66 MONOPOLY CAPITAL c
state is to serve the interests of monopoly capital. As two •.
champions of free competition have so truthfully said: ''With :
every advance of monopoly toward greater economic power;
and more general social acceptance the federal government '
becomes more subservient to it, more dependent on it, more
disposed to favor it with grants of privilege, protection, and .
su~i~."m , ism. Even more important is the fact that terms like ''state
Consequently the effect of government intervention into the,
market mechanisms of the economy, whatever its ostensible·
purpose, is to make the system work more, not less, like one '
made up exclusively of giant corporations acting and interact-·.
ing in the manner analyzed in this and the preceding chap-·
ter.
5 ment are reflections of conflict within the ruling class and
Strengthening monopoly and regularizing its operations is of.'
course not the only function of the state under monopoly capi- ·.
talism. Later, especially in Chapters 6 and 7, we shall analyze·
at some length how the state, through its taxing and spending_:
activities and through its policies toward the rest of the world,·.
plays a decisive role in the way the system operates. The ques-
tion therefore arises: Would it not be better to adopt from the.
outset terminology which calls attention to and emphasizes the;
role of the state in this social system? There is ample precedent
for doing so. In State and Revoliition ( 1917) Lenin spoke of:
''the epoch of the development of monopoly capitalism into
state monopoly capitalism," and it is now the accepted view in '
the Communist world that the advanced capitalist countries;
have long since passed through this transitional stage and en- i
tered that of state monopoly capitalism.
'
We have chosen not to follow this precedent but rather to•
use the terms ''monopoly capital'' and ''monopoly capitalism"
without qualification for two reasons. In the first place, the;
state has always played a crucial role in the development of.
13
Ibid., p. 1.
THE TENDENCY OF SURPLUS TO RISE 67
capitalism, and while this role has certainly increased quantita-
tively we find the evidence of a qualitative change in recent
decades unconvincing. Under the circumstances, to lay special
emphasis on the role of the state in the present stage of monop-
oly capitalism may only mislead people into assuming that it
was of negligible importance in the earlier history of capital-
capitalism'' and ''state monopoly capitalism'' almost inevitably
carry the connotation that the state is somehow an independ-
ent social force, coordinate with private business, and that the
functioning of the system is determined not only by the coop-
eration of these two forces but also by their antagonisms and
conflicts. This seems to us a seriously misleading view in real-
ity, what appear to be conflicts between business and govern-
we think it desirable to avoid terminology which tends to give
it currency.
6
The abandonment of price competition does not mean the
end of all competition: it takes new forms and rages on with
ever increasing intensity. Most of these new forms of competi-
tion come under the heading of what we call the sales effort, to
which the next chapter is devoted. Here we confine attention to
those forms of competition which have a direct bearing on
costs of production and hence on the magnitude of the sur-
plus.
If it is true, as we have argued, that oligopolies succeed in
attaining a close approximation to the theoretical monopoly
price and if their never-ceasing efforts to cut costs, so much
stressed by James Earley, 14 are generally successful, then it
follows with inescapable logic that surplus must have a strong
. ~nd persistent tendency to rise. But before this conclusion can
e accepted, we must ask whether the system of oligopolies
14 Above, PP· 24-26.