Übersetzung für "Monopolkapitalismus" in Englisch

It was Lenin who gave a scientific characterization of monopoly capitalism in his Imperialism.

Our epoch is the epoch of monopoly capitalism.

The life of monopolistic capitalism in our time is a chain of crises.

The last word in the disintegration of monopolistic capital is fascism.

There is no more apt example of imperialist monopoly capitalism than the steel industry.

We have seen that in its economic essence imperialism is monopoly capitalism.

These world wars became pacemakers for the transition from monopoly capitalism to state-monopoly capitalism in all imperialist countries.

Greece can only take a road against imperialism and monopoly capitalism through socialist revolution.

Monopoly capitalism does not rest on competition and free private initiative but on centralized command.

Monopoly capitalism is less and less willing to reconcile itself to the independence of trade unions.

In a statement given to my party’s headquarters for its November 2005 newsletter, Mr Nemtsov said that there was a risk that a state-controlled and monopolistic capitalism could be established in Russia.

European education systems have been affected by the arrival of information-basedcapitalism (38), the new form of society which is taking over from the monopolist capital of the previous state.

Thus we see that this concept – which goes back to Engels and was shared in common by Hilferding and Lenin despite their other differences – that monopoly capitalism paved the way for socialist society, is rooted in the false assumption that the forms of social organization accompanying capital concentration were identical with the socialization of production.

It is precisely the necessity of securing the maximum profits that drives monopoly capitalism to such risky undertakings as the ensIavement and systematic plunder of colonies and other backward countries, the conversion of a number of independent countries into dependent countries, the organization of new wars -- which to the magnates of modern capitalism is the "business" best adapted to the extraction of the maximum profit -- and, lastly, attempts to win world economic supremacy.

It is only the absence of the gradualness of development through the stage of monopoly capitalism, which makes it difficult to grasp the similarities and differences between the Russian economy and traditional monopoly capitalism, and the dissimilarity of state capitalism and traditional capitalism on the one hand, and a workers’ state on the other.

In the age of state monopoly capitalism the state became the nation's main capitalist (namely, its largest employer, largest trader and largest consumer).

Under a state capitalism which evolved gradually from monopoly capitalism, the bondholders would appear mainly as consumers while the state would appear as the accumulator.

As capitalism based on free competition started transforming to monopoly capitalism, or imperialism, and as this transformation and the territorial division of the world among the imperialist powers were becoming faster by the beginning of the 20th century, erroneous concepts about evaluating these changes started emerging.

It is beyond doubt, therefore, that capitalism's transition to the stage of monopoly capitalism, to finance capital, is connected with the intensification of the struggle for the partition of the world.

The petty bourgeoisie, ruined by the development of monopoly capitalism and headed for proletarianization, was exasperated by the mass arrival of the Jewish element, traditionally petty-bourgeois and artisan.

Marx did in fact concede that possibility, and he had good grounds for conceding it in regard to Britain and America in the seventies of the last century, when monopoly capitalism and imperialism did not yet exist, and when these countries, owing to the particular conditions of their development, had as yet no developed militarism and bureaucracy.

Institut members Friedrich Pollock and Otto Kirchheimer were among the first to characterize the new "state capitalism" of the 1930s.[8] Overcoming the traditional Marxist portrayal of monopoly capitalism, which had met its dialectical contradiction in the crisis of 1929, they described a definitive shift away from the liberal system where production and distribution were governed by contractualized market relations between individual agents.

In the post-1914 period (in reality beginning circa 1890) the new phase of “organized” capitalism, “monopoly” capitalism, the “epoch of imperialist decay” continued to deplete the rural populations of the Western world (and Latin America, the Caribbean, southern Europe and Africa), but to accomplish what?

These very real phenomenon cemented a whole world view, first codified in the early years of the Comintern: the continuity with the Kautskyian vulgar Marxism of the pre-1914 period, the “monopoly capital” characterization of the epoch, most ably expressed by Bukharin, Trotsky’s theories of permanent revolution and combined and uneven development, and the Congress’ characterization of the epoch as that of “imperialist decay”.

The uneven distribution of the railways, their uneven development—sums up, as it were, modern monopolist capitalism on a world-wide scale.

Marx was writing at a time when British capitalism was still in its progressive phase of development, before the rise of imperialism and monopoly capitalism.

First, a relatively developed monopoly capitalism in a state of collapse as a result of the world war, in a backward peasant country where the peasantry could only liberate itself from the shackles of feudal survivals in alliance with the proletarian revolution.

Lenin even prior to the October Revolution formulated the main peculiarities of imperialist capitalism as follows: Gigantic concentration of productive forces, the heightening fusion of monopoly capitalism with the state, an organic tendency toward naked dictatorship as a result of this fusion.