of the 19th century, but monopolization took on a new form with the holding company.
"Combines during this period [1896-1904] were based largely on the structure of the holding company, rather than on the trusteeship form of organization."
Following this was a period of hostility to the monopolies, which included the SCotUS dissolving the Northern Securities Co., Standard Oil and American Tobacco. Yet this dissolution did
not change the fact that by this time monopoly capital had dominated.
Moreover, by WW1 the policy was shifted once more:
"Webb-Pomerene Bill was rushed through congress with a view to encourage great corporations to present a united front in the struggle for markets abroad."
So to say that the "government is working hard" is somewhat of a lie. The role of the state is to maintain the conditions of its rule, not to attack monopolies. It will do so generally only insomuch as it prevents the collapse of the system. Finally, to say that it's actually necessary for government to enact such laws
validates my point.
Competition transforms into monopoly. This is a historically established fact.
