Paul A. Baran

Notes on the Theory of Imperialism

The following paper was contributed by its authors to a volume celebrating the 65th anniversary of the birth of the distinguished Polish economist Michal Kalecki: Problems of Economic Dynamics and Planning: Essays in Honour of Michal Kalecki, PWN (Polish Scientific Publishers), Warsaw, 1964. It is reprinted here by permission. —The EditorsThis article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Some Theoretical Implications

That all is not well in the realm of bourgeois economic theory is strongly felt by its closest observers. Professor Mason’s blunt statement that “the functioning of the corporate system has not to date been adequately explained,” could hardly be contradicted by anyone familiar with contemporary economic literature. Its most conspicuous feature is, indeed, this very failure to come to grips with the most important aspects of what, one would think, should constitute its central problem.… The reasons for this striking reluctance to place the realities of modern capitalism where they belong: at the center of theoretical attention, are not far to seek… There can be no doubt that the model of a perfectly competitive market economy is “more tractable,” that the examination of its manifold properties is more readily achievable by means of conventional tools of economic analysis than that of a system dominated by oligopolistic corporations. It may not be economics’ claim to applause, but it is understandable that most of its practitioners prefer not to tackle “intractable” matters, but to move along the line of the least theoretic resistance. This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website , where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Theses on Advertising

Confronted with a progressive deterioration and an increasing “Americanization” of mass media in Britain, the British Labor Party appointed a Commission under the Chairmanship of Lord Reith the assignment of which is “to consider the role of commercial advertising in present day society and to recommend whether reforms are required; if so, what?” This Advertising Commission solicited oral and written testimony from various workers in that field, submitting to them a questionnaire covering the principal points on which comments were invited. Having also been asked for our reflections on the matter, we prepared the following statement the purpose of which is not so much to answer all the questions posed in the questionnaire, as to present a more or less integrated view on this, most important, subject. This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website , where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Economics of Two Worlds

The following paper by the late Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy seems an appropriate Review of the Month in early 1967. It was written as a contribution to a volume celebrating the 60th birthday of the late Polish economist, Oskar Lange, and is here printed, by permission, for the first time in the United States. —The EditorsThis article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

The Quality of Monopoly Capitalist Society: Culture and Communications

This is a hitherto unpublished chapter of Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966). The text as published here has been edited and includes notes by John Bellamy Foster. The style conforms to that of their book. Part of the original draft chapter, dealing with mental health, was still incomplete at the time of Baran’s death in 1964, and consequently has not be included in this published version. For the larger intellectual context see the introduction to this issue. This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website , where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

The Theory of the Leisure Class

Review of The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen. This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website , where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Last Letters: Correspondence on “Some Theoretical Implications”

These “Last Letters” were written by Baran and Sweezy in late February and early March 1964 and concerned “Some Theoretical Implications,” a chapter that Baran had drafted in 1962 and that they were then revising for their book Monopoly Capital . The discussion was cut short by Baran’s death around two weeks later.… They are published here for the first time. This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website , where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Two Letters on Monopoly Capital Theory

Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy’s voluminous correspondence in the 1950s and early 1960s ranks as one of the crucial exchanges of letters between Marxist political economists in the second half of the twentieth century, and, indeed, in the entire history of Marxist thought.… Only a few letters in their extensive correspondence have been published so far.… We have thus chosen to publish two additional letters here in recognition of the joint centennial of the births of the two Pauls: Paul Baran (1910-1964) and Paul Sweezy (1910-2004). This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website , where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

ECONOMICS OF TWO WORLDS

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses economics of two worlds. The tasks of Marxian political economy are different under different economic and social orders, in different countries, and in different historical periods. It is an error to believe, as some Marxist writers have, that political economy, being the science of capitalism par excellence, becomes superfluous under socialism. While under socialism, both the object and objectives of political economy undergo a profound change, its responsibilities actually increase. On the macro level, it becomes theoretical guardian of the rationality and socialist orientation of the system as a whole, in addition to the chief instrumentality for the formulation of societys economic goals and the general strategy for attaining them. It is found that to the fulfillment of these tasks, only Marxian political economy brings the great intellectual tradition of socialist thought and theoretical lessons learned from the accumulated experience of socialist construction. It alone disposes over theoretical tools needed for the analysis of the economic institutions, scientific possibilities, and social relations that are decisive in the elaboration and carrying out of societys economic plans.

A Few Thoughts on the Great Debate

Recently, the Italian left-wing magazine Nuovi Argomenti , edited by Alberto Moravia and Alberto Carocci, organized, in conjunction with the publishing house of Einaudi, an international symposium on the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The two articles which follow, one by Paul Baran and the other by Paul M. Sweezy, were written as contributions to this symposium. —The Editors This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website , where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.