Sean Andrews
I think the problem with Marxist in the Keynesian era was that it largely got taken into the fold of the Cold War/New Deal. It became accepted that the free market utopia that Marx was largely building on was unlikely to be resumed for obvious political (and seemingly economic) reasons. Thus, at least as Anderson puts it in /Considerations on Western Marxism/, using Sweezy as an example:
Blockquote: Sweezy's book, written in the environment of the New Deal, implicitly renounced the assumption that crises of disproportionality or underconsumption were insurmountable within thecapitalist mode of production, and accepted the potential efficacy of Keynsian counter-cyclical interventions by the State to assure the internal stability of imperialism. The ultimate disintegration of capitalism was for the first time entrusted to a purely external determinant - the superior economic performance of the Soviet Union and the countries which could be expected to follow its path at the end of the War, whose 'persuasion effect' would eventually render possible a peaceful transition to socialism in the United States itself. Within this conception, /The Theory of Capitalist Development/ marked the end of an intellectual age (23).
I'm kind of a sucker for anything Anderson writes, though, so maybe he's being hyperbolic here.
^^^^^^^
CB; Take a look at works of Victor Perlo, Marxist economist from the Cold War era or other CP and Soviet economists from the Cold War era. They don't say anything about Keynsian counter-cyclical interventions by the State assuring the internal stability of imperialism. One of Perlo's books is entitled _The Unstable Economy_.