Main features of imperialism. Imperialism, common features of imperialism in Europe and America. Concepts of imperialism The emergence of large monopoly associations in Russia

very urgent!!! main features of Russia's economic development at the beginning of the 20th century

what political system existed in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century?
describe the policy of P.A. Stolypin
main events and results of the Russian-Japanese War
main political parties in Russia
Russian political party program
name the military alliances formed on the eve of the First World War
name the largest battles of the first world war
what was the reason for the start of the war?
name the main events of the first Russian revolution
name the reasons for the revolution
what event was the reason for the start of the revolution

Test work New history 8th grade1. Choose the correct answer.1. The main content of the economic development of European countries and

The USA in the 19th century is defined by the concept A) the industrial revolution b) the American way of development of capitalism C) the Prussian way of development of capitalism D) the urban population grew rapidly2. At the end of the 19th century - the beginning of the 20th century, independent medium and small enterprises ceased to exist, they were supplanted by large monopolies A) true b) false3. Indicate the most industrially developed country in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. A) France B) Prussia C) England D) Austria4. Write down the names of inventors and industrialists associated with the automotive industry. Siemens, R. Fulton, O. Evans, K. Benz, E. Marten, R. Trevithick, F. Lesseps, G. Daimler, O. Lilienthal, G. Ford5. Note the features of conservative ideologyA) revolutionary transformations are better than liberal reformsB) respect for political traditionsC) the desire to eliminate all political freedomsD) recognition of the need for some reforms to prevent major upheavalsD) reforms should not violate traditional foundations6. Note the main features of liberal ideologyA) the need to conduct political struggle through creation of secret societiesB) unconditional recognition of the principle of separation of powersC) recognition of the best form of government as an unlimited monarchyD) protection of political freedoms of citizensD) unconditional recognition of the inviolability of private property7. The system of measures introduced by Napoleon prohibited all countries dependent on France from trading with England and was called A) a trade war B) a continental blockade c) “the closure of England”8. Napoleon considered this document his “true glory”: A) Constitution B) Declaration of Independence C) “Civil Code”9. What is the essence of the parliamentary reform of 1832 in EnglandA) the introduction of secret voting in parliament B) the reduction of property qualifications in elections C) the increase in parliamentary seats from large industrial areas D) the introduction of payment for work in parliament10 What were the demands of the Chartists? A) the annual election of members of parliament B) establishing a minimum wage C) abolition of property qualifications in elections D) payment for the work of members of parliament E) proclamation of a republic11. Indicate which country did not participate in the Holy AllianceA) Russia B) Austria C) England D) Prussia E) France12. Urbanization is A) A doctrine that revises some provisions of Marxist teachingB) A form of monopoly, the participants of which jointly sell products C) The growth of cities and urban populations13. Most of the paintings by this artist are in Spain A) F. Goya B) T. Gericault B) E. Delacroix D) Jacques Louis David14. The stories and tales of this writer laid the foundation for detective literatureA) James Fenimore Cooper B) Thomas Mayne Reid C) Edgar Allan Poe
2. Align

The term imperialism appeared in the late 60s (Hobbson & Hilferding).

Toyenbee writes not about imperialism, but about imperialism (as a state of the state). Not all countries that entered the imperialist stage had imperial power

(Germany, USA)

Imp outlines the relationship between the metropolis and the colony. In Russia, for example, there is

an empire, but no colony. From the point of view of ek-ki, imperialism is not a general system, but a special stage of capitalism (not necessarily the highest!) Imperialism is very clearly defined in history from the end of the 19th century. until the end of World War II.

Imperialism is a concept that characterizes the internal economic structure of the most developed powers and the corresponding forms of international economic and political relations. The stage (stage) of imperialism is highlighted by scientists (J. Hobson, V.I. Lenin) in relation to the capitalist formation, when the dominance of monopolies and financial capital takes shape, the economic division of the world occurs into spheres of interest of international (transnational) corporations (trusts) and on this basis a struggle unfolds between them, in which states are also included.

If it were necessary to give the shortest possible definition of imperialism, it would be necessary to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.

It is necessary to give a full definition and highlight five main features of imperialism: 1) the concentration of production and capital, which has reached such a high stage of development that it has created monopolies that play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merger of banking capital with industrial capital and the creation, on the basis of this “financial capital,” of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital, in contrast to the export of goods, becomes particularly important; 4) international monopoly unions of capitalists are formed, dividing the world, and 5) the territorial division of the land by the largest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development when the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has emerged, the export of capital has acquired outstanding importance, the division of the world by international trusts has begun, and the division of the entire territory of the earth by the largest capitalist countries has ended.

Understood in this sense, imperialism undoubtedly represents a special stage in the development of capitalism.

Three areas with highly developed capitalism (strong development of communications, trade and industry): Central European, British and American. Among them are three states that dominate the world: Germany, England, and the United States. The imperialist competition and struggle between them is extremely aggravated by the fact that Germany has an insignificant region and few colonies; the creation of “Middle Europe” is still in the future, and it is being born in a desperate struggle. So far, political fragmentation is a symptom of all of Europe. In the British and American regions, on the contrary, political concentration is very high, but there is a huge discrepancy between the vast colonies of the first and the insignificant colonies of the second. And in the colonies, capitalism is just beginning to develop. Struggle for South America everything is escalating.

Two areas of weak development of capitalism, Russian and East Asian. The first has an extremely low population density, the second has an extremely high population density; In the first, political concentration is high, in the second it is absent. China has only just begun to be divided, and the struggle for it between Japan, the United States, etc. is becoming more and more intense.

Financial capital and trusts do not weaken, but rather strengthen the differences between the speed of growth different parts world economy.

Fastest development railways went on in the colonies and in independent states of Asia and America. It is known that the financial capital of the 4-5 largest capitalist states reigns and rules here completely. Two hundred thousand kilometers of new railways in the colonies and in other countries of Asia and America, this means over 40 billion marks of new investment in special favorable conditions, with special guarantees of profitability, with profitable orders for steel mills, etc., etc.

Capitalism is growing fastest in the colonies and overseas countries. New imperialist powers (Japan) are emerging among them. The struggle of world imperialisms is intensifying. The tribute that finance capital takes from particularly profitable colonial and overseas enterprises is growing. When dividing this “boot,” an exceptionally high share falls into the hands of countries that do not always rank first in terms of the speed of development of productive forces.

So, about 80% of the total number of railways is concentrated in the 5 largest powers.

Thanks to its colonies, England increased “its” railway network by 100 thousand kilometers, four times more than Germany. Meanwhile, it is well known that the development of the productive forces of Germany during this time, and especially the development of coal and iron production, proceeded incomparably faster than in England, not to mention France and Russia. In 1892, Germany produced 4.9 million tons of pig iron, versus 6.8 in England; and in 1912 it was already 17.6 versus 9.0, i.e. a gigantic advantage over England!

49. The main signs of imperialism (according to Lenin) 5 signs:

1) concentration of production and capital, which reached such a high stage of development that it created monopolies that play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merger of banking capital with industrial capital and the creation, on the basis of this “financial capital,” of a financial oligarchy;

3) the export of capital, in contrast to the export of goods, becomes particularly important;

4) international monopoly unions of capitalists are formed, dividing the world

5) the territorial division of the land by the largest capitalist powers has been completed.

Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development when the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has emerged, the export of capital has acquired outstanding importance, the division of the world by international trusts has begun, and the division of the entire territory of the earth by the largest capitalist countries has ended. 1) example, in America almost half of the total production of all enterprises in the country is in the hands of one hundredth of the total number of enterprises -> that concentration, at a certain stage of its development, itself leads, one might say, close to a monopoly. For it is easy for several dozen giant enterprises to come to an agreement with each other, and on the other hand, the difficulty of competition, the tendency towards monopoly, is generated precisely by the large size of enterprises. 2) Among the few banks, which, due to the process of concentration, remain at the head of the entire capitalist economy, the desire for a monopolistic agreement, for a trust of banks, is naturally increasingly emerging and intensifying. In America, not nine, but two largest banks, billionaires Rockefeller and Morgan, dominate a capital of 11 billion marks 3) For the old capitalism, with the complete dominance of free competition, the export of goods was typical. For modern capitalism, with the dominance of monopolies, the export of capital has become typical. 4) Monopoly unions of capitalists, cartels, syndicates, trusts, divide among themselves, first of all, the domestic market, seizing the production of a given country into their, more or less complete, possession. But the internal market, under capitalism, is inevitably connected with the external one.

Capitalism long ago created a global market. And as the export of capital grew and the foreign and colonial connections and “spheres of influence” of the largest monopoly unions expanded in every possible way, things “naturally” approached a worldwide agreement between them, the formation of international cartels. This is a new stage in the worldwide concentration of capital and production, incomparably higher than the previous ones. Let's see how this super-monopoly grows. 5) We are, therefore, experiencing a unique era of world colonial policy, which is closely connected with the “newest stage in the development of capitalism,” with finance capital. It is therefore necessary to dwell in more detail, first of all, on the actual data, in order to clarify as accurately as possible both the difference between this era and previous ones, and the state of affairs at the present time. First of all, two factual questions arise here: is there an intensification of colonial policy, an intensification of the struggle for colonies precisely in the era of financial capital, and how exactly the world is divided in this regard at the present time.

Exactly 100 years ago, in the book “Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism,” which was studied in all universities in the Soviet Union, V.I. Lenin identified five main economic features of imperialism as the “highest” and “last” stage of capitalism.

1) The concentration of production and capital, which reached such a high stage of development that it created monopolies that play a decisive role in economic life.
2) The merger of banking capital with industrial capital and the creation of a financial oligarchy on the basis of this “financial capital”.
3) The more important importance of the export of capital compared to the export of goods.
4) The formation of international monopoly capitalist unions that are redividing the world.
5) The end of the territorial division of land by the largest capitalist powers.

Today, each of the five economic characteristics of imperialism has changed. But let's take a closer look at the fourth, most relevant sign today - as it turns out, the most unsafe for the world. The fifth chapter of the book, which is called “Division of the world between capitalist unions,” is devoted to this feature. The chapter begins with the following words: “Monopoly unions of capitalists, cartels, syndicates, trusts, divide among themselves, first of all, the domestic market, seizing the production of a given country into their more or less complete possession. But the internal market, under capitalism, is inevitably connected with the external one. Capitalism long ago created a global market. And as the export of capital grew and the foreign and colonial connections and “spheres of influence” of the largest monopoly unions expanded in every possible way, things “naturally” approached a worldwide agreement between them, the formation of international cartels.”

So, the fourth economic feature of imperialism is associated with the formation of international cartels. International cartels are monopolies of monopolies, agreements between national monopolies of different countries (trusts, concerns, syndicates) on the economic division of the world. The creation of international cartels is preceded by the formation of cartels at the national level. Lenin writes about this in the first chapter (“Concentration of production and monopoly”). The first national cartels appeared after the crisis of 1873. Economic recovery at the end of the 19th century and the economic crisis of 1900–1903. led to the massive formation of national cartels; they “become one of the foundations of all economic life.” At the same time, many international cartels were formed.

Cartels as a network of shadow economy

Within the framework of international cartel agreements, monopolists from different countries divide markets for goods and determine the geographical boundaries of the areas of operations of individual participants in the international cartel. In this case, uniform (monopoly high) prices for similar goods and services are almost always set. Sometimes the maximum volumes of production and sales of certain goods are determined. In addition to sales markets, sources of raw materials and areas of capital investment may be subject to division. There are also purchasing cartels (establishing monopolistically low prices for purchased goods and services). It is obvious that international cartels restrict or even make impossible trade, investment and financial activities outsiders who find themselves outside of international agreements. Cartels often “clear” their “living space” by first carrying out synchronized dumping, and only then setting monopoly high prices.

A striking example of an international cartel at the beginning of the last century is the agreement between the American trust General Electric and the German corporation AEG. In 1907, an agreement was concluded between these giants of the electrical industry to divide the world. Competition in the markets for electrical products has been eliminated. Lenin describes in great detail the history of the creation and the functioning mechanism of the international electrical cartel. He also gives examples of international cartel agreements on the division of world markets for rails, zinc, and maritime commercial shipping. He describes in detail the competitive struggle between the American kerosene trust of the Rockefellers and the association of German kerosene companies. At some point in time, the competitors were close to forming a global kerosene cartel, but at the last moment the agreement fell through.

In revealing the fourth economic feature of imperialism, Lenin referred to the study of the German economist Robert Lifman (1874–1941) “Cartels and Trusts.” According to Lifman, in 1897 there were about 40 international cartels with German participation in the world, and by 1910 there were already about 100. It is noteworthy that at the beginning of the twentieth century, almost no international cartel could do without the participation of German and US companies that carried out an aggressive takeover world markets. They “squeezed” markets from their competitors from England, France, Belgium, and Holland.

And although already at the dawn of the century, antimonopoly legislation was in force in many countries, which prohibited the creation of cartels. or presupposed consent on the part of the antimonopoly services, cartels had one advantage - they, unlike other forms of monopolies (trusts, syndicates, concerns), could be created secretly from the state and society according to the type of “gentlemen's agreements”. And even if the agreements were in writing, the documents were safely hidden in the safes of the signatories.

In other words, international cartels were, and still are today, a version of the shadow economy. Cartels often disguise themselves as signs of information centers, scientific institutes, entrepreneurs' unions, committees, commissions, etc. Companies that enter into a cartel agreement retain their financial, legal, commercial and production independence. True, sometimes cartel participants create a joint stock company to perform management functions. The production and market quotas of cartel participants correspond to their shares in the capital of the joint stock company. An example is the international nitrogen fertilizer cartel (established in 1928). In 1962, cartel participants created the joint-stock company Nitrex A.G. with a capital of 1 million Swiss francs (registered in Switzerland, Zurich). The shares were divided among the cartel members. Nitrex centrally collected all orders for the supply of nitrogen fertilizers and distributed them among the cartel participants.

There is also documented evidence that international cartels took an active part in the preparation and outbreak of World War II. During the period between the two world wars, the process of creating international cartels sharply intensified. By the beginning of the Second World War of 1939–1945, according to some estimates, their number had increased to almost 1,200, and on the eve of the war they controlled between a third and half of all world trade. These were mainly agreements between monopolies of various European countries. The number of international cartels, with the simultaneous participation of European and American monopolies, was small. Capitalist countries, which were in a state of protracted economic crisis, began to pursue differentiated antimonopoly policies. Within their countries, the authorities still tried to limit monopolies and stimulate competition. And if international cartels were created that could strengthen the position of national companies in foreign markets, the authorities created almost no obstacles. On the contrary, they encouraged the creation of cartels.

Some international cartels with the participation of American and German companies did not stop their activities throughout the years of World War II. Accusations against international cartels were made at the Potsdam Conference of 1945 and at the Nuremberg Trials.

After the war, anti-cartel sentiment prevailed in all countries. The United Nations (UN) discussed the idea that this new institution should completely ban international cartels or at least control their creation and functioning. In the post-war decades until the 1970s. in the West, antimonopoly legislation was more or less effectively implemented. Including those related to international cartels. By the beginning of the 1970s. the number of such cartels was estimated at 70-80. It is noteworthy that these were predominantly transatlantic cartels, i.e. agreements with the simultaneous participation of European and American monopolies.

Cartels disguised as research institutes

From the end of World War II until the mid-70s. The most famous in the world were international cartels in the field of maritime shipping (there were several of them), electrical equipment, radio equipment, cars, rolling stock, as well as fertilizers: nitrogen, potash and phosphate. In the production of chemical goods, there were cartels created between the two world wars: soda cartels, dye cartels and quinine cartels. In the production of non-ferrous metals there are cartels for aluminum and copper. In the sphere of production of ferrous metals - for steel, certain species rolled steel, rails, pipes, tinplate. Naturally, international cartels did not advertise their activities, trying to convince society and state regulatory authorities that they were engaged in “research” activities. For example, the functions of the international potash cartel (before the Second World War it included the monopolies of France, Germany, Spain, Poland, Great Britain, the USA and other countries) after the war began to be performed by three “institutions”. This is the International Potash Institute in Bern (Switzerland), representing mainly the interests of Western European companies, as well as two US organizations - the American Potash Institute and the Foundation for International Potassium Research. International shipping cartels were called "pools" and "conferences".

For international cartels, the “roofs” of business unions were used... For example, the international steel cartel in 1967 created a “roof” in the form of the International Institute of Iron and Steel (IIC). The creation of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, as was officially announced, is aimed at strengthening contacts between steel producers of various capitalist countries and exchanging information regarding the situation on the ferrous metals market. In 1970, MIChS united more than 100 metallurgical companies from 24 capitalist countries, producing about 95% of the steel in the capitalist world. It is difficult to name the exact number of international unions of entrepreneurs. They can have a variety of names: chambers of commerce and industry, exchange committees, industry associations, commissions, etc.

Patent cartels

After the war, patent cartels emerged. In the context of the unfolding scientific and technological revolution in international trade, the share of manufactured goods, especially its knowledge-intensive industries, has sharply increased. The positions of corporations operating in such industries began to be actively protected with the help of such instruments as patents (the right to exclusive use of a technical innovation) and licenses (permission to use a technical innovation to other companies for a license fee, participation in capital or obtaining other rights). Many authors hastened to declare that in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, traditional international cartels “decided to live a long time”; they were replaced by patent cartels based on the exchange of patents and licenses within a narrow circle of companies in different countries. Moreover, these patent cartels did not hide; moreover, they were protected by patent and other services that protect the intellectual property of big capital.

There was a “cartel blockade” of the Soviet Union and Russia, and today this is especially relevant. It is interesting that so far our economists, political scientists and historians have absolutely not touched upon this most important aspect of Soviet economic history. Throughout the 70 years of its existence, the USSR was in a tight ring of international cartel blockades. Soviet foreign trade organizations negotiated and entered into contracts with companies that were part of various international cartels. USSR trade with companies that were not part of the cartels was extremely difficult. That is why we could trade with the West only by consistently pursuing a policy of state monopoly of foreign trade. Without such a monopoly, international cartels could rob us mercilessly, setting monopoly high prices for goods imported Soviet Union, and monopolistic low prices - for the goods we supply to the West. Until the end of the USSR, it was not possible to overcome the “cartel blockade” factor; its effect only softened. That is why the fundamental principles of Soviet economic policy were self-reliance, as well as the priority development of trade and economic relations with the countries of the socialist community.

After the collapse of the USSR and the creation of the Russian Federation, the “cartel blockade” against our country did not weaken. Thank God, our Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) realized this in time. The key area of activity of the FAS since 2014 has been the investigation of the activities of cartels with the participation of foreign companies. True, the FAS has repeatedly stated that the fight against international cartels in Russia is very difficult. The main reason is the lack of an international act regulating joint inspections of the FAS with foreign antimonopoly agencies, as well as allowing the exchange of confidential information with them.

But let's go back to the 1970s, when patent cartels came to the fore. Of course, traditional cartels covering the markets for raw materials and semi-finished products continued to exist. Some of them completely went into the “shadow”, others changed their status. They took the form of interstate agreements on the protection of markets for certain goods. Such international commodity agreements (ITAs) have received widespread in the first two or three post-war decades. These are agreements on zinc, tin and some other metals, grain, jute, coffee, bananas and other commodities. The most famous agreement on oil is called OPEC.

It was believed that these agreements were designed to protect developing countries from unequal exchanges between the countries of the poor “south” and the countries of the rich “north” that export industrial products (the so-called “price scissors”). However, it must be borne in mind that behind the guise of developing countries there were often hidden transnational corporations (TNCs) that operated in these countries and were interested in such interstate cartel agreements. A striking example is OPEC. This is an organization of oil exporting countries. Founded in 1960 by a number of countries (Algeria, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia etc.) in order to coordinate actions on sales volumes and setting prices for crude oil. Due to the fact that OPEC controls approximately half of the world's oil trade volume (estimated at the beginning of this century), it is able to significantly influence the level of world prices.

It was designed to remove the fierce competition between these giants of the oil business. For this purpose, it was envisaged to reduce oil production in accordance with trends in demand for it and maintain the existing proportion between producing companies. By 1932, the Akhnakarri cartel included all seven of the largest Anglo-American companies, which subsequently created a “consortium for Iran.” It is noteworthy that the US antitrust authorities “blessed” the creation of the oil cartel, since it strengthened the position of American corporations in the global oil market.

Today, almost nothing is heard about the international oil cartel. But the media talk a lot about OPEC. With the light hand of some journalists, they even began to call it an “anti-cartel,” meaning that it was created to confront the “seven sisters.” Nothing of the kind: the oil cartel continues to exist. It’s just that the “sisters” included in it have already managed to change their “maiden” names more than once. And most importantly, they are hiding behind the screen of the OPEC organization, which they have learned to use as a kind of “Trojan horse”. As an example, we can recall the energy crisis of 1973, when prices for “black gold” quadrupled within a few months. Then the OPEC countries were blamed for everything. However, the main “beneficiaries” of that “price revolution” were the same “seven sisters” (and a number of other oil corporations that joined them), as well as Western banks, which began to receive tens of billions of petrodollars from OPEC countries.

Yes, of course, great progress took place in the world of oil in the 70-80s of the last century. Formally, many third world countries have announced the nationalization of the oil industry. But the same Western oil corporations remain the buyers of oil. Members of the international oil cartel occupy monopoly positions in oil refining, transportation and sale of petroleum products.

Bretton Woods monetary and financial system

The 1970s were called the decline of the gold dollar standard and the beginning of the “golden age” of international cartels. Since the late 1970s. The topic of international cartels is gradually disappearing from economic literature, the media, and the agenda of meetings of international organizations. In later years, if there are publications on the topic of international cartels, they contain materials and figures relating to previous years. It appears that the era of international cartels is over. But this is an illusion. The cartels have been in the shadows before. They still remain in the shadows. It’s just that earlier antimonopoly services periodically made noise about international cartels, but now they prefer not to look for them or notice them. An explanation for this phenomenon should be sought in the general weakening (and even dismantling) of the antimonopoly function of the modern capitalist state. And this weakening, in turn, is due to the fact that there has been a fairly radical change in the global monetary and financial system. In the 1970s, there was a transition from the gold dollar standard (Bretton Woods monetary and financial system) to the fiat dollar standard (Jamaican monetary and financial system).

The essence of this transition was that previously the world currency was the US dollar, which was issued by the US Federal Reserve System, but the issue was limited by the US gold reserve. After the Jamaica Monetary and Financial Conference (January 1976), the dollar was pegged to gold. Figuratively speaking, the “gold brake” was removed from the Fed’s “printing press.” The owners of the Fed’s “printing press” gained almost complete freedom. However, one very serious limitation remained - the demand for the products of the Fed's "printing press" - dollars. The topic of how the “masters of money” created and continue to create the demand for dollars is very broad and beyond the scope of this conversation. But the first thing that came to the minds of the “owners of money” was to remove control over prices for everything. The energy crisis is the first and very clear manifestation of this new policy(as we noted, prices for “black gold” soared fourfold in just a few months in 1973). In light of the new financial and monetary realities, international cartels are very necessary for the “masters of money.” On the one hand, the global financial oligarchy provides every possible assistance in the creation of international cartels. On the other hand, she, controlling most of the media, is doing everything possible to ensure that the topic of international cartels does not “pop up” at all. There is an unspoken taboo against it.

Banking cartels

Returning to Lenin’s work “Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism,” I would like to draw attention to the fact that the “classic” ignored one very important aspect of the topic of international cartels. Yes, he listed many industries and industries that were cartelized at the international level by the beginning of the First World War (electrical industry, commercial shipping, rail production, etc.).

It is possible to cartelize Dankov’s activities, but the topic of banking cartels is taboo. Let us emphasize once again that a cartel is primarily an agreement on prices. In the banking sector, they produce not goods, but money, which also has a price. It is expressed as interest on active (credit) and passive (deposit) operations. Banks (both nationally and internationally) can agree on uniform interest rates, as well as divide the lending and deposit markets. In the work “Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism”, the second section of the work is devoted exclusively to banks (“Banks and their new role”). But we also do not find any mention of banking cartels in it. Lenin writes about banking trusts in America: “Among the few banks, which, due to the process of concentration, remain at the head of the entire capitalist economy, the desire for a monopolistic agreement, for a bank trust, is naturally increasingly emerging and intensifying. In America, not nine, but two largest banks, billionaires Rockefeller and Morgan, dominate a capital of 11 billion marks.” But a banking trust arises as a result of the merger or acquisition of one bank by another.”

However, one giant banking cartel arose two years before Lenin began writing his work. We are talking about the US Federal Reserve System. Lenin did not pay attention to such an event as the adoption by the US Congress of the Federal Reserve Act in last days 1913. Is it any wonder that even many Americans did not show interest in some obscure “Federal Reserve System”. Meanwhile, the creation of the Federal Reserve System became a key event not only in American but also in world history. And this is a topic for a special conversation. What interests us now is the Fed as a banking cartel. And the Fed was precisely a cartel, uniting under its leadership the lion's share of all US banks. Moreover, it was a legal cartel, the status of which was determined by the law of 1913. Unfortunately, few people pay attention to the fact that the Fed is a banking cartel.

Formally, the Federal Reserve was a national banking cartel operating within the United States. But it must be borne in mind that among the main shareholders of the Fed as a private corporation were bankers not only from the New World, but also from Europe. Among them, first of all, the Rothschilds. American researcher Eustace Mullins told readers about this back in the early 50s of the last century in his book “Secrets of the Federal Reserve.” Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the Fed was an international banking cartel from the very beginning.

It is interesting that it was the largest members of the international Fed cartel who became the main beneficiaries of the First World War, because During the war years, they issued military loans to the warring countries (primarily Great Britain and France) for many billions of dollars. American economist Murray Rothbard wrote: “The creation of the Federal Reserve System fortunately coincided with the outbreak of the First World War in Europe. There is a generally accepted opinion that only thanks to new system The United States was able to enter the war and not only finance its own military needs, but also provide significant loans to its allies. During the war, the Federal Reserve approximately doubled the money supply in the United States and, accordingly, prices also doubled. For those who believe that the US entry into the First world war was one of the most horrific events of the 20th century, with catastrophic consequences for both the United States and Europe, the possibility of the United States entering the war is hardly a compelling argument in favor of the Federal Reserve.”

The banking systems of most countries in the world are structured according to the cartel principle. At the same time, the “head” of such cartels are central banks, which determine the “rules of the game” for private commercial banks and monitor their compliance with these rules. But still, these are predominantly national banking cartels. But in the period between the two wars, the building of a truly global banking cartel began. We are talking about the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, which was created in 1930. Initially, it was intended to organize reparation payments by Germany in favor of the victorious countries. However, after some time, its main function became coordinating the activities of the largest Western banks. After World War II, the BIS officially began to coordinate the activities of central banks. The BIS is often referred to as the “central bank of central banks,” or the “club of central banks.” In fact, this is the “head” of the global banking cartel. It is known that this international banking supercartel played an important role in the preparation and outbreak of World War II, and during the war years it coordinated the actions of bankers from warring countries. At the Bretton Woods conference, the issue of the criminal activities of the BIS was raised, and a decision was made (albeit with great difficulty) to liquidate this banking supercartel. However, the decision of the conference was never implemented. An international cartel of moneylenders with a head in the Swiss city of Basel still continues to control the world money market. And through the money market - the entire world economy. Of course, the two world cartels - the Federal Reserve and the Bank for International Settlements - closely interact with each other. They can be compared to two heads of one world hydra.

Let us return once again to the work “Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism.” In it, the “classic” constantly talks about the law of uneven economic and political development under capitalism. By this “unevenness” Lenin means the constant change in the balance of forces on the world stage of individual capitalist states, as well as the largest companies in the domestic and world markets. This “unevenness”, in particular, gives rise to the instability of international cartels. Many cartel agreements are concluded for a period of time, but often fall apart much before the agreed upon date. Some participants in international cartels are strengthening (for example, as a result of support from their states), others, on the contrary, are weakening. This inevitably creates a temptation for strengthened monopolies to revise the initial agreements. In some cases, they succeed in obtaining a reconsideration. In others - no. Then the cartels collapse. There are cases when it is not possible to agree on the creation of an international cartel at all.

International cartels - a real threat of world war

Perhaps the most important political conclusion contained in Lenin's analysis of the fourth economic feature of imperialism is that international cartels pose a threat to peace and are sources of war. The conclusion, at first glance, is paradoxical. After all, it seems that cartel agreements provide for the cessation of competitive wars between monopolies for markets, sources of raw materials and areas of investment of capital. And at the beginning of the twentieth century, some economists and politicians concluded that “eternal peace” was coming on earth, which monopolies and the internationalization of economic life bring to humanity. In his work, Lenin, by the way, sharply criticized Karl Kautsky for his belief that cartels bring peace to humanity. He writes: “Capitalists divide the world not because of their special malice, but because the level of concentration achieved forces them to take this path in order to make a profit; at the same time, they divide it “according to capital”, “according to strength” - there cannot be any other method of division in the system of commodity production and capitalism. Power changes depending on economic and political development.”

Today, monopolies use their own power capabilities to redistribute the world (for example, they rely on private military companies). But they are clearly not enough. Therefore, their main power resource is a state with armed forces ready to participate in military operations anywhere in the world. The division of the world “by force” makes the transformation of private monopoly capitalism into state monopoly capitalism (SMC) inevitable.

The history of the creation and development of international cartels of the twentieth century allows us to draw some conclusions and not fall into those illusions and utopias of “eternal peace” that were widespread among the “learned public” at the beginning of the last century. The era when transnational corporations and transnational banks divided the world “by capital” is close to its end. We are entering an era when extensive development of the world by monopolies (dubbed “globalization”) is no longer possible. Monopolies begin to divide the world “by strength”, using state military potential. Today's events in the Near and Middle East are clear confirmation of this.

Subscribe to our Telegram bot if you want to help campaign for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and receive up-to-date information. To do this, just have Telegram on any device, follow the link @mskkprfBot and click the Start button. .

Belarusian State University

History department

Department of New and Contemporary Times

Abstract on the topic:

Monopoly capitalism:

essence and main features. Imperialism

Prepared by:

4th year student, 3 groups

Sidorenko V.

Minsk, 2003

Monopoly capitalism: essence and main features. Imperialism

Industrialization contributed to the concentration (expansion) and centralization (unification) of production and capital. During the years of the second industrial revolution, priority was given to the newest branches of heavy industry, which became the basis for the economy. According to their own technical specifications these were complex and large industries with a continuous technological cycle (for example, steel production). Widespread introduction of the latest technical achievements and conveyor systems into production, standardization of products, creation of a new energy base, extensive transport infrastructure provided large enterprises with high profitability. At the same time, large-scale production was characterized by high capital intensity. This limited their possibilities further development, since it exceeded the capabilities of individual entrepreneurs. In this regard, at the time under review, the process of creating joint-stock companies (corporations) began. They were enterprises that accumulated individual capital and personal savings through the issuance of shares, giving their owners the right to receive part of the income - dividends. Thus, along with the individual, a collective form of private property appears Bernal, D. Science in the history of society. M., 1956. P. 28.

The massive creation of joint stock companies took place in Western countries in the last third of the 19th century, primarily in new industries that required large amounts of advanced capital (electrical, mechanical engineering, chemical, transport). This process has become decisive in the economic development of Western countries in late XIX- beginning of the 20th century It has reached a particularly large scale in the USA and in the “second tier” countries, primarily in Germany. For example, in the USA almost 1/2 of all industrial production was in the hands of 1/100 of the total number of enterprises. Based on a high degree of concentration of production and centralization of capital, the process of formation of monopolies began. Monopolies are contracts, agreements regarding a single market strategy (price level, division of sales markets and sources of raw materials), concluded with the aim of ensuring dominance in the market and obtaining super-profits Braudel, F. Dynamics of Capitalism. Smolensk, 1993. P. 15.

The emergence of monopolies is the main feature of the new stage of development of capitalism; in this regard, it is designated as monopoly. The tendency towards monopoly domination of the market is inherent in the very nature of capitalism. As F. Braudel notes, capitalism has always been monopoly. The pursuit of high profits presupposes fierce competition, a struggle for a dominant position, for a monopoly in the market. However, at the previous stages of the development of a market economy (XV-XVIII centuries), monopolies of a different type were created - “closed”, protected by legal restrictions, and “natural”, which arose due to the specific use of certain resources. “Closed” and “natural” monopolies existed permanently in the capitalist economy, more like an isolated phenomenon, which practically excluded their dominance. The dominance of monopolies was also impossible at the stage of “classical capitalism”: with a huge number of independent enterprises in each industry, there was no tangible superiority of one enterprise over another, and the only law of their existence and survival was free competition.

In the conditions of the industrial economy, a new type of “open” monopolistic associations emerged. They were generated by the very elements of the market, the logic of competition. At a certain stage in the development of capitalism, entrepreneurs faced an alternative: either the deployment of exhausting competition, or the coordination among themselves of the most important areas of production and market activity. The first option was extremely risky, the second was, in fact, the only acceptable one. The high degree of concentration of production determined both the possibility and the need to coordinate the sales and production of products by leading manufacturers. The opportunity was created by the actual consolidation of production, which reduced the number of competing enterprises and facilitated the process of harmonizing the policies of producers on the market. The need was generated by the vulnerability of large capital-intensive enterprises, primarily heavy industry - metallurgy, engineering, mining, oil refining. They could not quickly respond to market conditions and, in this regard, needed stability and special guarantees of competitiveness. The first monopolies appeared in these industries. Braudel, F. Material civilization, economics and capitalism. XV--XVIII centuries M., 1986-1992. T. 1--3.

Thus, the development that unfolded at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. monopolization was a consequence of the development of the process of concentration and centralization of production and capital, the further complication of economic relations. The emergence of open monopolies reflected the formation of a special model of production organization and the transition of the capitalist economy to the monopolistic stage.

At the time under review, monopolistic associations were formed, as a rule, within one industry (horizontal integration), and various industry monopolies arose. These were mainly cartels, syndicates and trusts. A cartel is the lowest form of monopolistic associations, which is an agreement between independent enterprises in the same industry on prices, sales markets, production quotas for all participants, and the exchange of patents. Syndicate is a stage of monopolization in which enterprises in the industry, while maintaining legal and production independence, unite their commercial activities and create unified offices for product sales. A trust is a higher form of monopoly, where both sales and production are combined, enterprises are subject to a single management, retaining only their financial independence. It is one giant entity that dominates the industry. The highest form of monopolization at the beginning of the 20th century was a concern. Such a monopoly was usually created in related industries and was distinguished by a single financial system and market strategy. The concern often retained production independence, but the integration of capital provided the closest ties compared to other forms of monopolistic associations. Depending on national specifics economic development, level of concentration of production and centralization of capital, have become widespread in some countries various shapes monopolistic unions. Thus, cartels took a leading position in the German economy, syndicates in France and Russia, trusts in the USA. Concerns became more widespread later, from the beginning of the 20th century. Attention should be paid to the features of the monopolization process in the “second echelon” countries. Forced modernization here was accompanied by the creation of a highly concentrated industry. This contributed to the rapid and widespread monopolization of the economic system and the creation of the largest monopolies. German history in the new and modern times: in 2 volumes. M., 1970. T. 1. P. 21-22.

1860s were the ultimate stage in the development of free competition. The first monopolies began to be created after the economic crises of 1873 and 1882. Since that time, a new type of market relations has been formed, in which free competition turns into monopolistic. In the last third of the 19th century. monopolies were still fragile and often had a temporary nature. Only at the beginning of the 20th century. After the economic crisis of 1900-1903, which led to a new wave of bankruptcies, monopolization took on a wide scale, mass production became dominant in industry. Now monopolies began to be created in traditional industries that formed the basis of “classical capitalism”, including agriculture. This contributed to the completion of the transition to monopoly capitalism. As a result, a special economic model was formed, focused primarily on the development of mass production. This production development strategy led to a sharp increase in economic growth rates in Western countries. So, from 1903 to 1907. the total capacity of industrial production increased by 40-50%. Thus, at the beginning of the 20th century. mechanism monopolistic competition and the system of mass production became decisive in the economic system of Western countries Erofeev, N. A. Essays on the history of England (1815--1917). M., 1959. P. 34. .

The dominance of monopolies has not eliminated competition, which is the main driving force market economy. However, under the conditions of monopoly capitalism it has become significantly more complicated. Now competition between large monopolies within individual industries, national economies, and throughout the entire world economy has acquired decisive importance. After the crisis of 1900-1903, when the share of the monopolized sector sharply increased in the economies of leading Western countries, intra-industry competition was significantly limited. However, the absolute dominance of monopolies within entire industries was an exception. Basically, the situation was where several leading monopoly groups were fighting for control of the industry market. This model is called oligopoly. In addition, there was a fierce struggle between the monopolies and the non-monopoly sector, the “outsiders.” At the same time, the activities of monopolies, as powerful producers possessing the latest technological base, distorted pricing and upset the balance of supply and demand. In such a situation, small and medium-sized non-monopolized enterprises often went bankrupt, especially during periods of economic crises. In general, the monopolization of the economy blocked the natural mechanisms of market self-regulation and significantly complicated the exit from the crisis.

Large production needed large loans, often beyond the reach of individual banks. In this regard, the banking sector was swept by the process of centralization: at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. and here the creation of joint-stock companies and monopolies became widespread. Accordingly, the role of banks changed noticeably: from modest intermediaries in payments, they turned into all-powerful financial monopolies controlling the production sector. The Frankfurt Newspaper, which represented stock exchange interests, noted at that time: “With the increasing concentration of banks, the circle of institutions to which one can generally turn for a loan is narrowing, as a result of which the dependence of large industry on a few banking groups is increasing. With the close connection between industry and the world of financiers, the freedom of movement of industrial societies in need of banking capital turns out to be constrained. Therefore, large industry looks at the increasing trusting of banks with mixed feelings” Lenin, V.I. Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. M., 1977. P. 11. .

The new role of banks naturally presupposed their close interaction with industry, the merging of banking and industrial capital. The noted process occurred both through the ownership of shares and through the entry of bank directors into members of the supervisory boards of commercial and industrial enterprises and vice versa. For example, in 1910, 6 Berlin banks, through their board members, were represented in 751 industrial societies, and 51 major industrialists were on the supervisory boards of the same banks. The merger of banking monopolies with industrial monopolies led to the formation of a new form of functioning of capital - the financial-industrial group (according to Marxist terminology - financial capital). If pre-monopoly capitalism is characterized by the differentiation of capital into 3 types - trade, loan and industrial, then at its monopoly stage a single form is formed. Thus, the financial-industrial group (financial capital) is banking monopoly capital, fused into a single system with production (industrial or agricultural) monopoly capital. As a result, grandiose banking and industrial empires and powerful dynasties of steel, oil, newspaper and other kings emerged. During the period under review, financial and industrial groups were, as a rule, of a family-dynastic nature: Morgans, Rockefellers, Duponts, Rothschilds, etc. Ivanyan, E.A. US History / E.A. Ivanyan. M., 2004. P. 26. .

Financial and industrial groups were personified by the financial oligarchy - a new capitalist elite, consisting of the top of the monopoly bourgeoisie and leading managers of the largest corporations. During the period of “classical capitalism,” the top of bourgeois society was represented by the old landed aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie, although it belonged to the ruling class, only participated in power. Now, at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. The elite of bourgeois society - the financial oligarchy - finally emerged.

As a result of the concentration of production and capital, monopolies acquired enormous wealth and, accordingly, enormous power over the national economy and society as a whole. For example, the first trust in US history - Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company - was created in 1879, and in the 1880s. he already controlled about 90% of the country's oil enterprises. In Germany, during the same period, 85% of steel production was under the control of the “Union of Ruhr and Saarland Tycoons”; only 2 enterprises each dominated the German electrical and chemical industries. Monopolies had a noticeable impact on the socio-political development of society; they also shaped the style of consumption. It was at this stage that a consumer society was formed - a society focused on material values.

With the development of machine production, the international division of labor deepened, the interdependence of countries increased, and the exchange of goods on the world market increased. The process of monopolization caused a new round in the expansion of international economic relations. The mass production model has turned the entire world space into a single potential market for the economies of the leading powers. This indicated the completion of the formation of the world capitalist economy at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. With the advent of the dominance of monopolies, new important signs appeared in the development of world economic relations. First of all, this is the wide scale of capital export. In the pre-monopoly period, the most typical type of export was the export of goods; now the export of capital has become a more profitable type of export, forming a single world financial market. Only in the first 13 years of the 20th century. The volume of foreign capital investments from leading Western countries has doubled. F. Braudel considers the export of capital in the context of the center-periphery relationship: “As long as capitalism remains capitalism, the excess capital is not used to increase the standard of living of the masses in a given country, for this would be a decrease in the profits of the capitalists, but to increase profits by exporting capital abroad , to backward countries. In these backward countries, profits are usually high, because there is little capital, the price of land is relatively low, wage low, raw materials are cheap. The possibility of the export of capital is created by the fact that a number of backward countries have already been drawn into the circulation of world capitalism, the main lines of railways have been built or started, elementary conditions for the development of industry have been provided, etc.” Thus, the export of capital is due to the desire of monopolies for more profitable investment of capital.

As the export of capital grows, the foreign ties of national monopolies expand, and the consequence of this is another new foreign economic feature of capitalism - the formation of international monopolies. The latter are monopolistic associations that dominate in a particular industry and divide among themselves world markets, sources of raw materials and areas of capital investment, i.e., carrying out the economic division of the world. Their emergence is quite natural: the emergence of the largest monopolies striving to obtain the greatest profits, on the one hand, and intense competition between them, on the other, made agreements between these giants inevitable. In this regard, at the end of the 19th century. The first international associations began to be created: the International Syndicate for the Sale of Steel Rails (1883), the North Atlantic Steamship Union (1892), and the International Dynamite Cartel (1896). In the first decade of the 20th century. the formation of international monopolies has already taken on a wide scale. The export of capital and the formation of international monopolies led to the division of the world market into spheres of influence between the financial groups of the leading powers Manykin, A.S. New and recent history countries of Europe and America. M., 2004. P. 7. .

The economic division of the world is carried out in accordance with the economic power of national monopolies. At the same time, the natural unevenness of the economic development of countries, associated with various internal and external circumstances, can change the ratio of the economic potentials of monopolistic groups. In this regard, a third new feature of capitalism is identified, which is more of a foreign policy order - the intensification of the struggle between national monopolies, leading to the territorial division and redivision of the world between the great powers. This situation arose, firstly, from the very nature of monopolies striving for undivided dominance in the market, and secondly, from the nature of still young monopolies that had an imperfect structure. They acted, as a rule, within the same industry and were therefore very inflexible and vulnerable. In the event of unfavorable market conditions, industry monopolies did not have the opportunity to maneuver by pumping capital into the most profitable production. In this regard, they needed additional guarantees. The latter were ensured as much as possible by the territorial, i.e., political division of the world between countries. Thus, the dominance of monopolies in the economy inevitably gave rise to their desire for political dominance in order to strengthen influence in the conquered territories.

The struggle between national monopolies for the territorial division of the world was expressed, first of all, in the intensification of the struggle for colonies and spheres of influence. At the same time, at the time under review, it acquired a new quality - the purpose of seizing colonies was no longer only their economic exploitation, but also blocking the possible strengthening of the positions of other powers. As a result, expansion spread to hard-to-reach, sparsely populated territories. At the turn of the century, the hitherto free spaces of the African and Pacific regions were practically divided. By the beginning of the 20th century. the colonial seizure of unoccupied lands was completed - therefore, the territorial division of the world between the great powers was completed. This led to a new round of struggle - for the redistribution of already established spheres of influence and the redivision of an already divided world. Such a situation greatly increased the likelihood of using the force factor in the politics of the great powers and the outbreak of wars. This was evidenced by the international situation at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries: acute conflicts did not stop between the leading powers until the First World War Leuberg, M.Ya. History of Economics. M., 1997. .

At the end of the 19th century. On the pages of scientific and popular publications, in the press, the concept of “imperialism” (from the Latin imperium - power, domination) began to appear quite often. Researchers and publicists of that time unanimously emphasized the expansionist nature of capitalism and in this regard defined it as “imperialism.” Thus, the French historian J.-E. Driot noted in 1900: “During recent years, all free places on earth, with the exception of China, have been occupied by the powers of Europe and North America. On this basis, several conflicts and shifts of influence have already occurred, which are a harbinger of more terrible explosions in the near future. For we have to hurry: nations that do not provide for themselves risk never getting their share and not taking part in that gigantic exploitation of the earth, which will be one of the most significant facts of the next (i.e. 20th) century. That's why all of Europe and America were covered in Lately the fever of colonial expansion, of “imperialism,” which is the most remarkable characteristic of the late nineteenth century.” The English economist J. Hobson, in his work “Imperialism” (1902), subjected a deep analysis to this period and designated 1880-1900. as an era of increased expansion (expansion of territory) of the main European states: “At the end of the 19th century. Especially since the 1880s, all capitalist powers have been pursuing colonies. Colonial possessions expanded after 1876 on a gigantic scale: more than one and a half times. Three powers did not have any colonies in 1876 (Germany, USA, Japan), and the fourth, France, had almost none. ...By 1914, these four powers had acquired colonies covering an area of 14.1 million km2...with a population of almost 100 million. The unevenness in the expansion of colonial possession is very great." Thus, contemporaries viewed imperialism, first of all, as a policy of broad expansion pursued by the leading powers at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century in Mayevsky, V.I. Kondratieff cycles, economic evolution and economic genetics. M., 1994. .

Modern historical science defines the phenomenon of imperialism more broadly, based on the essence formed at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. a special economic model focused on an abstract mass market, achieving undivided financial power, unlimited economic growth. In this regard, imperialism is a period in the development of industrial civilization and monopoly capitalism, characterized by the total expansion of the industrial system. Its chronological framework covers the last third of the 19th century. -- 20s XX century The defining feature of imperialism was expressed in the desire of leading countries for broad territorial conquests. At the turn of the XIX--XX centuries. The first imperialist wars took place between the major colonial powers for the redistribution of an already divided world: the Spanish-American (1898) and the Anglo-Boer (1899-1902).

List of sources and literature

1. Bernal, D. Science in the history of society. M., 1956.

2. Braudel, F. Material civilization, economics and capitalism. XV--XVIII centuries M., 1986-1992. T. 1--3.

3. Braudel, F. Dynamics of capitalism. Smolensk, 1993.

4. Vipper, R.Yu. History of modern times / R. Yu. Vipper. Kyiv, 1997.

5. German history in modern and contemporary times: in 2 volumes. M., 1970. T. 1.

6. Erofeev, N.A. Essays on the history of England (1815--1917). M., 1959.

7. Erofeev, N.A. Industrial revolution in England. M., 1965.

8. Ivanyan, E.A. History of the USA / E. A. Ivanyan. M., 2004.

9. Lenin, V.I. Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. M., 1977.

10. Leuberg, M.Ya. History of Economics. M., 1997.

11. Mayevsky, V.I. Kondratieff cycles, economic evolution and economic genetics. M., 1994.

12. Manykin, A.S. New and recent history of European and American countries. M., 2004.

Main features of imperialism. Imperialism, common features of imperialism in Europe and America. Concepts of imperialism The emergence of large monopoly associations in Russia

Similar documents