Marx, in Chapter 32 of volume I of Capital, explains, I think, some of this question. Expanding capital becomes ever more centralized and monopolized, which we can see happening now.
“…One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the cooperative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialised labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime…” [Interesting use of the word ‘net’.]
” The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument.”
Thus, Marx shows how the means of production of capital, centralization, monopoly, and social organization of the labor force becomes incompatible with capitalism itself. Private property (capital) becomes more and more centralized, monopolized and socialized. The means of production of capital transform the relations of production from capitalist to socialist. Centralized monopoly has already occurred. The only part left is the international socialization and organization of the labor force. Which, by the way, can be accomplished by use of the internet.
Also, the decline in the rate of profit (never mentioned by the defenders of the system) has resulted at the same time in a gigantic accumulation of the mass of profit owned, however, by fewer and fewer capitalists. What happens when the Federal Reserve finally owns everything?
What do you think?
allanrharris 