Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) Journal Impact Factor & Information

Journal 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.

Current impact factor: 0.46

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2015
2009 Impact Factor 0.467

Additional details

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) 06/2015; 67(2). DOI:10.14452/MR-067-02-2015-06_4
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 06/2015; 67(2). DOI:10.14452/MR-067-02-2015-06_1
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 06/2015; 67(2). DOI:10.14452/MR-067-02-2015-06_3
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 06/2015; 67(2). DOI:10.14452/MR-067-02-2015-06_2
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When I walked the thousand-year-old route of the Camino de Santiago in northern Spain in September and October 2014, I expected to discuss questions of health with fellow travelers. I assumed that an ancient pilgrimage would be full of walkers pondering health issues and would provide an ethnographer's panacea for "getting in." I was wrong. I was surrounded by walkers from all parts of Europe, but they were pondering the meaning of work, capitalism, and their lives. I found I was seeing a profound crisis of capitalism and individuals struggling with alienated labor as discussed by Karl Marx.&hellp; [W]hat I saw on the Camino de Santiago was certainly not a revolutionary movement. Envisioning satisfying work, however, helps change the shared conception of what work is. Raul Zibechi argued that as we struggle both individually or collectively, we engage in an emancipatory process that, as the Zapatista's Subcomandante Marcos notes, "builds, includes, brings together and remembers whereas the system, separates, splits and fragments."&hellp; Awareness of alienated labor and struggle against crisis, whether individual or collective, does seem to create imaginative space for change even if it does not necessarily reflect what has been thought of as revolutionary struggle.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 05/2015; 67(1):52. DOI:10.14452/MR-067-01-2015-05_6
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Like many other leftists working in labor or community organizations, I have long struggled to understand the role I can play in building a larger left movement. I have spent nearly a decade organizing for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and have only recently caught a glimpse of what a vibrant and popular leftist practice could look like.&hellp; In this analysis, I take inspiration from Antonio Gramsci's ideas. He described a "war of position"—a protracted revolutionary effort to create an anti-capitalist hegemony—as a methodology for anti-capitalists in advanced industrial countries. Counter-hegemony is a process, built by concrete effort both through political education and political action. As a labor union organizer, I have become quite skilled at political action, but not at political education.&hellp;One alignment of organizations in Minnesota—Minnesotans for a Fair Economy (MFE)—has the potential to be part of such a counter-hegemonic process. On a day-to-day basis, member organizations of MFE organize people to confront their bosses and banks, as well as the corporations holding back their communities. On a sporadic basis, the member organizations come together to create a new narrative of what kind of a world we want.&hellp; It was in a MFE "week of action" that I first began to understand how the process of creating a counter-hegemony might play out in practice.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 05/2015; 67(1):41. DOI:10.14452/MR-067-01-2015-05_5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Auto companies shield their low-tech exploitation of workers behind high-tech displays of mechanical prowess. The less a consumer knows about the blood and guts of manufacturing, the easier it is to buy the dream. So how does America think all this crap gets built?&hellp; Last summer, in a desperate attempt to entice young viewers to buy grandpa's dream car, General Motors (GM) ran a TV ad that featured a chorus line of robot arms dancing to techno music around a series of Cadillacs strutting like runway models on chrome-plated wheels.&hellp; Don't let yourself be seduced and deluded. The auto industry's master talent isn't robotics, it's the ability to automatize humans—including drivers.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 05/2015; 67(1):36. DOI:10.14452/MR-067-01-2015-05_4
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Analyzing the Brazilian economy is a difficult and complex task; the current indicators register results ranging from excellent to mediocre and worrisome, depending on the variable observed. For example, the nation has advanced into modernity in a few sectors, while at the same time, in recent years, new forms of dependency from the center of capitalism deepened. Further complexities arise when, beyond the economy, one takes into consideration not only the results of so-called "inclusion" policies and the popularity of President Dilma Rousseff (popularly referred to as "Dilma"), but also the number of strikes and public displays of disenchantment that are emerging in every corner of the country.&hellp; To summarize some of the conclusions: since the government of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva ("Lula"), the Brazilian economy has widened its internal market through policies that have raised the minimal wage, transferred income to the poorest within the nation, increased the availability of credit to the low and middle segments of the population, and reduced taxation (mainly on manufactured goods in the essential consumption basket). Such widening of the market, with a low impact on imports, would in theory ensure the maintenance of a certain level of growth, regardless of the international dynamics, and, indeed, it has helped Brazil reach a positive economic performance during the worst of the recent global economic crisis and its aftermath.&hellp; Nonetheless, when the impacts of the global recession deepened with the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, these macroeconomic policies did not yield the same effect, at most achieving modest growth.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 05/2015; 67(1):17. DOI:10.14452/MR-067-01-2015-05_2
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In a letter to Vietnam War veteran Charles McDuff, Major General Franklin Davis, Jr. said, "The United States Army has never condoned wanton killing or disregard for human life." McDuff had written a letter to President Richard Nixon in January 1971, telling him that he had witnessed U.S. soldiers abusing and killing Vietnamese civilians and informing him that many My Lais had taken place during the war. He pleaded with Nixon to bring the killing to an end. The White House sent the letter to the general, and this was his reply.&hellp; McDuff's letter and Davis's response are quoted in Nick Turse's Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam, the most recent book to demonstrate beyond doubt that the general's words were a lie.&hellp; In what follows, I use Turse's work, along with several other books, articles, and films, as scaffolds from which to construct an analysis of how the war was conducted, what its consequences have been for the Vietnamese, how the nature of the war generated ferocious opposition to it (not least by a brave core of U.S. soldiers), how the war's history has been whitewashed, and why it is important to both know what happened in Vietnam and why we should not forget it.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.
    Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 05/2015; 67(1):1. DOI:10.14452/MR-067-01-2015-05_1
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 04/2015; 66(11). DOI:10.14452/MR-066-11-2015-04_2
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 04/2015; 66(11). DOI:10.14452/MR-066-11-2015-04_6
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 04/2015; 66(11). DOI:10.14452/MR-066-11-2015-04_4
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 04/2015; 66(11). DOI:10.14452/MR-066-11-2015-04_1
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 04/2015; 66(11). DOI:10.14452/MR-066-11-2015-04_5
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 04/2015; 66(11). DOI:10.14452/MR-066-11-2015-04_3
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 03/2015; 66(10). DOI:10.14452/MR-066-10-2015-03_5
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 03/2015; 66(10). DOI:10.14452/MR-066-10-2015-03_1
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 03/2015; 66(10). DOI:10.14452/MR-066-10-2015-03_3
  • Monthly review (New York, N.Y.: 1949) 03/2015; 66(10). DOI:10.14452/MR-066-10-2015-03_4