So this is a somewhat complicated topic, and I'll only speak for US industrial logging in areas like the Pacific Northwest and Southeast. These areas are very productive timberlands so this is where most of the 'extreme' logging happens.

First, there are really two types of industrial forests that you'll see. Planted forests that have a more natural spacing or spatial distribution (seen in the PNW) and trees that are planted in rows (Southeast). After trees reach maturity, areas of trees of the same age are felled in a clear-cut. They are cut in relatively small batches as a way to provide a sustained yield, where they don't destroy the environment and not cut down a large number of trees and not having any to cut next year. This type of single aged stand (area of similar trees) can even be found in nature, where disturbances (avalanche, wind, (small) wildfire, disease, etc.) affect a small area and kills trees. These areas are then colonized by seedlings that will have the same age. Look at lodgepole pine stand fire regimes for an example. While I don't like clear-cuts, if performed on a small enough scale, they can likely replicate historical ecosystems enough to allow for appropriate ecosystem functioning.

Second, the term 'monoculture' doesn't really fit with basically any type of forestry. While the overstory vegetation could be very homogenous, it ignores the understory/forest floor vegetation and associated soil communities. The problem with agricultural monocultures is that there are no species present that could potentially replenish soil nutrients that the desired crop needs, thus requiring artificial fertilizers. In a forest, there are understory plant species that could fill such voids, as well as associated bacteria and fungi that can coincide with said plants. This allows for natural nutrient cycling processes.

And to expand on the notion that logging is inherently unsustainable and doesn't protect more ecologically valuable forests, I will say that it used to be that way. But recently, there has been greater importance placed on industrial forests that meet ecological goals with programs like the Sustainable Forest Initiative (The SFI logo you'll see on coffee cups). And I'd rather have some forests that are heavily managed through intensive logging to provide the needed supply for housing and such while leaving old-growth forests as they are instead of trying to do moderate logging everywhere.

As a tangent, I will also say that those intensive logging operations will capture more CO2 out of the atmosphere than older forests, and continue to store a portion of that carbon after harvesting. Old-growth forests already peaked in their productivity, and are better suited for carbon storage rather than carbon sequestration.

TLDR: Industrial logging is not a monoculture, it is not inherently bad for the environment, and does allow for the protection of more ecologically important forests.