This landmark text by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy is a classic of Monopoly Capital and millions of other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more. The authors of Monopoly Capital, Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, attempt to overcome “the stagnation of Marxian social science” by shifting the focus of. Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital. New York and. London: Monthly Review Press, Pp. ix + Harry Magdoff. New School for Social .
|Published (Last):||25 September 2005|
|PDF File Size:||10.2 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The value analysis of capitalism monopoyl competition, for in the social aggregate all prices equate with total value. I did think for years that Baran and Sweezy were wrong when they said that civilian government spending as a share of GDP had reached its outer limits by the late s.
Monopoly Capital – Wikipedia
Immediately, of course, government-induced production increases income and employment beyond what it would be without this intervention. Why should he understand the capitalist economy any better than Baran and Sweezy, who, even by considering the economy as a whole and not merely a particular business within it, come to the conclusion that government spending would solve the economic problems of capitalism and of all its classes?
He taught economics at Harvard until and was visiting professor of economics at Cornell, Sweezu, and the New School. They see the primary weaknesses of the system to be in the imperial realm, as countries in the periphery revolt against the bara of monopoly capital over their economies, a revolt that is increasingly mirrored in the resistance of peoples of color, making up a critical part of the working class, within the United States itself.
Obviously, if monopoly capital were able to sell a larger product it would do so.
There would be an capitap amount of production but little direct labour and therefore little surplus-labour. It is also the only available means to arrest this decline. It is for this reason, of course, that such a situation cannot come to pass within the framework of capitalism. The authors of Monopoly Capital Paul A. What is the continuing relevance of Monopoly Capital?
Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order
And it may not only be so. The authors of this book reconsider this traditional approach to economic theory. But, swweezy repeat, the Marxian model of capital formation and its consequences is based not on competition but on the application of the labour theory of value to the accumulation process.
All the social layers which live on surplus-value, as well as the expansion of capital as capital, depend on this surplus-value, which, however much it may be increased through the growing productivity of labour, is at the same time also decreasing through the relatively faster growth of the non-profitable rather than the profitable sector of the economy.
To recall, while property-income was Instead, there are unused human and material resources. Because the displaced working population would still be there, it would have to be supported out of the automated production; capital would feed labour instead of labour feeding capital. It is by counting an expense as an income that the illusion capiyal that a growing national debt is neutralised by a rising national income. Capital must accumulate in order not only to remain competitive but to retain its capital-value.
When used for government purchases, taxes taken from capital flow back to the capitalists in form of government contracts. Baran published in by Monthly Review Press. There is a difference, however: Heilbroner, New York Review of Books A brilliant description of the economic forces at work in the main centers of economic power—the giant corporations … Monopoly Capital may be regarded as an capitl of the sources of contemporary political formations … and the corporate ideology … Monopoly Capital will be a munificent source of insights and ideas for many years to come.
Paul SweezyPaul A. The conditions of capitalism would have been completely reversed. They critically analyzed civilian and capitao government spending in ways that have enduring significance in our time.
Monopoly profits reduce the competitively established average rate of profit and therewith lead to the progressive decline of the quantity of profits transferable to monopoly capital.
All of this made it extremely influential with the New Left in the United States, particularly its more radical, socialist wing.
They laid the basis for viewing the entire electoral system as democratic in form, plutocratic in content. His theory of capital competition is at the same time a theory of monopoly, and monopoly, in this sense, always remains competitive, for a non-competitive monopoly capitalism implies the end of market relations such as sustain private-property capitalism. Third, capitalist opposition to civilian spending as a threat to their class interests and class power limited the ability of such spending to provide effective demand.
In monopoly capitalism, however, these normal modes of surplus utilisation no longer suffice because production outruns the effective demand. I got caught up in that. Advertising penetrates the whole market, not only that part which caters to capitalist consumption. For all practical purposes it is quite immaterial whether a lack of effective demand is made to explain a restriction of production, or a lack of profitability is seen as the cause for a restriction of production and a consequent lack of effective demand.
As such it cannot function capitalistic ally; but neither can it function capitalistic ally when taken by government to finance the non-profitable production of public works and government waste.
Monopoly Capital by Paul Mattick
Joseph Phillips did a little bit of double counting in his wonderful appendix on the surplus. The complaint about the lack of demand is then, actually, a complaint about insufficient profitability.
And this means under-utilisation of available human and material resources. The Great Financial Crisis. Fourth, military spending does not compete with capitalist interests in the same way as civilian spending and through imperialism serves to enhance those interests.
Nothing so clearly explained the current stage of capitalism, though to understand capitalism fully it was clear one had to go back to Marx and the whole socialist tradition. This page was last edited on 24 Augustat But this was equally true for competitive capitalism.
If this concept is at all valid, it is so regardless of whether the actual capital structure is competitive, monopolistic or both. This landmark text by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy capial a classic of twentieth-century radical thought, a hugely influential book that continues to shape our understanding of modern capitalism.
Apparently, all is well with capitalist society as far as the rate of exploitation is concerned. Harry Magdoff did a review of Monopoly Capital when it came out that said it could have developed the analysis of debt and finance more and Sweezy himself was later to criticize Monopoly Capital for not doing that properly.