So, a final comment: Rakesh's comments on my comments about Brenner's overproduction thesis misses my point. The Keynesian response is not that Keynesianism failed but that it was not followed vigorously enough, otherwise there would have been no "overproduction." But to contrast over-production to a wage-led profits squeeze, as Brenner did, suggests that Brenner may have been veering in a more Keyensian direction than he may have wished. And s.o. pointed out that Doug is not a rigid Marxist (was it Rakesh?). Quite right, obviously, but I do think that the "diagnosis" of "overproduction" or "overinvestment" points analytically to a Keynesian road-map. A "profit squeeze" diagnosis points to a more traditional Marxist road map. I'm not trying to pick because the Grand Sense of Everything eludes me.
You can argue, as does Van der Pijl in the Atlantic Ruling Class, that Keynesianism has its own crisis modes, but the question here is whether the crisis mode is due to the presence of the Keynesianism or the insufficiency of it. There is a "gradual socialization of investment" in Keynes which DID NOT occur subsequent to the 1960s (except in weapons procurement and the space program), and it is perhaps *this* deficiency which matters more than the so-called wage squeeze. Note that some socialized investment, such as the interstate highway program, was largely complete by the late 1960s and perhaps it was a decrease in these programs which led to an aggregate profit squeeze (not too much investment but rather not enough consumption, and perhaps even not enough of the right kind of consumption).
In any case, I argue for the sake of arguing: I don't anticipate a solution to these systems-level issues will be reached on this group (for the reason that it may not be reachable). -gn
-- Gregory P. Nowell Associate Professor Department of Political Science, Milne 100 State University of New York 135 Western Ave. Albany, New York 12222
Fax 518-442-5298