From Monopoly to “Late” Capitalism

  • Richard Westra
Part of the Palgrave Insights into Apocalypse Economics book series (PIAE)


Initial periodizations of post-WWII capitalism by Marxist theorists picked up where early twentieth century theorists of imperialism left off. The Monopoly Capital perspective of Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy maintains the post-WWII era as a phase of increased monopolization leading to endless crises. J.K. Galbraith, in a non-Marxist approach, drew conclusions in line with Marxists on the “organized” nature of post-WWII capitalism. Such organization in his view leads to the formation of a new overarching managerial class of sorts dubbed the “technostructure”. With technostructure management, according to Galbraith, the potential for crises claimed by Marxists is dampened. Ernest Mandel offers a sweeping and sophisticated periodizing of capitalism from its inception. He theorizes the post-WWII stage as “late capitalism” and produces an important and enduring argument for the crisis of the golden age.


Underconsumption theory Surplus profit Technological innovation Corporate capital 


  1. Baran, P. 1957. The Political Economy of Growth. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baran, P., and P. Sweezy. 1966. Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brewer, A. 1990. Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Foster, J.B. 2014. The Theory of Monopoly Capitalism. New ed. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  5. Galbraith, J.K. 1972. The New Industrial State. Rev. ed. London: Andre Deutsch.Google Scholar
  6. Harman, C. 1978. Mandel’s Late Capitalism. Accessed 5 Aug 2018.
  7. Howard, M.C., and J.E. King. 1992. A History of Marxian Economics: Volume 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mandel, E. 1978. Late Capitalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 1995. Long Waves of Capitalist Development: A Marxist Interpretation. Rev. ed. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  10. Marx, K. 1977. Capital Volume I. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 1991. Capital Volume III. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  12. Molina, A.H. 1989. The Social Basis of the Microelectronics Revolution. Edinburgh: University Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
  13. Rowthorn, B. 1976. Late Capitalism. New Left Review I/98: 59–84.Google Scholar
  14. Screpanti, E., and S. Zamagni. 2005. An Outline of the History of Economic Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sekine, T. 2013. General Equilibrium and the Dialectic of Capital. In Towards a Critique of Bourgeois Economics: Essays of Thomas Sekine, ed. J. Bell. Berlin: Owl of Minerva Press.Google Scholar
  16. Westra, R. 2012. The Evil Axis of Finance: The US-Japan-China Stranglehold on the Global Future. Atlanta, GA: Clarity Press.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2012/2013. Capital as Dialectical Economic Theory. Journal of Australian Political Economy, Special Issue on Capital against Capitalism: New Research in Marxist Political Economy, 70.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2016. Unleashing Usury: How Finance Opened the Door to Capitalism Then Swallowed It Whole. Atlanta, GA: Clarity Press.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2018. Socialism in the Twenty-First Century. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Westra
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Macau StudiesUniversity of MacauMacauChina

Personalised recommendations