What do you think?
Rate this book
Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order
This landmark text by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy is a classic of twentieth-century radical thought, a hugely influential book that continues to shape our understanding of modern capitalism.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1966
34 people are currently reading
1578 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
August 20, 2019
One of the finest books of its kind I have yet experienced. The value of these erudite classics of economics can't be understated. Like a basin of cold, clear, fresh water to scrub and rinse your brain in. Expunges all the rickety, rusty, and encrusted notions clogging your faculties. Clear away the fog. These authors--their voices--shook the trees, when this volume was published. Who has the guts these days to announce themselves a Marxist? No one does anything like that anymore. So read these guys, not all the jays and jackdaws hopping about from branch-to-branch lately.
Frankly, these men were prescient. Everything they discuss in this landmark from the '60s is not only still true; the situation they described is all the more aggravated. It's all the more reason you know they were speaking the truth. If you want to dismiss them, then explain why their predictions are so unerring?
The first chapter is pretty strong: laying out their approach. The concept they hone in on--in our system--is the dilemma of surplus. You remember that the issue of fair redistribution of surplus was the great concentration of Marx himself.
But this book does not proselytize for fairer distribution of profits. The authors simply explicate, chapter after chapter (education, welfare, marketing, foreign exchange, investing, the service sector, the military, the history of stock market crashes) why our system is as irrational as it is. It is a 'unifying theory of everything' which they offer, and it holds up.
"Profit,"--they explain--"which is not reinvested or consumed, is not profit at all". So obvious, once articulated. Modern capitalism cannot function at anything more than partial capacity. We only operated at full capacity during WWII, and every other decade finds us desperately struggling with too much production on our hands. Thus, the eternal hunt for new markets to sell our goods in. The last thing any merchant wants is a warehouse full of products lying idle. Move that product!
At the end of it all (the book closes with a withering excoriation of this national befuddlement) these authors do not suggest a methodology for fairer redistribution. They do not paint capitalism as a demon without any merit.
All they wish, is to point out what other economists miss: that over-production and over-surplus are the glaring, colossal, and insoluble problems underpinning the entire system of capitalism. Every ill effect--you can trace, if you are patient enough--and see that it leads back to this lone conundrum. What to do about it? At least recognize that there's a problem. Is that too much to ask of any patient in his sickbed?
No. It should not be anathema to any thinking man today, to hear that the state of the country needs a serious, systematic re-thinking from the ground up. As the authors point out: we in the modern era are always so gung-ho for science and rational in everything else; so why do we resist so ferociously any rational re-appraisal of our economic system?
Ask the question yourselves. Who is behind such rabid and obstinate refusal to even consider different ways of doing anything differently than ...the way things have always been done?
'Pro-monopoly' capitalists?? H'mmm...gee, d'ya think?
This is a book that riles all conservatives and especially self-styled libertarians. Keep it out on your coffee table if you have such among your acquaintances. Ten to one they've never even heard of this title --and no odds given at all, that they have an answer to its assertions. They don't.
Frankly, these men were prescient. Everything they discuss in this landmark from the '60s is not only still true; the situation they described is all the more aggravated. It's all the more reason you know they were speaking the truth. If you want to dismiss them, then explain why their predictions are so unerring?
The first chapter is pretty strong: laying out their approach. The concept they hone in on--in our system--is the dilemma of surplus. You remember that the issue of fair redistribution of surplus was the great concentration of Marx himself.
But this book does not proselytize for fairer distribution of profits. The authors simply explicate, chapter after chapter (education, welfare, marketing, foreign exchange, investing, the service sector, the military, the history of stock market crashes) why our system is as irrational as it is. It is a 'unifying theory of everything' which they offer, and it holds up.
"Profit,"--they explain--"which is not reinvested or consumed, is not profit at all". So obvious, once articulated. Modern capitalism cannot function at anything more than partial capacity. We only operated at full capacity during WWII, and every other decade finds us desperately struggling with too much production on our hands. Thus, the eternal hunt for new markets to sell our goods in. The last thing any merchant wants is a warehouse full of products lying idle. Move that product!
At the end of it all (the book closes with a withering excoriation of this national befuddlement) these authors do not suggest a methodology for fairer redistribution. They do not paint capitalism as a demon without any merit.
All they wish, is to point out what other economists miss: that over-production and over-surplus are the glaring, colossal, and insoluble problems underpinning the entire system of capitalism. Every ill effect--you can trace, if you are patient enough--and see that it leads back to this lone conundrum. What to do about it? At least recognize that there's a problem. Is that too much to ask of any patient in his sickbed?
No. It should not be anathema to any thinking man today, to hear that the state of the country needs a serious, systematic re-thinking from the ground up. As the authors point out: we in the modern era are always so gung-ho for science and rational in everything else; so why do we resist so ferociously any rational re-appraisal of our economic system?
Ask the question yourselves. Who is behind such rabid and obstinate refusal to even consider different ways of doing anything differently than ...the way things have always been done?
'Pro-monopoly' capitalists?? H'mmm...gee, d'ya think?
This is a book that riles all conservatives and especially self-styled libertarians. Keep it out on your coffee table if you have such among your acquaintances. Ten to one they've never even heard of this title --and no odds given at all, that they have an answer to its assertions. They don't.
April 26, 2025
A brilliant work of historical materialist analysis at the height of American monopoly capital's ascendency. Certainly not all of the authors' predictions held up, the oil shock and great capitalist crisis of the decade following its publication led to the radical counter revolution of neoliberalism. This re-ordered the shape of monopoly capitalism into a much more globalized form, one far less tolerant of any surplus allocation to the working class.
Yet the efforts by Baran and Sweezy to update Marx's analysis of capitalism based on its shifts over the century from 1865-1965 is full of absolutely critical insights that are vital to understanding the functioning of our economy today. The insights into the suppression of price competition in sectors run by an oligarchy, the demonstration of how monopoly leads to sectoral stagnation and the idling of plant equipment in pursuit of maximal profits, and how state intervention is required to prevent permanent stagnation all hold true and help explain much about our system today.
The dependency on the monopoly economy on obscene weapons spending to maintain an illusion of full employment, the tendency of profits to reach ever more obscene heights while firms cannibalize themselves, and the irrational refusal of the ruling class to invest their massive surplus in those who they stole it from due to indoctrination in their own ideology all remain key aspects of our society and it's failure to meet the needs of its people.
Much has changed in the past 60 years, but it's shocking how relevant this remains today.
Yet the efforts by Baran and Sweezy to update Marx's analysis of capitalism based on its shifts over the century from 1865-1965 is full of absolutely critical insights that are vital to understanding the functioning of our economy today. The insights into the suppression of price competition in sectors run by an oligarchy, the demonstration of how monopoly leads to sectoral stagnation and the idling of plant equipment in pursuit of maximal profits, and how state intervention is required to prevent permanent stagnation all hold true and help explain much about our system today.
The dependency on the monopoly economy on obscene weapons spending to maintain an illusion of full employment, the tendency of profits to reach ever more obscene heights while firms cannibalize themselves, and the irrational refusal of the ruling class to invest their massive surplus in those who they stole it from due to indoctrination in their own ideology all remain key aspects of our society and it's failure to meet the needs of its people.
Much has changed in the past 60 years, but it's shocking how relevant this remains today.
November 20, 2012
An excellent book that shows the greatest strengths of Marxist analysis. Monthly Review's July-August 2012 edition (http://monthlyreview.org/2012/07/01/m...) contains a missing chapter and some comments.
One important issue with Capital was that it "only" examined the competitive form of capitalism and its dynamics. Even though Marx described the mechanisms of consolidation (concentration and centralisation) well, this didn't change his underlying model of how capitalist economics worked. The Marxist mode of analysis is very adaptable though, and that is what Monopoly Capital does: it analyses the monopoly phase of capitalism in which markets are very far from competition in the traditional (and also classical) "perfect competition" model (which is basically the foundation of all "market" based capitalist ideologies) in Marxist terms.
It is a very readable and extremely interesting book and it is possible to learn from it even without reading Capital.
One important issue with Capital was that it "only" examined the competitive form of capitalism and its dynamics. Even though Marx described the mechanisms of consolidation (concentration and centralisation) well, this didn't change his underlying model of how capitalist economics worked. The Marxist mode of analysis is very adaptable though, and that is what Monopoly Capital does: it analyses the monopoly phase of capitalism in which markets are very far from competition in the traditional (and also classical) "perfect competition" model (which is basically the foundation of all "market" based capitalist ideologies) in Marxist terms.
It is a very readable and extremely interesting book and it is possible to learn from it even without reading Capital.
June 1, 2022
Informative and brutal assessment of mid-60s American capitalism, interesting today for many reasons, among them the continuities with this alleged "golden age" as much as the breaks, and for the fact Penguin Books in the '60s put out a book that is basically 'here is why we must immediately destroy Amerikkka'
June 30, 2022
Sweezy wrote Monopoly Capital in conjunction with Paul Baran, who saw the manuscript to completion but died two years before it was published. Sweezy (and presumably Baran) was a Marxist who was heavily influenced by the Polish Neo-Marxist economist Michał Kalecki (as is stated in this work: "anyone familiar with the work of Kalecki and Steindl will readily recognize that the authors of the present work owe a great deal to them.")
Monopoly Capital is a great historical work which traces the development of monopolies, primarily in the US economy beginning after the civil war, and seems to be a follow-up to Kalecki's theorizing on the topic (which I haven't read, but Sweezy and Baran trace back to Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism).
If you've read Late Capitalism then you probably remember it's author, Mandel, was a pretty fierce critic of this work. Be that as it may, there can't be any doubt that Mandel also thought pretty highly of it too. Personally I find it to be a rich work that gives unique insight into more familiarly "modern" topics affecting the economy, such as the rise of such "unproductive" institutions like the advertising industry. It outlines the lessons that needed to be learned in their day, and because they weren't, it gives insight into the consequences. In other words, our living predicaments today are the result of the predicaments which were not solved yesterday.
That may seem like a strong claim, but what I'm saying is the documentation is pretty good.
Monopoly Capital is a great historical work which traces the development of monopolies, primarily in the US economy beginning after the civil war, and seems to be a follow-up to Kalecki's theorizing on the topic (which I haven't read, but Sweezy and Baran trace back to Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism).
If you've read Late Capitalism then you probably remember it's author, Mandel, was a pretty fierce critic of this work. Be that as it may, there can't be any doubt that Mandel also thought pretty highly of it too. Personally I find it to be a rich work that gives unique insight into more familiarly "modern" topics affecting the economy, such as the rise of such "unproductive" institutions like the advertising industry. It outlines the lessons that needed to be learned in their day, and because they weren't, it gives insight into the consequences. In other words, our living predicaments today are the result of the predicaments which were not solved yesterday.
That may seem like a strong claim, but what I'm saying is the documentation is pretty good.
October 25, 2020
This is one of the best, most important books I have ever read. It was also one of the more difficult as I was young and substantially ignorant of macroeconomic theory at the time.
I reviewed the book's description from Wikipedia, but, while they seem to represent some of the author's argument, they do not, so far as memory serves, actually represent the book adequately. As I recall, the primary thrust of the work is as an extension of Marxist economic theory to account for the movement from a primary capital investment in industry, in concrete productive instruments, towards credit and other relatively ephemeral financial instruments in the years since WWII. The arguments about "how to absorb surpluses while keeping the costs of variable capital (labor) down?", while certainly important to these depression-era thinkers, are of secondary importance.
While I was in high school, 'Monthly Review' was my favorite magazine. Years later, in a publication called 'Left Court', a friend and I, under the aegis of the SPUSA created an inferior imitation of it. Still later, the 'Review' actually gave a little, rather insubstantial, piece of mine cover billing because I'd had the fortuity to write to them about religion and the Left just as they were preparing an issue on the topic.
I reviewed the book's description from Wikipedia, but, while they seem to represent some of the author's argument, they do not, so far as memory serves, actually represent the book adequately. As I recall, the primary thrust of the work is as an extension of Marxist economic theory to account for the movement from a primary capital investment in industry, in concrete productive instruments, towards credit and other relatively ephemeral financial instruments in the years since WWII. The arguments about "how to absorb surpluses while keeping the costs of variable capital (labor) down?", while certainly important to these depression-era thinkers, are of secondary importance.
While I was in high school, 'Monthly Review' was my favorite magazine. Years later, in a publication called 'Left Court', a friend and I, under the aegis of the SPUSA created an inferior imitation of it. Still later, the 'Review' actually gave a little, rather insubstantial, piece of mine cover billing because I'd had the fortuity to write to them about religion and the Left just as they were preparing an issue on the topic.
February 18, 2008
This book was among the most difficult and persuasive of my college years. Did the great depression ever really end? What are the ways capitalism emerged as a different animal after world war two? I'm not sure I'm smart enough to reread this book, but I know I think about economics differently as a result of pouring over it.
March 3, 2021
A bit dated in 2021, but prophetic at the time of publication
April 15, 2025
The main argument of Monopoly Capital is simple enough, especially when it’s expressed in the unpretentious style that’s favoured by the American analytic Marxists. Under conditions of monopoly capitalism, firms (and cartels of firms) have much more control over pricing, and can easily price commodities to guarantee healthy profits. This leads to the problem of too-much surplus, that can’t feasibly be profitability reinvested. After all, there’s only so much new machinery and upgrades that a company can buy. This inability for capital to find profitable avenues for investment then leads to conditions of economic stagnation and decline. The only solutions are those rare technological inventions that open up new jolts for investment (railroads through land speculation, automobiles through suburbanisation etc). Saving that, military Keynesianism is a solution, with obvious negative social costs. Although the authors are technically agnostic about whether a welfare state could act as an effective absorber of the social surplus, they believe that this is politically impossible under monopoly capital.
The books weakness lies more in the second half. There’s some concept slippage between the terms “capitalist”, “rich”, and “privileged” which feels sloppy. You can be rich and privileged without being a capitalist, which any Marxist should know. The 1960s New Leftism also bleeds through, particularly in the conclusion which dispenses with the industrial proletariat as the revolutionary subject, instead pinning all hopes on the Global South decolonial movements. Needless to say, this was a disastrous theoretical and political assumption.
The books weakness lies more in the second half. There’s some concept slippage between the terms “capitalist”, “rich”, and “privileged” which feels sloppy. You can be rich and privileged without being a capitalist, which any Marxist should know. The 1960s New Leftism also bleeds through, particularly in the conclusion which dispenses with the industrial proletariat as the revolutionary subject, instead pinning all hopes on the Global South decolonial movements. Needless to say, this was a disastrous theoretical and political assumption.
November 15, 2012
A book written for its time. It gives insight into how Marxist theory was effected by the post-war boom and the integration of mainstream economics to explain that. This isn't to say they are apologists, but that their analysis, to the extent that it challenges capital, would only lead to reforms, e.g., the problem is workers need higher wages in order to buy back that which they produce.
June 16, 2020
A beautifully written book on 20th century trends in capitalism. As these trends have continued and even accelerated since then, the book feels prescient more often than it feels dated.
Essentially, the global economy has tended toward greater centralization of production in the hands of a few giant corporations, who are increasingly reluctant to undercut each other's prices (at the risk of triggering an unpredictable price war). In this oligopolistic situation where prices often rise but rarely fall, society's surplus tends to rise over time as big businesses find new methods to cut costs. In this paradigm, actual production (which depends on optimal profits) rarely rises to meet the total capacity to produce (which increases with the surplus).
Having established the tendency of rising surplus, the authors explore the most prominent ways in which surplus is allocated: sales and marketing (allowing companies to compete without price war), civilian government programs (which serve to stimulate demand, and are rarely allowed to conflict with the profit motive), and military spending (which plays a dual role of increasing demand and securing foreign investments).
Contained in this model is a crucial argument against the idea that social programs are an effective counterbalance to the mis-allocation of surplus under capitalism: Such programs will never be allowed to expand to a point where they can capture the majority of the surplus. This is because the largest potential social programs (such as public housing, public utilities, and healthcare) would undermine the profits of big business, and would thus not be allowed to expand past the minimum necessary levels---at least, not under capitalism.
Instead, the greatest share of the surplus will flow into military spending, which competes with no private enterprise, and therefore displaces no corporate profits. Thus, the capitalist class as a whole will tend to favor military spending and oppose welfare spending---even those who do not directly profit from war.
If you detect a contradiction between the reality we inhabit and the ideal of competitive markets and fair prices, this book will give you the words to express yourself, challenge capitalist mythology, and argue for a more rational allocation of human productive capacity.
Essentially, the global economy has tended toward greater centralization of production in the hands of a few giant corporations, who are increasingly reluctant to undercut each other's prices (at the risk of triggering an unpredictable price war). In this oligopolistic situation where prices often rise but rarely fall, society's surplus tends to rise over time as big businesses find new methods to cut costs. In this paradigm, actual production (which depends on optimal profits) rarely rises to meet the total capacity to produce (which increases with the surplus).
Having established the tendency of rising surplus, the authors explore the most prominent ways in which surplus is allocated: sales and marketing (allowing companies to compete without price war), civilian government programs (which serve to stimulate demand, and are rarely allowed to conflict with the profit motive), and military spending (which plays a dual role of increasing demand and securing foreign investments).
Contained in this model is a crucial argument against the idea that social programs are an effective counterbalance to the mis-allocation of surplus under capitalism: Such programs will never be allowed to expand to a point where they can capture the majority of the surplus. This is because the largest potential social programs (such as public housing, public utilities, and healthcare) would undermine the profits of big business, and would thus not be allowed to expand past the minimum necessary levels---at least, not under capitalism.
Instead, the greatest share of the surplus will flow into military spending, which competes with no private enterprise, and therefore displaces no corporate profits. Thus, the capitalist class as a whole will tend to favor military spending and oppose welfare spending---even those who do not directly profit from war.
If you detect a contradiction between the reality we inhabit and the ideal of competitive markets and fair prices, this book will give you the words to express yourself, challenge capitalist mythology, and argue for a more rational allocation of human productive capacity.
October 19, 2022
An engaging and informative read that lives up to its reputation as a milestone text in Marxian Economics
The 6th chapter: The Absorption of Surplus; Civilian Government was the standout chapter for me in which the authors outlined bourgeois democracy - the normal political system of capitalism (both competitive or monopolistic) - where votes are the nominal source of political power, and money is the real source, the system in other words is democratic in form and plutocratic in content
Recognising and explaining that the educational system in the USA is a crucial element in the constellation of privileges and prerogatives in which the moneyed oligarchy is the chief beneficiary by:
1. providing the oligarchy with the quality and quantity of education which its members want for themselves and their offspring
2. education for the vast majority of young people must be inferior and must turn out human material fitted for the lowly work and social positions that society reserves for them
3. providing the means for talent from the lower classes to be selected, used by, and integrated into the upper classes; this does not prove that education undermines the class structure as this simply strengthens the class structure by infusing new blood into the upper classes and depriving the lower classes of their natural leaders, instead the idea of equal opportunity for all could only be realised by abolition of the special privileges of the upper class
Highly recommended for anyone interested in economics and it's a shame that marxian economics is not a key component of the syllabus in western economics education
The 6th chapter: The Absorption of Surplus; Civilian Government was the standout chapter for me in which the authors outlined bourgeois democracy - the normal political system of capitalism (both competitive or monopolistic) - where votes are the nominal source of political power, and money is the real source, the system in other words is democratic in form and plutocratic in content
Recognising and explaining that the educational system in the USA is a crucial element in the constellation of privileges and prerogatives in which the moneyed oligarchy is the chief beneficiary by:
1. providing the oligarchy with the quality and quantity of education which its members want for themselves and their offspring
2. education for the vast majority of young people must be inferior and must turn out human material fitted for the lowly work and social positions that society reserves for them
3. providing the means for talent from the lower classes to be selected, used by, and integrated into the upper classes; this does not prove that education undermines the class structure as this simply strengthens the class structure by infusing new blood into the upper classes and depriving the lower classes of their natural leaders, instead the idea of equal opportunity for all could only be realised by abolition of the special privileges of the upper class
Highly recommended for anyone interested in economics and it's a shame that marxian economics is not a key component of the syllabus in western economics education
December 21, 2024
Written in the 60s, so much of what this book discusses continues today in which a few corporations have monopolized markets and the impacts that this has on not just competition within these markets but in society and consumers as a whole. This work also discusses the relationship between the state and the few corporations and the state’s role in maintaining and preserving the corporation’s control in those markets. It is an analytical work that applies Marxist theory to monopoly capitalism in the 60s and I found it to be a useful way in applying Marx theory to help understand economics and social relations at that time.
January 22, 2021
Extremely useful update of Marxist thinking for the late 20th century that still feels entirely relevant. Baran and Sweezy review Marx's framework and address some significant questions about its applicability to American life, specifically the disappearance of the American industrial working class. The latter half of the volume explores the challenges and possibilities for politics, education, relationships, and sexuality. Grim stuff, quite frankly!
July 16, 2024
I suppose it's lucid but I was disappointed by its lack of rigor and rather careless use of anecdote in the place of argument. It is also remarkably out of date: basically every argument it makes about the centrality of the figure of the firm over the figure of the entrepreneur was reversed by whatever neoliberalism and the 1970s were. Well-written and interesting as an artifact but not as a guide to the present moment.
February 25, 2019
While dated, this text has really stood the test of time. All the trends they illustrated are still around if not even stronger. The end was a little trite-- the only solution is revolution! Well worth a read!
September 24, 2023
Banger; must read.
March 22, 2025
Difficult :(
October 15, 2025
Baran and Sweezy argue that both science and art tend to exaggerate, and that exaggerated truths are often accepted as fact, independent of personal judgment. They maintain that history provides insight into persistent societal challenges. According to Baran and Sweezy, society is far from functioning well. Greed and privilege are deeply embedded, contributing to ongoing issues such as racial inequality. These privileges are structured to resist meaningful change.
They further contend that the problem begins early in life, as individuals are taught from a young age to value financial gain. In the past, social scientists assured us that all was fine, but this remains debatable because it is evident everywhere we look that poverty grows alongside affluence. Many resources around us are often wasted in harmful ways, and then there are those among us who are seen as symbols of reaction worldwide, propagating wars to defend the status quo. We don’t need social scientists to tell us what is working – the knowledge is in observing the unavoidable facts. Who can blame us for thinking that the social scientist conspired with the monopoly capitalist to keep us from looking reality in the face?
Baran and Sweezy say that “who pays the piper calls the tune, and everyone knows who the payers are and what tunes they prefer. In a capitalist society, effective demand will always call forth its supply. Baran and Sweezy note that not all social scientists lack integrity – there are still a few genuinely motivated by truth. As they say, “the truth is the whole”. To think that enterprise is free is to see one side of the picture – the truth is that there is a difference between relative freedom of competitive capitalism and the restrictions imposed by the guild system and mercantilist state on the other (p.327). The property-less people are not able to determine the conditions of their lives or the policies of their government (p.327).
Baran and Sweezy advise workers to question political promises that unemployment and other social issues can be fully resolved. Globally, labor supply consistently exceeds demand. Under monopoly capitalism, the state primarily serves the interests of capital. The core economic issue is not resource scarcity, but rather managing surplus. Poverty is closely linked to unemployment and underemployment, which are perpetuated by a surplus labor force that weakens workers' bargaining power. Ultimately, both workers and consumers should resist pressures to advance at the expense of others or to pursue constant material improvement.
According to Baran and Sweezy (1966), “work and consumption share the same ambiguity – while fulfilling the basic needs of survival, they increasingly lose their inner content and meaning (p.333).
They further contend that the problem begins early in life, as individuals are taught from a young age to value financial gain. In the past, social scientists assured us that all was fine, but this remains debatable because it is evident everywhere we look that poverty grows alongside affluence. Many resources around us are often wasted in harmful ways, and then there are those among us who are seen as symbols of reaction worldwide, propagating wars to defend the status quo. We don’t need social scientists to tell us what is working – the knowledge is in observing the unavoidable facts. Who can blame us for thinking that the social scientist conspired with the monopoly capitalist to keep us from looking reality in the face?
Baran and Sweezy say that “who pays the piper calls the tune, and everyone knows who the payers are and what tunes they prefer. In a capitalist society, effective demand will always call forth its supply. Baran and Sweezy note that not all social scientists lack integrity – there are still a few genuinely motivated by truth. As they say, “the truth is the whole”. To think that enterprise is free is to see one side of the picture – the truth is that there is a difference between relative freedom of competitive capitalism and the restrictions imposed by the guild system and mercantilist state on the other (p.327). The property-less people are not able to determine the conditions of their lives or the policies of their government (p.327).
Baran and Sweezy advise workers to question political promises that unemployment and other social issues can be fully resolved. Globally, labor supply consistently exceeds demand. Under monopoly capitalism, the state primarily serves the interests of capital. The core economic issue is not resource scarcity, but rather managing surplus. Poverty is closely linked to unemployment and underemployment, which are perpetuated by a surplus labor force that weakens workers' bargaining power. Ultimately, both workers and consumers should resist pressures to advance at the expense of others or to pursue constant material improvement.
According to Baran and Sweezy (1966), “work and consumption share the same ambiguity – while fulfilling the basic needs of survival, they increasingly lose their inner content and meaning (p.333).
August 29, 2025
I don’t mind the language of academic economics, if anything that helped me understand (relatively) modern-day economics and place it into a (by no means orthodox) marxian framework. I don’t think that the idea of the tendency of the surplus to rise is actually incompatible with Marx’s tendency of the rate of profit to fall (if it’s looked at with the x-axis being continued accumulation rather than linear time). But also in that case it’s just correctly describing a constant crisis of overaccumulation with convoluted and gimmicky language. I don’t think the concept of surplus put forward makes sense when outside of the cold war paradigm of soviet competition (but maybe its back in re: china?)
Another obvious theoretical weakness would be Baran and Sweezy’s theory of the state, which comes directly out of the Manifesto. A proper ‘70s Marxist (Althusserian) conception would, upon comparison, make that put forward here look almost infantile, although I’m not sure if a more developed state theory would reverse any of Baran & Sweezy’s conclusions, although it would certainly make them more difficult to propose.
Plus a point for concluding the text in ostensibly mainstream economics with a freudo-marxist diagnosis of sexual life in monopoly capitalism. Five stars
I edited this review it used to be five but now its four stars now bc their treatment of international trade sucks so bad and their concepts are not the best
Another obvious theoretical weakness would be Baran and Sweezy’s theory of the state, which comes directly out of the Manifesto. A proper ‘70s Marxist (Althusserian) conception would, upon comparison, make that put forward here look almost infantile, although I’m not sure if a more developed state theory would reverse any of Baran & Sweezy’s conclusions, although it would certainly make them more difficult to propose.
Plus a point for concluding the text in ostensibly mainstream economics with a freudo-marxist diagnosis of sexual life in monopoly capitalism. Five stars
I edited this review it used to be five but now its four stars now bc their treatment of international trade sucks so bad and their concepts are not the best
June 7, 2012
A good book on how monopoly works, though a bit dense.
April 4, 2025
Underconsumptionist marxism is a wild take that comes off methodologically nationalist. Like cool guys but are you so sure Rosa is dead wrong about the periphery?
November 16, 2011
Eerily prescient analysis of the monopolistic tendencies of global capitalism.
Read
December 25, 2018I have the english and the german edition.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews