: For example, big capital leaves start-ups alone to innovate. Only when the start-ups develop something worthwhile for big capital, then big capital buys them out (friendly or hostile merger). In this way, big capital saves investment costs on R&D (the start-ups that fail to innovate are left to perish) while only buying what has been PROVEN to be of use to capital.: Capital has ALWAYS done this. It's very cost-effective.
: All this said, the RELATIVE centralization of capital continues unabated, unmatched since the 1920s.
: _______________
But Dear friend!You are confirming my statements by this!
What I simply mean is :
There is a permanent flow of capital from small companies to
bigger ones(The monopolistic tendency)along with a permanent birth of
small companies involoving the inovative sectors of industry(the
anti-monopolistic tendency).
Using Rosa's words,"The small companies play the role of pioneers of
technical revolution in the general course of capitalist development."
So the bigger ones allow the smaller ones to apear.
Because of that,There wont be a pure monopolistic capitalism and
The view which our friend Lark pictured for the future
of capitalism will never happen at all.
But my major question is remained unanswered yet:
from world war II to the present time ,no fatal crisis happend
in capitalism:
The most serious economic crisis was the great
crisis of 1929,and could only be solved with the World war.
But after the war, the crises are much 'smoother'.( and it is
better to call them "stagnations" instead of crises!)
So I think that the old theories of crisis must be revisioned.
The modern capitalism must be analysed again.
What is your Idea about this?
Regards ,
Baktash
ps> I am never a deffender of capitalism,because I live in an
underdeveloped country and feel the exploiting nature of capitalism
and imperialism beter than most of you,who live in the metropoles.
