Monopolization process: One capitalist always "kills" many other capitalists

[Charles Brown]

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/11/monopoloization-process-one-capitalist_14.html

Labor Power

Friday, November 14, 2014

Monopolization process: One capitalist always "kills" many other capitalists

Media monopolization, for example:



Labor Power: "who was the genius that signed the telecommunications
act of 1996, hmmm?"
take10charles.blogspot.com|By cb
LikeLike · · Share

Beverly Brown and Gail Seaton Humbert like this.
Dan Cordtz Not that I don't agree with the basic point, but I need to
see a list ...
2 hrs · Like
Charles Brown google has it I'm sure
2 hrs · Like
Charles Brown http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Media_cross-ownership_in_the...
See "big six" in this wikipedia item, Dan Cordtz



Media cross-ownership in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Media cross-ownership is the ownership of multiple...
en.wikipedia.org
2 hrs · Like · Remove Preview
Charles Brown Owners of American media
The "Big Six"
The Big Six[1] Media Outlets Revenues (2009)...See More
2 hrs · Like · 1
Dan Cordtz Actually it's the newspapers and magazines that puzzle me most.
2 hrs · Like
Charles Brown http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Concentration_of_media_ownership

Concentration of media ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Concentration of media ownership (also known as media consolidation or
media convergence) is a process whereby progressively fewer
individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass
media.[1] Contemporary research demonstrates increasing levels of
consolidation, with many media indus…
en.wikipedia.org
2 hrs · Like · Remove Preview
Charles Brown Concentration of media ownership (also known as media
consolidation or media convergence) is a process whereby progressively
fewer individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the
mass media.[1] Contemporary research demonstrates increasin...See More
2 hrs · Like
Charles Brown http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart



Who Owns the Media?
Massive corporations dominate the U.S. media landscape. Through a
history of mergers and...
freepress.net|By Free Press
2 hrs · Like · Remove Preview
Charles Brown Print MEDIA

Overview...See More
2 hrs · Like · 1
Charles Brown http://www.marxists.org/.../works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm
"alf 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, t...See More

I. CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTION AND MONOPOLIES
The enormous growth of industry and the remarkably rapid concentration
of production in ever-larger enterprises are one of the most
characteristic features of capitalism. Modern production censuses give
most complete and most exact data on this process.
marxists.org|By V.I. Lenin
1 hr · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Charles Brown "One capitalist always kills many", Dan Cordtz.
Capitalism in the real economy has a historical and inherent tendency
to monopoly , analogously to the game Monopoly .
25 mins · Edited · Like
Charles Brown As soon as this process of transformation has
sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as
the labourers are turned into proletarians, their means of labour into
capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on ...See
More

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Thirty Two
Capital Vol. I : Chapter Thirty-Two (Historical Tendency of Capitalist
Accumulation)
marxists.org|By Karl Marx
26 mins · Like · Remove Preview
Dan Cordtz But I don't see THIS happening: "but with this too grows
the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers,
and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the
process of capitalist production itself."
21 mins · Like
Charles Brown Open your eyes (smiles) : Compared to 1867 , the working
class, the numbers of wage-laborers is ten times bigger or more. The
working class is the 99%. The vast majority of the population are
working class. Just by population growth the working class gets bigger
and bigger .It has happened quite a bit since 1867. The revolt aspect
is happening most concentratedly in South America right now. It
happens in the whole history of the trade union movement for decades,
two centuries in all the capitalist countries. The revolt aspect rose
to revolution in Russia in 1917; and then China, Then the Russian
revolutionary changes forced the capitalists in the capitalist
countries, US, Britain, France, etc. to grant many socialist reforms
even still within capitalist relations of production. There is a lot
of socialism within capitalism already because of that, socialized
medicine, socialized municipal public works, much of government
enterprises period.There is a back and forth, or a struggle, CLASS
STRUGGLE, victories and defeats for each side; and of course the
bourgeoisie have stolen back some reforms , and attacked the trade
union movement. The class struggle is a true contest.
8 mins · Edited · Like
Charles Brown The factory system is what Marx refers to as "the
capitalist production itself" organizing the workers. The division of
labor in factories is highly organized. There has been a radical
restructuring of the industrial and factory system due to the
revolution in science and technology producing the digital revolution
in communications and transportation; allowing a big scattering of the
points of production that were concentrated in the past.
10 mins · Like
Dan Cordtz In the US, at least, I no longer see anything like the
Solidarity that I witnessed in the 1950's in Detroit. And of course
real manufacturing no longer makes up as large a share of employment.
It appears to me that we are going in the wrong direction to overthrow
capitalism. But I have been wrong before.
8 mins · Like
Charles Brown As I say it ebbs and flows, and in the US and Michigan ,
the trade unions are in retreat. But what you witnessed in Detroit in
the 1950's was proof positive of the process Marx predicts in what you
quote. It was a concrete historical high point of the rising working
class, but the path to world revolution is a zig-zag, not a straight
line.
5 mins · Like
Charles Brown Manufacturing points of production have been scattered
and moved from the concentration points of the last period. There are
concentrations in China , Brazil, Mexico, India where they were not
before. There is ebb and flow of concentrations; old ones
deconcentrate and new ones concentrate. It is a dynamic process with
the pattern Marx notes continually arising in new conentrations.
2 mins · Like



Charles Brown Another way to see it theoretically, Dan Cordtz, is that
eventually somebody wins all that competition, like in Monopoly. It's
logical that free competition eventually leads to a few winners of the
competition. Look at all the automobile companies that finally became
the Big Three. I know the Japanese companies later competed , but that
doesn't contradict the demonstration of the monopolization process
that occurred before the Japanese companies entered the market.


http://graphicwitness.org/contemp/marx60.htm


Hugo Gellert: Karl Marx' 'Capital' in Lithographs


page 60. HISTORICAL TENDENCY OF CAPITALIST ACCUMULATION


HISTORICAL TENDENCY OF CAPITALIST ACCUMULATION

Capitalist production is marked from the outset by two specific traits:

(1) It produces its products as commodities. The fact that it produces
commodities does not distinguish it from other modes of production.
Its peculiar mark is that the prevailing and determining character of
its products is that of being commodities.

This implies, in the first place, that the laborer himself acts in the
role of a seller of commodities, as a free wage worker, so that wage
labor is the typical character of labor. In viewing the foregoing
analyses, it is not necessary to demonstrate again that the relation
between wage labor and capital determines the entire character of the
ode of production. The principal agents of this mode of production
itself, the capitalist and the wage worker, are to that extent merely
personifications of capital and wage labor. They are definite social
characters, assigned to individuals by the process of social
production. They are products of these definite social conditions of
production. . . .

(2) The other specific mark of the capitalist mode of production is
the production of surplus value as the direct aim and determining
incentive of production. Capital produces essentially capital, and
does so only to the extent that it produces surplus value. We have
seen . . . that a mode of production peculiar to the capitalist period
is founded upon this. This is a special form in the development of the
productive powers of labor, in such a way that these powers appear as
self dependent powers of capital lording it over labor and standing in
direct opposition to the laborer's own development. . . .

. . . To the extent that the labor process is a simple process between
man and nature, its simple elements remain the same in all social
forms of development. But every definite historical form of this
process develops more and more its material foundations and social
forms. Whenever a certain maturity is reached, one definite social
form is discarded and displaced by a higher one.

The time for the coming of such a crisis is announced by the depth and
breadth of the contradictions and antagonisms, which separate the
conditions of distribution, and with them the definite historical form
of the corresponding conditions of production, from the productive
forces, the productivity, and development of their agencies. A
conflict then arises between the material development of production
and its social form.

. . .Capitalist monopoly becomes a fetter upon the method of
production which has flourished with it and under it. The
centralization of the means of production and the socialization of
labor reach a point where they prove incompatible with their
capitalist husk. This bursts asunder. The knell of capitalist private
property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.

The transformation of scattered private property based upon individual
labor into capitalist property is, of course, a far more protracted
process, a far more violent and difficult process, than the
transformation of capitalist private property (already, in actual
fact, based upon a social method of production) into social property.
In the former case we are concerned with the expropriation of the mass
of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter case we are concerned
with the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people.

("The progress of industry, which the bourgeoisie involuntarily and
passively promotes, substitutes for the isolation of the workers by
mutual competition, their revolutionary unification by association.
Thus the development of large-scale industry cuts from under the feet
of the bourgeoisie the ground upon which capitalism controls
production and appropriates the products of labor. Before all,
therefore, the bourgeoisie produces its own gravediggers. Its downfall
and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. . . .

"Among all the classes that confront the bourgeoisie today, the
proletariat alone is really revolutionary. Other classes decay and
perish with the rise of large-scale industry, but the proletariate is
the most characteristic product of that industry. The lower middle
class -- small manufacturers, small traders, handicraftsmen, peasant
proprietors -- one and all fight the bourgeoisie in the hope of
safe-guarding their existence as sections of the middle class. . . .
They are reactionary, for they are trying to make the wheels of
history turn backwards."
-- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party,
London, 1848.)