<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Monthly Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://monthlyreview.org/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://monthlyreview.org</link>
	<description>An Independent Socialist Magazine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 10:15:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Monthly Review Volume 65, Number 1 (May 2013)</title>
		<link>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/mr-065-01-2013-05</link>
		<comments>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/mr-065-01-2013-05#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 04:15:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Editors</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 65, Issue 01 (May)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monthlyreview.org/?p=9536</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><div class="nfte">» Notes from the Editors</div><div class="buynow"><a title="Back issue of Monthly Review, May 2013 (Volume 65, Number 1)" href="http://monthlyreview.org/press/backissues/mr-065-01-2013-05/">buy this issue</a></div> Millions of people throughout the world mourned the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez on March 5, 2013. <em>Monthly Review</em> responded at the time with numerous pieces posted on <em>MRzine</em>. We would like, however, to record here briefly something of <em>MR</em>’s own special relationship to the late president, and what we think constitutes his indelible legacy to socialism in the twenty-first century. <em>MR</em>’s unique connection to Chávez was largely through the influence of István Mészáros—whose relationship to Chávez stretched back for over twenty years, and whom Chávez called “the pathfinder of 21st century socialism”—and through Marta Harnecker and Michael Lebowitz, who both served as consultants to Chávez.… More than a decade followed in which the socialist revolution under Chávez moved forward, creating huge material, social, and cultural improvements for the Venezuelan population, and vastly increased the power of the people over their own lives through new socialist institutions…. The most vital revolutionary achievement in these years was the introduction of the famous “communal councils”—the general idea for which, as Chávez himself stressed on numerous occasions, was taken from Mészáros’s <i>Beyond Capital</i>.</p><p>The post <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/mr-065-01-2013-05">Monthly Review Volume 65, Number 1 (May 2013)</a> appeared first on <a href="http://monthlyreview.org">Monthly Review</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/mr-065-01-2013-05/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who Will Lead the U.S. Working Class?</title>
		<link>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/who-will-lead-the-u-s-working-class</link>
		<comments>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/who-will-lead-the-u-s-working-class#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 04:14:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael D. Yates</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 65, Issue 01 (May)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monthlyreview.org/?p=9542</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>This article is based upon an interrogation of two books: Gregg Shotwell, <i>Autoworkers Under the Gun: A Shop-Floor View of the End of the American Dream</i>; and Jane McAlevey with Bob Ostertag, <i>Raising Expectations (And Raising Hell): My Decade Fighting For the Labor Movement</i> (New York: Verso Books, 2012). Each book is about an iconic union. Gregg Shotwell writes about the United Auto Workers (UAW), and Jane McAlevey the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). What they report gives us reason for both deep concern and hope concerning the future of organized labor.</p><p>The post <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/who-will-lead-the-u-s-working-class">Who Will Lead the U.S. Working Class?</a> appeared first on <a href="http://monthlyreview.org">Monthly Review</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/who-will-lead-the-u-s-working-class/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Political Economy of Decollectivization in China</title>
		<link>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/the-political-economy-of-decollectivization-in-china</link>
		<comments>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/the-political-economy-of-decollectivization-in-china#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 04:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Zhun Xu</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 65, Issue 01 (May)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monthlyreview.org/?p=9552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Decollectivization of China’s rural economy in the early 1980s was one of the most significant aspects of the country’s transition to a capitalist economy. Deng Xiaoping praised it as an “innovation,” and its significance to the overall capitalist-oriented “reform” process surely cannot be overstated. The Chinese government has repeatedly referred to the supposed economic benefits of decollectivization as having “greatly increased the incentives to millions of peasants.” Nevertheless, the political-economic implications of decollectivization have always been highly ambiguous, and questionable at best. Individual or small groups of peasants were frequently portrayed in mainstream accounts as political stars for initiating the process, but this served to obscure the deep resistance to decollectivization in many locales. Moreover, the deeper causes and consequences of the agrarian reform are downplayed in most writings, leaving the impression that the rural reform was in the main politically neutral.</p><p>The post <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/the-political-economy-of-decollectivization-in-china">The Political Economy of Decollectivization in China</a> appeared first on <a href="http://monthlyreview.org">Monthly Review</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/the-political-economy-of-decollectivization-in-china/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Violence, USA</title>
		<link>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/violence-usa</link>
		<comments>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/violence-usa#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 04:12:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Henry A. Giroux</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 65, Issue 01 (May)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monthlyreview.org/?p=9555</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Since 9/11, the war on terror and the campaign for homeland security have increasingly mimicked the tactics of the enemies they sought to crush. Violence and punishment as both a media spectacle and a bone-crushing reality have become prominent and influential forces shaping U.S. society. As the boundaries between “the realms of war and civil life have collapsed,” social relations and the public services needed to make them viable have been increasingly privatized and militarized. The logic of profitability works its magic in channeling the public funding of warfare and organized violence into universities, market-based service providers, Hollywood cinema, cable television, and deregulated contractors. The metaphysics of war and associated forms of violence now creep into every aspect of U.S. society.</p><p>The post <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/violence-usa">Violence, USA</a> appeared first on <a href="http://monthlyreview.org">Monthly Review</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/violence-usa/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What they call acts of god</title>
		<link>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/what-they-call-acts-of-god</link>
		<comments>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/what-they-call-acts-of-god#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 04:11:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Marge Piercy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 65, Issue 01 (May)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monthlyreview.org/?p=9557</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Marge Piercy is the author of eighteen poetry books, most recently <em>The Hunger Moon: New &#38; Selected Poems, 1980–2010</em> from Knopf. Her most recent novel is <em>Sex Wars</em> (Harper Perennial) and PM Press has republished <em>Vida</em> and <em>Dance the Eagle to Sleep</em> with new introductions.</p><p>The post <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/what-they-call-acts-of-god">What they call acts of god</a> appeared first on <a href="http://monthlyreview.org">Monthly Review</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/what-they-call-acts-of-god/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Struggle for Food Sovereignty in South Korea</title>
		<link>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/the-struggle-for-food-sovereignty-in-south-korea</link>
		<comments>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/the-struggle-for-food-sovereignty-in-south-korea#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 04:10:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Byeong-Seon Yoon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 65, Issue 01 (May)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monthlyreview.org/?p=9559</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>On October 10, 2012, the Korean Women’s Peasant Association (KWPA) was awarded the Food Sovereignty Prize at a ceremony held in New York City. This prize is an alternative to the World Food Prize founded by the late Norman Borlaug, “the father of the Green Revolution.” While the World Food Prize emphasizes increased production through technology, the Food Sovereignty Prize champions solutions coming from those most impacted by the injustices of the global food system.… In order to understand how the KWPA won this prestigious award—even though South Korea’s agriculture contributes only around 2 percent of the nation’s total GDP, while the nation’s market economy is ranked fourteenth among 188 countries—the changes in South Korea’s agriculture under the modern agri-food system need to be examined.</p><p>The post <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/the-struggle-for-food-sovereignty-in-south-korea">The Struggle for Food Sovereignty in South Korea</a> appeared first on <a href="http://monthlyreview.org">Monthly Review</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/05/01/the-struggle-for-food-sovereignty-in-south-korea/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Monthly Review Volume 64, Number 11 (April 2013)</title>
		<link>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/mr-064-11-2013-04</link>
		<comments>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/mr-064-11-2013-04#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 04:15:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Editors</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 64, Issue 11 (April)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monthlyreview.org/?p=9445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><div class="nfte">&#187; Notes from the Editors</div><div class="buynow"><a title="Back issue of Monthly Review April 2013 Volume 64, Number 11" href="http://monthlyreview.org/press/backissues/mr-064-11-2013-04/">buy this issue</a></div>
One of the achievements of Roosevelt’s New Deal administration during the Great Depression was the introduction in 1938 of the federal minimum wage, then set at twenty-five cents an hour. At no time in its history has the minimum wage kept workers out of poverty. But it has helped to stave off the full depths of poverty that would otherwise ensue.… Obama’s proposal in his State of the Union Address to raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour…has received widespread support from the population. At the same time it has been subjected to severe criticism from key sectors of capital, which have gone into overdrive in pushing their claim that such a raise in the hourly wage of the poorest segments of society would be a devastating “job killer,” increasing unemployment.… If Obama’s proposal were adopted the real minimum wage would still be about $1.50 short of where it was in 1968 at the end of the Johnson administration, forty-five years ago. Yet, this paltry attempt to lift the floor of wages for the poorest workers in the United States—at a time when the annual income of a single parent receiving the minimum wage is well below the federal poverty line for a family of three—is coming under virulent attack from the vested interests.</p><p>The post <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/mr-064-11-2013-04">Monthly Review Volume 64, Number 11 (April 2013)</a> appeared first on <a href="http://monthlyreview.org">Monthly Review</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/mr-064-11-2013-04/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Marx, Kalecki, and Socialist Strategy</title>
		<link>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/marx-kalecki-and-socialist-strategy</link>
		<comments>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/marx-kalecki-and-socialist-strategy#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 04:14:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Bellamy Foster</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 64, Issue 11 (April)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monthlyreview.org/?p=9447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A historical perspective on the economic stagnation afflicting the United States and the other advanced capitalist economies requires that we go back to the severe downturn of 1974–1975, which marked the end of the post-Second World War prosperity. The dominant interpretation of the mid–1970s recession was that the full employment of the earlier Keynesian era had laid the basis for the crisis by strengthening labor in relation to capital. As a number of prominent left economists, whose outlook did not differ from the mainstream in this respect, put it, the problem was a capitalist class that was “too weak” and a working class that was “too strong.” Empirically, the slump was commonly attributed to a rise in the wage share of income, squeezing profits. This has come to be known as the “profit-squeeze” theory of crisis.</p><p>The post <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/marx-kalecki-and-socialist-strategy">Marx, Kalecki, and Socialist Strategy</a> appeared first on <a href="http://monthlyreview.org">Monthly Review</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/marx-kalecki-and-socialist-strategy/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Crisis Theory, the Law of the Tendency of the Profit Rate to Fall, and Marx’s Studies in the 1870s</title>
		<link>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/crisis-theory-the-law-of-the-tendency-of-the-profit-rate-to-fall-and-marxs-studies-in-the-1870s</link>
		<comments>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/crisis-theory-the-law-of-the-tendency-of-the-profit-rate-to-fall-and-marxs-studies-in-the-1870s#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 04:13:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Heinrich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 64, Issue 11 (April)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monthlyreview.org/?p=9462</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In Marx’s work, no final presentation of his theory of crisis can be found. Instead, there are various approaches to explain crises. In the twentieth century, the starting point for Marxist debates on crisis theory was the third volume of <i>Capital</i>, the manuscript of which was written in 1864–1865. Later, attention was directed towards the theoretical considerations on crisis in the <i>Theories of Surplus-Value</i>, written in the period between 1861 and 1863. Finally, the <i>Grundrisse</i> of 1857–1858 also came into view, which today plays a central role in the understanding of Marx’s crisis theory for numerous authors. Thus, starting with <i>Capital</i>, the debate gradually shifted its attention to earlier texts. With the <i>Marx Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA)</i>, all of the economic texts written by Marx between the late 1860s and the late 1870s are now available. Along with his letters, these texts allow for an insight into the development of Marx’s theoretical considerations on crisis after 1865.</p><p>The post <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/crisis-theory-the-law-of-the-tendency-of-the-profit-rate-to-fall-and-marxs-studies-in-the-1870s">Crisis Theory, the Law of the Tendency of the Profit Rate to Fall, and Marx’s Studies in the 1870s</a> appeared first on <a href="http://monthlyreview.org">Monthly Review</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/crisis-theory-the-law-of-the-tendency-of-the-profit-rate-to-fall-and-marxs-studies-in-the-1870s/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Military Defeat of the South Africans in Angola</title>
		<link>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/the-military-defeat-of-the-south-africans-in-angola</link>
		<comments>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/the-military-defeat-of-the-south-africans-in-angola#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 04:12:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Horace Campbell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 64, Issue 11 (April)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monthlyreview.org/?p=9461</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><div class="ed-auth-intro">In Angola in the spring of 1988 the armed forces of apartheid South Africa and the US-backed mercenaries of Jonas Savimbi were defeated by the combined force of the Cuban military, the Angolan army, and the military units of the liberation movements of South Africa and Namibia. This led directly to the independence of Namibia and then to the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa itself. Cuba’s heroic role is the outstanding example of principled anti-imperialist internationalism in the last decades of the twentieth century.… We celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of these events by reprinting the account by Horace Campbell that appeared in <i>Monthly Review</i> in April 1989, with some pride at having published so sharp an analysis of current events—events largely ignored by the mass media then and since. We then present a military-focused historical analysis by Monthly Review Press author Ronnie Kasrils, who had the extraordinary fate to have headed ANC military intelligence in the battle alongside the Cubans, and then to have served for five years as Deputy Minister of Defense in the post-apartheid South African government—in regular contact with officers who had commanded the opposing forces. <b>—The Editors</b></div></p><p>The post <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/the-military-defeat-of-the-south-africans-in-angola">The Military Defeat of the South Africans in Angola</a> appeared first on <a href="http://monthlyreview.org">Monthly Review</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/the-military-defeat-of-the-south-africans-in-angola/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
