Monopoly Capitalism v Capitalism

[alanjjohnstone]

On my cyber travels through the past to plagiarise less publicised works, i often cut and past bits and pieces that usually have the qualifying adjective, "monopoly capitalism", and of course i delete the monopoly bit with no effect on the meaning or intent of the article.

The custom of using "monopoly capitalism' as far as i see appears to begin in the 20s and 30s, then used a lot by the Maoist Marxist-Leninists in the 60s-70s and then by all and sundry in the anti-capitalist brigade in current times.(Sweezy and Baran perhaps being the cause). Trusts was a popular term too a long time ago, but fell out of popularity, now replaced by the 'evil' Corporations.

But what is the point? Why use it?

Is there a case to describe monopoly capitalism as a distinct phase of capitalism (such as mercantile capitalism of the later middle ages). We often use the phrase state capitalism for more accuracy or even laissez faire capitalism on occasion but  is monopoly capitalism a more precise term to be adopted, too. Or is its use giving credence to Lenin's theory of imperialism its supposed supra-profits? Is it simply an academic's theoretical usage gone into common parliance on the Left?

I scent a blog-post on socialist language, past and present. 

[jondwhite]

Instances of market failure and distorted prices are more obvious under market monopolies (as the energy market is accused of) but they also occur under competitive markets. The language I'm not sure about.

[ALB]

I don't think we should adopt the term "monopoly capitalism" since, as you point out, it was a favourite of the old "Communist" parties where it had a definite political  significance. The French Communist Party interpreted it in a "popular front" fashion to mean that everybody, including non-monopoly capitalists, should unite against the monopoly capitalists. I think a residue of this can still be found in the policy/strategy of the Morning Star and the CPB.

[colinskelly]

I came across the term in relation to the specific claims of Sweezy and Baran in their 1966 book 'Monopoly Capitalism', the blurb to which says: "Having observed the rise of giant monopolistic (or oligopolistic) firms in the twentieth century, they put monopoly capital at the center of their analysis, arguing that the rising surplus such firms accumulated–as a result of their pricing power, massive sales efforts, and other factors–could not be profi tably invested back into the economy. Absent any 'epoch making innovation' like the automobile or vast new increases in military spending, the result was a general trend toward economic stagnation–a condition that persists, and is increasingly apparent, to this day. Their analysis was also extended to issues of imperialism…" Its association with the complex debates within left politics and academia mean that the term is probaby best left alone.  Given the ups and downs of the global economy since 1966 and the massive growth of China, India, computers, digital technology, etc. I would have thought the empirical case against their argument was clear enough.  Interestingly, Monthly Review Press is re-releasing 'Monopoly Capital' (updated by Foster) later this year so they clearly think its specific arguments still have mileage.

[alanjjohnstone]

Another variant i often come across is "state monopoly capitalism", more used by those who see the mixed economy/nationalisation as a distinct recognisable social system but when looked at under the surface even the most "free-enterperise" national economy has elements of the state dominating it. But i suppose there can be a case made for who is the true puppeteers, the monoplies such as the armament industries, or the State's military. As Eisenhower eluded to in is phrase the "military-industrial complex"…can they be separated or instead treated as one entity? http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

[ALB]

There is state monopoly capitalism and state monopoly capitalism. It depends where you put the hyphen. State monopoly-capitalism is what the various CPs of the world (whether pro-Moscow or pro-Peking in the olden days) say modern capitalism is. In fact the use of the term is a way of identifying them from an article or a leaflet. State-monopoly capitalism, on the other hand, is what (we say) they stand for.

[colinskelly]

Paul Mattick Jr. in 'Business as Usual' raises the issue of how far the state, despite professed neoliberalism, makes no progress in withdrawing from its role in the economy.  He describes neatly the paradoxical between state and private business, noting that despite the professed desire for a small state: "the share of GDP appropriated by the state has increased… Even while more powers are abandoned by the state to profit-orientated corporations, government funds … remain essential to the operation of the economic mechanism. … as it [the state] becomes increasingly both a form of enterprise for the enrichment of its practitioners and one devoted to the servicing of dominant economic interests, it remains true that those funds represent a cost to the capitalist economy of which they have become a fundamental part."(p.89-90) Mattick Jr. supports the SPGB view of taxation as utimately a burden on profits: "The underlying problem is that government-financed production does not produce a profit… Tax money appears to be paid by everyone.  But …only business actually pays taxes. … So when the government buys goods or services from a corporation … it is just giving a portion of its cut of profits back to business, collecting from all and giving it to some."(p.81)

[Brian]

colinskelly wrote:

 Mattick Jr. supports the SPGB view of taxation as utimately a burden on profits: "The underlying problem is that government-financed production does not produce a profit… Tax money appears to be paid by everyone.  But …only business actually pays taxes. … So when the government buys goods or services from a corporation … it is just giving a portion of its cut of profits back to business, collecting from all and giving it to some."(p.81)

Which goes some way to explaining the reason for 'white elephants' and the low price for state sell offs like Llyods Bank.

[Author]

Posts