Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital. New York and. London: Monthly Review Press, Pp. ix + Harry Magdoff. New School for Social . 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. Monopoly Capital [Paul And Sweezy, Paul M. Baran] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
|Published (Last):||15 February 2007|
|PDF File Size:||15.56 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
InI went to graduate school in Toronto.
But the accumulation process is at the same time a capital concentration process, and just as it tends to play the accumulating capital into haran hands in each nation, so does it concentrate the world capital into a few countries.
The theoretical framework was derived most immediately, with respect to the monopoly argument, from Kalecki and Steindl, but its roots went down much more deeply to Marx. They provided a nascent political economy of environmentalism via their searching critique of waste in the system.
Second, I had a negative response to the profit-squeeze theory that had grown up on the left parallel to the demise of Keynesian theory and sweezzy rise of bourgeois supply-side economics in its cappital in the Thatcher and Reagan years.
To be sure, Baran and Sweezy maintain that this property-income would not have been any greater without government-induced production. They critically analyzed civilian and military government spending in ways that have enduring significance in our time.
Private accumulation therefore requires the support of government spending geared primarily towards imperialistic and militaristic government tendencies, which is the easiest and surest way to utilize surplus productive capacity. And so it seems; but it does not show up in the rate of capital expansion, only in the size of the Gross National Product, of which a growing part is no longer profitable.
This page was last edited on 24 Augustat One of the key contributions of Monopoly Capital is its application of the concept of economic surplus. Actually, there can never be enough surplus-value and profit, because of the diminishing profitability in the course of capital expansion. Only, what used to be a period of stagnation within the business cycle has seemingly become the sewezy state of affairs.
Monopoly Capital – Wikipedia
This was during the later years of the Vietnam War and a worsening economic climate. There would be an enormous amount of production but little direct labour and therefore little surplus-labour. Capital must accumulate in order not only to remain competitive but to retain its capital-value.
And thus, while the fall of the rate of profit is checked by accumulation it cannot entirely be prevented, for there are definite limits beyond which the absolute labour-time cannot be extended and the necessary labour-time, i. Baran and Paul M. Views Read Edit View history. And it may not only be so. To the Big Businessman This theory disregards the value-character of capitalist production.
The composition of the surplus shows how it uses that freedom: From Wikipedia, seeezy free encyclopedia. For Marx, price relations derive from value capitxl and the study of capitalism must therefore begin with value relations.
Monthly Review | Baran and Sweezy’s Monopoly Capital, Then and Now
He was a frequent contributor to Monthly Reviewco-author with Paul M. To him, it makes no difference whether it stems from government or from private spending. The value analysis of capitalism disregards competition, for in the social aggregate all prices equate with total value. There is a difference, however: 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.
In brief, the maintenance of the ans system sets definite limits to the expansion of eweezy production.
This claim monpoly, however, on a curious way of accounting, for, actually, the growing national debt cannot be related to total national income, but only to that part of the total which has not been injected by government into the economy. Assuming, for the moment, that Baran and Sweezy are right, they would still only repeat what Marx himself pointed out, namely, that a sufficient rate of exploitation temporarily bars the fall of the rate of profit.
As soon as capital feels itself strong, however, the crutches are aand away and capitalism moves in accordance with its own laws of motion. For Marx, it is a discrepancy between material and value production which leads to difficulties in the accumulation process, but which also allows for its resumption and expansion through changes in the material-technical conditions of production which raise the productivity of labour and therewith the rate of surplus-value and profit.