The question of supermonopolies
What about the International Revolution?
Already in the introduction of his book, Engel brings up his big guns by which he would like to surpass Lenin:
Already in the introduction of his book, Engel brings up his big guns by which he would like to surpass Lenin:
“The capitalist mode of production now has mainly interna- tional character and is subject to the diktat of the solely ruling international finance capital, which is made up approximately of the 500 biggest international supermonopolies and rests on the power of the strongest imperialist countries.” (Ibid, p. 9)
What is new about the “international character of produc- tion”? Already in the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels describe how capital creates the world market and subordinates the entire world to it.
“The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe.
“In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
“The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.” Quoted from https://www.marxists.org/archive/ marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007
In a very striking manner, Lenin analyzed the special characteristics of imperialism, demonstrating them with facts. What is new about this? According to Engel’s “analysis,” the fundamental contradiction of the capitalist mode of production changed? Does he mean that the fundamental contradiction is now between “national” and “international”? For us, the fundamental contradiction is still that between capital and labor. In vain does one look in Engel’s book for a clarification of what his new insights are. Let us take the “supermonopolies” and the “solely ruling financial capital.” What is new here? Monopolies, but no strange supermonopolies, were already thoroughly and comprehensibly analyzed by Lenin. Already in my introduction, I stated my view of the creation of the word “supermonopolies.” And what is “the solely ruling international finance capital, which is made up approximately of the 500 biggest international supermonopolies”? (Engel, Dawn…, p. 9.)
Stefan Engel vehemently denies the accusation that this is the same thing as “ultra-imperialism,” invented by the opportunist and revisionist Karl Kautsky (more on this later). But what else could it be? Are these 500 supermonopolies a group acting as a unit and dominating the States? Are they indeed so all-powerful?
Whereas Lenin’s analysis of the role of monopolies, their re- lations to the capitalist state apparatus and their economic power is very clear, Stefan Engel’s analysis is imprecise. He writes:
“The economic role of the nation-states increasingly is being taken over by the cartel of solely ruling international finance capital, the leading imperialist states and the international organizations dominated by them. However, the nation-states remain indispensable to the capitalist system as tools of power and rule for the supermonopolies resident there in order to suppress the proletarian class struggle in these states; and indispensable in the competition on the world markets and in the struggle for world domination.” (Ibid, pp. 9-10.)
Here, he uses the term “cartel of solely ruling international finance capital.” A cartel means a temporary joining together of capital groups. However, such cartels are not stable. Often there are other cartels in competition with them. But Stefan Engel has the presumption to say that they are “solely ruling.” What does that mean? What is new or better than Lenin’s analysis? We do not know and the author too does not make it obvious. He resorts to confusing formulations. For while, in his opinion, the cartel is “solely ruling” and has taken over “the economic role of the nation-states,” he takes back this statement in the same sentence by saying that the nation-states are indispensable. Instead of a real analysis of the contradictions, he juggles with word games in a dialectical-idealist manner. Where is the evidence?
He is wrong!
Instead of a cartel on the level of the big economic groups acting on an international scale, we see, on the contrary, a sharp- ening struggle among them. This is not to deny that they occasionally co-operate against the working class. But such co- operation is fleeting with the crisis of imperialism. This applies also on the government level. The wars in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan have clearly shown that the big imperialist pow- ers do not form cartels but resolve their increasingly brutal and bloody power struggles against one another on the backs of the peoples.
Stefan Engel lists eight features which he alleges as evidence of a “qualitative change in the mode of production”: He writes:
“1. The internationalization of the capitalist mode of produc- tion universally covers production, trade, transportation and communication today.
2. It refers to all sections of the economy
3. and rests on the internationalization of the financial system.
4. It also extends to science and culture.
5. It has standardized the training of labor worldwide and created an international labor market.
6. It also includes parts of the production and reproduction of human life like healthcare and
the educational system.
7. Bit by bit almost all countries of the world are being included in this process of international production and reproduction. In countries which used to be mainly agricultural in character, modern industrial centers arise. That applies particularly to Turkey, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India and Indonesia.
8. While production and reproduction are now socialized on an international level, appropriation of
the created wealth is concentrated on the increasingly tinier stratum of the proprietors and guiders of the international supermonopolies. Societal wealth originates today mainly from internationally organized production. (Ibid, p. 127-128)
Most of these features were already described by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto and
were worked out better and more clearly by Lenin in his analysis of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. Stefan Engel’s book gives no evidence for a new phase of supermonopolies.
Stephan Engel and his collective of authors vehemently resist being lumped together with Kautsky’s theory of “ultra- imperialism.” The Maoist organization “Trotz alledem” (“In spite of all that”1 ) reproached them about this.
(1 This is a quote from Karl Liebknecht, in which he stressed that despite the defeat of the proletarian revolution in Germany in 1919, we have to continue our fight to overthrow bourgeois power.)
Stefan Engel replied:
“Equating Lenin’s observation in his analysis of imperialism that the trend of development is towards a ‘single world trust absorbing all enterprises without exception and all states without exception’ (“Preface to N. Bukharin’s Pamphlet, Imperialism and the World Economy,” Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 107) with Kautskyite notions is utterly absurd. The MLPD did nothing but follow up on this observation of Lenin and confirm it by the analysis of the reorganization of international production. The eager MLPD critics have overlooked that Lenin does not at all oppose acknowledging this objective tendency towards a world trust devouring all states, but only objects to the view that a worldwide unification of the national capitals actually could take place under capitalist conditions.” (Ibid, p. 134)
If one reads Lenin’s original text in context, one will be very astonished. Engel shamelessly falsified the sense of Lenin’s text,and in a really absurd manner. Lenin stated:
“Abstract theoretical reasoning may lead to the conclusion at which Kautsky has arrived — in a somewhat different fashion but also by abandoning Marxism —namely, that the time is not too far off when these magnates of capital will unite on a world scale in a single world trust, substituting an internationally unit- ed finance capital for the competition and struggle between sums of finance capital nationally isolated. This conclusion is, howev- er, just as abstract, simplified and incorrect...” (“Preface to N. Bukharin’s Pamphlet, Imperialism and the World Economy,” Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 105)
And immediately before the short passage quoted by Stefan Engel, Lenin clearly says:
“Can it be denied, however, that a new phase of capitalism is ‘imaginable’ in the abstract after imperialism, namely, ultra- imperialism? No, it cannot. Such a phase can be imagined. But in practice this means becoming an opportunist, turning away from the acute problems of the day to dream of the unacute problems of the future. In theory this means refusing to be guided by actual developments, forsaking them arbitrarily for such dreams.” (“Preface to N. Bukharin’s Pamphlet, Imperialism and the World Economy,” Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 107)
Stefan Engel and his collective of authors did indeed bend Lenin’s text into a “convenient” shape. And they admit that they based their analysis on the “abstract, simplified and incorrect conclusion,” which they unscrupulously twisted as if it were “Lenin’s observation.” What they based themselves on is and remains the analysis given by the opportunist and traitor Kautsky. Since Lenin’s text is not convenient in their sense, they turn what Lenin described as “abstract, simplified and incorrect” conclu- sions into “Lenin’s observation.”
If you want to draw any concrete conclusions you will see how grotesque Stefan Engel’s “analysis” is. If you conclude that the supermonopolies are ruling – which of course implies that the states (governments) have nothing more to say – then Stefan En- gel will object: “You misunderstood me! Of course the nation- states are indispensable!” Should you conclude, the other way round, that, in such a case, the states represent a separate power and are ruling, then he will complain: “You misunderstood me! Of course, the 500 supermonopolies are solely ruling!”
Or he will refer you to page 131 of his book, where he writes:
“Fourthly: General crisis management becomes one of the chief economic functions of the state.”
What is this? On the one hand, he says: “The economic role of the nation-states increasingly is being taken over by the cartel of the solely ruling international finance capital.” (Ibid, p. 9.)
On the other hand, the states have the “chief economic functions”!
Nailing a pancake to the wall is easier than tying Stefan En- gel down to something.
The fact that states have a great economic importance was clearly seen during the overcoming of the bank crisis in 2008. At that time, government programs of about $2 trillion US dollars to stimulate economic activity were spent all over the world to prevent a collapse of the capitalist system. At the same time, in the EU alone, banks were saved from ruin by government bail- outs of approximately 1.6 trillion euros (1,600,000,000,000 €). On a world scale, an enormous amount of government funds were spent to enable the capitalist system to survive. Claiming in such context – as Stefan Engel does – that the economic role of the states is increasingly taken over by the 500 supermonopolies is very far from reality. On the contrary! The more capitalism and imperialism develop and the more they head for disaster, the more they are dependent on the state apparatus to guarantee their continued existence. Countless government measures such as deregulation of the labor market, the creation of low-wage sectors, the privatization of public services, reduction of taxes on capital, open and hidden subsidies, elimination of workers’ and people’s rights, cuts to pensions and raising of the retirement age, dismantling of government social programs – all this shows the great economic importance of the nation-states for capital.
If Stephan Engel wants to defend his point of view with the argument that this shows the rule of capital, he should not forget that Marx and Engels as well as Lenin pointed out that the state is a tool of the ruling class. This is not new. However, according to Stefan Engel, the “economic role of the nation-states” would disappear. The facts show that it is quite the contrary. None of the “supermonopolies” would have been able to make such enormous
sums of government aid available by their own efforts. In 2011, when Engel’s book was published,
all these facts were already widely known.
Let us take one of the most up-to-date of many possible ex- amples – the VW emissions scandal. A small US agency exposed the manipulation of emission levels of the VW diesel cars. Could this agency have done that without having been backed up? Of course not. It was backed up by the US government and the US automobile industry. The US automobile industry itself does not produce diesel cars. Therefore, the environmental protection standards in this field have been set very high in order to make access to the US market more difficult for foreign competitors. That this was not done for the protection of the environment can be seen in other fields, for example, in fracking or genetic engi- neering, where the US government allows massive damage to the environment in order to make profitable use of such technologies possible. Under capitalism, technical standards are used to in- crease profits and to fight off competitors. For this, capital needs the state. The state is indeed indispensable and a tool of capital’s rule. With the aid of the state the emission levels for diesel al- lowed by law in the US were set low so that foreign competitors could hardly cope with them. The VW group reacted by manipu- lating the software to try to simulate “clean diesel.” It took a long time until the small US agency was able to prove that. But it was persistent and had enough money for the expensive tests and was backed up. The exposure of the scandal will cost VW many bil- lions of euros and lock the VW group out of the US market for diesel cars for a long time, because VW so far does not have any low-price technology for a “clean diesel” car. Therefore the state really has enough economic power to allow access to markets or create barriers to them.
Incidentally, the German state did all that it could in order to maintain the emission levels in Europe as high as possible so that, first, VW and other groups were able to cope with such levels easily and that, second, these lax emission levels were not reviewed. The emission tests are performed by the automobile groups themselves, that is, they are allowed by the state to falsify them as much as they want. Here too, we see the economic power of the state.
So far, so bad. We will not bore the reader with more examples. The bases for Stefan Engel’s opinion are obviously not very solid. And from such shaky bases, he claims to draw conclusions of deep significance.
.jpg)
