Premium
THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE ZAIBATSU
Author(s) -
KAZUO SHIBAGAKI
Publication year - 1966
Publication title -
the developing economies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.305
H-Index - 30
eISSN - 1746-1049
pISSN - 0012-1533
DOI - 10.1111/j.1746-1049.1966.tb00492.x
Subject(s) - citation , history , library science , computer science
The Zaibatsu ~t~J are the special Japanese L0rm of finance capital in the Japanese capitalism of the period preceding the Second World War. Finance capital was conceptualized by R. Hilferding and by V. I. Lenin as the dominant form of capital in the stage of Imperialism,1 but the reason for the Zaibatsu being the special Japanese form was that they possessed characteristics which were markedly different from the forms of finance capital found in advanced countries such as Germany and America in regard to the following two points. The first of these is the fact that they had a form of the konzern which was topped by a holding company and which spread its wings in diversified management through share holdings over practically the whole field of undertakings in production, commodity circulation and finance. This is a reason why the Zaibatsu are called "comprehensive konzerns." Further, it is possible to point out the following detailed characteristics in regard to their internal structure. Manufacturing industry, in particular the heavy and chemical industries, figured comparatively little compared with other fields of industry. The nucleus in the production sector was made up by primitive industries such as mining, while on the other hand the commodity circulation and finance sector, represented by commercial companies and banks, had a relatively high importance. The cartels formed in the sectors in which the Zaibatsu had undertakings under their control were placed in a surbordinate position to the Zaibatsu konzern as institutions charged with the role of supplementing or complementing the control by the konzerns. For this reason the Zaibatsu as monopolies was characterized not as simple market monopolies but as "monopolies of capital as such" which contained such simple market monopolies within themselves in subordinate positions, and further that they were practically devoid of the organic interconnectedness in production technology which characterizes modern monopolies in general. The above points constitute marked characteristics in comparison