Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) (MON REV )

Description

In May 1949 Monthly Review began publication in New York City, as cold war hysteria gathered force in the United States. The first issue featured the lead article Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein. From the first Monthly Review spoke for socialism and against U.S. imperialism, and is still doing so today. From the first Monthly Review was independent of any political organization, and is still so today. The McCarthy era inquisition targeted Monthly Review's original editors Paul Sweezy and Leo Huberman, who fought back successfully. In the subsequent global upsurge against capitalism, imperialism and the commodification of life (in shorthand '1968') Monthly Review played a global role. A generation of activists received no small part of their education as subscribers to the magazine and readers of Monthly Review Press books. In the intervening years of counter-revolution, Monthly Review has kept a steady viewpoint. That point of view is the heartfelt attempt to frame the issues of the day with one set of interests foremost in mind: those of the great majority of humankind, the propertyless.

  • Impact factor
    0.46
  • 5-year impact
    0.40
  • Cited half-life
    0.00
  • Immediacy index
    0.28
  • Eigenfactor
    0.00
  • Article influence
    0.24
  • Website
    Monthly Review website
  • Other titles
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949), Monthly review
  • ISSN
    0027-0520
  • OCLC
    1758661
  • Material type
    Periodical, Internet resource
  • Document type
    Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publications in this journal

  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 06/2014; 66(2):48.
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 07/2013; 65(3):107.
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 01/2013; 64(10):46-52.
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 09/2012; 64(4):60.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The United States and the world are now a good two decades into the Internet revolution, or what was once called the information age. The past generation has seen a blizzard of mind-boggling developments in communication, ranging from the World Wide Web and broadband, to ubiquitous cell phones that are quickly becoming high-powered wireless computers in their own right. Firms such as Google, Amazon, Craigslist, and Facebook have become iconic. Immersion in the digital world is now or soon to be a requirement for successful participation in society. The subject for debate is no longer whether the Internet can be regarded as a technological development in the same class as television or the telephone. Increasingly, the debate is turning to whether this is a communication revolution closer to the advent of the printing press.1 The full impact of the Internet revolution will only become apparent in the future, as more technological change is on the horizon that can barely be imagined and hardly anticipated.2 But enough time has transpired, and institutions and practices have been developed, that an assessment of the digital era is possible, as well as a sense of its likely trajectory into the future. Our analysis in this article will focus on the United States—not only because it is the society that we know best, and the Internet"s point of origin, but also because it is there, we believe, that one most clearly finds the integration of monopoly-finance capital and the Internet, representing the dominant tendency of the global capitalist system. This is not meant to suggest that the current U.S. dominance of the Internet is not open to change, or that other countries may not choose to take other paths—but only that all alternatives in this realm will have to struggle against the trajectory now being set by U.S. capitalism, with its immense global influence and power.
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 03/2011; 62(10).
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 01/2011; 62(8):34.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A few years ago, in a class one of us taught, a discussion arose about how capitalism works as a system in which the need for the few to maximize profit drives the entire political-economic structure. The students appeared to grasp how the capital accumulation process has a strong effect, often negative, on the course of a society's development. The discussion then turned to Salvador Allende's Chile of the early 1970s, where the goal was to develop a socialist political economy. "Knowing what you do about how capitalism functions," the students were asked, "what would a socialist system look like?" They were unusually quiet. Finally, one of them blurted out: "I don't know how it could work. I guess the government would have to kill everybody." The question of how a socialist society would operate raised a horrible, dystopian image in this student's mind. Such libertarian fears of a totalitarian state imposing socialism by force, even to the point of annihilation, on an unwilling people, who are presumed to be capitalist by nature, are all too common. This brings to mind Fredric Jameson's comment: "Someone once said that it is easier [for most people in today's society] to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism."2 Perhaps nothing points so clearly to the alienated nature of politics in the present day United States as the fact that capitalism, the economic system that drives the society, is effectively off-limits to critical review or discussion. To the extent that capitalism is mentioned by politicians or pundits, it is regarded in hushed tones of reverence for the genius of the market, its unquestioned efficiency, and its providential authority. One might quibble with a corrupt and greedy CEO or a regrettable loss of jobs, but the superiority and necessity of capitalism—or, more likely, its euphemism, the so-called "free market system"—is simply beyond debate or even consideration. There are, of course, those who believe that the system needs more regulation and that there is room for all sorts of fine-tuning. Nevertheless, there is no questioning of the basics.
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 06/2010; 62(2).
  • Source
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 04/2010; 61(11).
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 12/2009; 61(7):47.
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 07/2009; 61(3).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current global food crisis—decades in the making—is a crushing indictment against capitalist agriculture and the corporate monopolies that dominate the world's food systems. The role of the industrial agri- food complex in creating the crisis (through the monopolization of input industries, industrial farming, processing, and retailing) and the self- serving neoliberal solutions proposed by the world's multilateral insti- tutions and leading industrial countries are being met with skepticism, disillusion, and indifference by a general public more concerned with the global economic downturn than with the food crisis. Neoliberal re- trenchment has met growing resistance by those most affected by the crisis—the world's smallholder farmers. Solutions to the food crisis advanced by the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), and mega-philanthropy, propose accelerating the spread of biotechnology, reviving the Green Revolution, re-introducing the conditional lending of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and re-centering the now frag- mented power of the World Trade Organization (WTO) by concluding the Doha "Development Round" of trade negotiations. These institu- tions have a mandate from capital to mitigate hunger, diffuse social unrest, and reduce the overall numbers of peasant producers world- wide—without introducing any substantive changes to the structure of the world's food systems. Their neoliberal strategies are in stark con- trast to the proposals for ecological approaches to agriculture (agroecol- ogy) and food sovereignty advanced by farmer federations and civil so- ciety organizations worldwide that instead seek to transform food sys- tems. Clashes and declarations of protest at recent summits in Rome,
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 07/2009; 61(3).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Oil, natural gas, coal, and other mined fuels provide the United States with nearly all of its energy needs at a cost $700 billion per year.1 Since more than 90 percent of its oil deposits have been depleted, the United States now imports over 70 percent of its oil at an annual cost of $400 billion.2 United States agriculture is driven almost entirely by these non-renewable energy sources. Each person in the country on a per capita consumption basis requires approximately 2,000 liters per year in oil equivalents to supply his/her total food, which accounts for about 19 percent of the total national energy use. Farming—that portion of the agricultural/food system in which food is produced—requires about 7 percent and food processing and packaging consume an additional 7 percent, while transportation and preparation use 5 percent of total energy in the United States.3 Global usage of oil has peaked at a time when oil reserves are predicted to last only sixty to seventy more years.4 As oil and natural gas supplies rapidly decline, there will be a greater dependence on coal as a primary energy source. Currently coal supplies are only capable of providing the United States with 50 to 100 more years of energy, although considering the environmental damage done by using coal it is not clear whether we will actually use up all the reserves.5 Keeping in mind the potential future costs and availability of fossil fuels, we will explore how agricultural production can be maintained while reducing fossil energy inputs by 50 percent.
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 07/2009; 61(3).
  • Source
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 04/2009; 60(11).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract not available
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 03/2009;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The financial crisis has been widely interpreted as a Minsky crisis. This paper argues that interpretation is misleading. The processes identified in Minsky's financial instability hypothesis played a critical role in the crisis, but that role was part of a larger economic drama involving the neoliberal growth model. The neoliberal model inaugurated an era of wage stagnation. In place of wage growth spurring demand growth, it relied on borrowing and asset price inflation. That arrangement was always unsustainable but financial innovation and deregulation warded off the model's stagnationist tendencies far longer than expected. These delay mechanisms is where Minsky's financial instability hypothesis enters the narrative. The interpretation of the financial crisis and Great Recession has enormous significance for economic policy. If interpreted as a purely financial crisis, in the spirit of a pure Minsky crisis, the policy implication is simply to fix the financial system. However, there is no need for reform of the real economy because that is not the source of the problem. If instead, the crisis is interpreted through a new Marxist - Structural Keynesian lens the policy implications are deeper and more challenging. Financial sector reform remains needed to deal with the problems of destabilizing speculation and political capture. However, it does not address the root problem which is the neo-liberal growth model. Restoring stable shared prosperity requires replacing the neoliberal model with a new model that restores the link between wage and productivity growth. That will require adoption of a new labor market agenda, re-fashioning globalization, reversing the imbalance between market and government, and restoring the goal of full employment. Financial sector reform without reform of the neoliberal growth model will leave the economy stuck in an era of stagnation. That is because stagnation is the logical next step of the neoliberal model given current conditions.
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 01/2009;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The transition from capitalism to socialism is the most difficult problem of socialist theory and practice. To add to this the question of ecology might therefore be seen as unnecessarily complicating an already intractable issue. I shall argue here, however, that the human relation to nature lies at the heart of the transition to socialism. An ecological perspective is pivotal to our understanding of capitalism's limits, the failures of the early socialist experiments, and the overall struggle for egalitarian and sustainable human development. My argument has three parts. First, it is crucial to understand the intimate connection between classical Marxism and ecological analysis. Far from being an anomaly for socialism, as we are often led to believe, ecology was an essential component of the socialist project from its inception— notwithstanding the numerous later shortcomings of Soviet-type societies in this respect. Second, the global ecological crisis that now confronts us is deeply rooted in the "world-alienating" logic of capital accumulation, traceable to the historical origins of capitalism as a system. Third, the transition from capitalism to socialism is a struggle for sustainable human development in which societies on the periphery of the capitalist world system have been leading the way.
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 11/2008; 60(6).
  • Source
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 11/2008; 60(6).
  • Source
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 10/2008; 60(5).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Taken from (and edited): http://www.monthlyreview.org/080915mcchesney.php All social scholarship ultimately is about understanding the world to change it, even if the change we want is to preserve that which we most treasure in the status quo. This is especially and immediately true for political economy of media as a field of study, where research has a direct and important relationship with policies and structures that shape media and communication and influence the course of society. Because of this, too, the political economy of communication has had a direct relationship with policy makers and citizens outside the academy. The work, more than most other areas, cannot survive if it is "academic." That is why the burgeoning media reform movement in the United States is so important for the field. This is a movement, astonishingly, based almost directly upon core political economic research. The political economy of media is dedicated to understanding the role of media in societies—e.g., whether the media system on balance encourages or discourages social justice, open governance, and effective participatory democracy. The field also examines how market structures, policies and subsidies, and organizational structures shape and determine the nature of the media system and media content. The entire field is based on the explicit understanding that media systems are not natural or inevitable, but they result from crucial political decisions. These political decisions are not made on a blank slate or a level playing field; they are strongly shaped by the historical and political economic context of any given society at any point in time. We make our own media history, to paraphrase Marx, but not exactly as we please. We do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living." For much of the past century there has been a decided split in the political economy of media between U.S. scholars and those based in almost every other nation in the world. In the United States it generally has been assumed, even by critical scholars devoted to social change, that a profit-driven, advertising-supported corporate media system was the only possible system. The media system reflected the nature of the U.S. political economy, and any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist political economy. Since that was considered unrealistic, even preposterous, the structure of the media system was regarded as inviolable. The circumstances existing and transmitted from the past allowed for no alternative.
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 09/2008; 60(4).
  • Source
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 07/2008; 60(3).