Centralization of Capital

The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased.

Centralization of Capital


the increase in the capital owned by an individual capitalist or group of capitalists through the absorption or annexation of other capital holdings.

The centralization of capital differs from the concentration of capital with respect to the source of the increase: the concentration of capital results from capitalization of part of the surplus value. The concentration and centralization of capital are two capital accumulation techniques. The centralization of capital is accompanied by the fierce competitive struggle that marks both the expropriation of small-scale capital by large-scale capital and the formation of joint-stock companies. The concentration of sizable capital funds in the capitalist credit system and the use of such funds for issuing and allocating stocks make it possible to establish and operate large-scale enterprises that are beyond the means of individual capitalists. Banks grant credit primarily to the biggest capitalists and thus contribute to the latter’s competitive capabilities.

The accumulation and centralization of capital lead to the concentration of enormous wealth in the hands of a small financial oligarchy, the aggravation of class contradictions, and the need for rapid concentration of production—a process that results, at a given stage of development, in the supremacy of monopolies. The centralization of capital is particularly intense in the age of imperialism, and especially during the general crisis of capitalism.

The centralization of capital is most clearly apparent in banking. Before the 20th century the centralization of capital was primarily a horizontal process, involving the consolidation of enterprises in the same branch of the economy. After World War I the trend was toward vertical centralization—that is, companies assumed control over succeeding stages of the production process by acquiring the sources of raw materials and taking over the production of components and finished goods. The large increase in mergers and absorptions in most of the capitalist countries after World War II resulted in the emergence of a few banking monopolies that control virtually all financial institutions—namely, insurance monopolies, investment trusts, and savings institutions. These monopolies control the money market and all personal savings funds. One hundred such banks in 1975 controlled between 85 and 90 percent of all financial operations in the capitalist world.

The mid-1950’s gave birth to a new and rapidly developing form of centralization of capital—diversification. Vertical integration and diversification resulted both from the internal accumulations effected by individual firms and from the merger and absorption of independent companies. The very nature of these processes changed as well. While in the 1950’s it was generally the small firms that were swallowed up by larger ones in the same branch, the 1960’s saw an increasing number of absorptions of medium-size and large firms; furthermore, such absorptions cut across various branches—that is, the production activity of the firms that were absorbed was unrelated to the operations of the acquiring companies. A complex multibranch organism was thus formed, consisting of large-scale industrial monopoly associations that include other spheres of material production, such as construction and services. In the capitalist countries the centralization of capital is accompanied by stock-exchange speculations.

A noticeable trend in the 1960’s and 1970’s was the increasing concentration and centralization of capital that occurred under the impetus of the expanding scientific and technological revolution, expanding worldwide economic relations, and the related demands of capitalist production and capitalist commodity exchange. Such centralization of capital can be clearly discerned at the present time—especially in the USA—in the emergence of the conglomerates.

To the extent that the industrial corporations continue to increase the share of capital going into production and exchange, the major banks are playing an increasingly decisive role, directly or indirectly, in the formation and targeting of capital derived from the accumulation of profits and deposits. The multinational banking groups that were formed in the first half of the 1970’s were related to the activities of the giant multinational industrial monopolies, the need to make vast sums of money rapidly available in various currencies, the accelerated pace of banking operations, and the active partnership of industrial and banking capital. Among such banking groups are the European Banks International—with total assets of $110 billion in 1974, compared to $53.2 billion in 1971—and the Orion group, consisting of six banks (USA, Great Britain, Japan, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, and Canada)—with $164.8 billion in 1974 and $87.5 billion in 1971. Such multinational banking groups and major banks of individual countries are actively involved in all spheres of economic life.

The modern bourgeois state itself is playing an increasingly active role in the centralization of capital. In some branches of the economy even the largest concerns require state assistance in order to adopt and implement modern technology to the fullest—for example, in atomic industry, in the production of supersonic aircraft, and in space research. The concentration of financial and economic power in the hands of a few banks and the growth of multinational banking associations are indicative of a new and higher stage in the socialization of production, the intensification of competitive struggle among the various groupings of monopoly capital, and the growing exploitation of the working people.


See references under ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL.
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979). © 2010 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
The four dimensions are the realization crisis, the concentration of capital, the centralization of capital, and the misalignment between identity and non-identity.
To grasp these dynamics, we need to model the accumulation process, following Marx (1954:585-9), as an ongoing concentration and centralization of capital. Capital concentrates as large firms plough their profits back into new investment; it centralizes as corporations acquire or merge with other major firms.
For example, Chapter Two analyses the concentration and centralization of capital in Canada and the ways in which this creates a "corporate structure that is conducive to elite cohesion." (53) The Canadian elite used mergers and acquisitions as well as diversification strategies to consolidate its control over the domestic market and to become more competitive globally.
To convert this insight into a dynamic theory, it is necessary to see monopolization (the concentration and centralization of capital) as an ongoing historical process.
During this process, capital becomes even larger and larger by the process of mergers and acquisitions, for instance, the centralization of capital: strong capitals (firms) swallow the weak ones.
A major example of Bernstein's theoretical poverty is found in one of his only original theses, that the concentration and centralization of capital would lead toward greater freedom and form the basis for the evolution toward socialism.
The centralization of capital markets threatened to thin the ranks of small- and medium-sized firms.
Starting with economics -- in the mid-1970s, world capitalism became more flexible, labour power was treated more as viable capital, technological change became more rapid, money capital increasingly mobile, productive capital more internationalized, markets more differentiated, and the concentration and centralization of capital more stupendous.
The fifth chapter highlights the concentration and centralization of capital during the 1930s in a sustainable fashion that one only wishes characterized other parts of the treatise.
Although Marx himself did not present a theory of monopoly capitalism, he did point to the concentration and centralization of capital as a fundamental tendency of accumulation under capitalism.
[2] "[H]ow," asks Foster, "does [Brenner's] theory of crisis based on horizontal competition relate to the concentration and centralization of capital?" (31-32)
But how - ne might ask - does this theory of crisis based on "horizontal competition" relate to the concentration and centralization of capital? Since Brenner's argument rests on the assumption of ever greater and more unrestrained levels of global competition and aggressive price cutting, it is perhaps not altogether surprising that his analysis completely overlooks the fact that we are living through a period in which mega-mergers on an increasingly global scale are a daily occurrence.