>Also,
>there never seems to be any explanation for them given, by Kondratieff
or
>anybody else. They are an alleged empirical observation with no
theory of them
An empirical observation seems me to bee worth thinking about and making research - even if sometimes the empirical overservation is first so add odds with the real course of events like the observation, that the sun rises in the morning and goes down in the evening.
The one problem with the so called Kondratiev-cycles is, that their empirical existence is not as clear as the regularity of the sun going up and down. There has been a lot of discussion, not unbiased, about the statistical evidence. The most sophisticated german researcher in the field, Thomas Kuczynski, wrote many years ago: It appears, that the Kondratiev-Cycles have been seen by all those, looking for them. But even those, who disputed the evidence, should take care at least of the "discourse-cycles", in wich the debate developed.
So we have to go back to explanation to learn, what we are looking for. And we are so coming back to Oskar Lange, who did not dispute the statistical evidence, but added: "Even through historical facts cited above are not subject to any seriuos reservations, they are not suffcient proof of the existence of long range cycles. To prove this theory would be necessary to show that there exists a causal relation between the two conc ecutive phases of the cycles and nobody has succeded in showing this." (Theory of Reproduction and accumulation, Warszawa 1969)
The hungarian marxist Andras Brody in the 80s proposed a explanation, linking the 50-60 year long fluctuations in capitalist economies to the life cycles in the qualification of the working force. (Slowdown - Global economic maladies. published in the series of the Delhi Institute of Economic growth/Sage publishers, 1984) This apparoach is related to the explanation of the post- WWII- Boom by Ferenc Janossy.
Of course is there something in this, but there is no qualification and no reproduction of qualification without appropriate practice. Thomas Kuczynski developed the idea, that there should be no difference of "trend" and "cycle" in the analysis, but that the "trend" should be shown as resut of the different actual movements. (He uses not trigonometric, but escalating functions in the model.) Different phases of faster/slower accumulation are shapened by periods of declining profitablility, in wich the need to restore the rate of profit results in enhaced investment in new technologies - so making possible the breakthrough of new basic technologies, forming the ground for a longer phase of faster growth, once a apporpriate social framework established. But the emprovement of technology is possiblle only within limits, thats why the after spreading of the new technology the gains in productivity fall in the long run - causing a new long run decline in profitability. This is not an "investment cycle", becaues there are no investment horizons of 50 or 60 years. (See the outline Thomas Kuczynyki, Great Depressions as Transistional phases within the Capitalist Mode of Production, in: A. Kleinknecht/E. Mandel/I. Wallerstein, New Findings in Long Wave research. London 1992). The approach goes back to ideas of his mentor Hans Mottek and his own analysis in his doctorat about the end of the Great depression in Germany in Summer 1932.
The political lesson would be twofold: In general, I'm quite sure, there is no automatic decline of Capitalism. There are inherent mechnisms of restoration of accumulation. The point is not - as in many leftist views - that the revolution is a result of the stopp in accumumlationm, but the other way round. There are different types of Crisis, deeper, and more normal crises. And the change for radical change is different too.
The actual lesson, I'm not as sure about: It looks a little bit, as if the long decline of the 70s came to an end. Not in every corner of the world, but we have to take the rise of chinese capitalism and the restauration of an all over european capitalism serious. May be, that information technology without a new energy production technology is not enough. But it was enough for bringing down the soviet union and re-enlarging the geopolitical sphere of ca pitalism on huge scale. And even about the industriaö strength of the US I'm not as sceptical as many on the list. One example: There are only two big producers of commercial airplanes: Boing and Airbus.
This is not about cutting down radical ideas. It is about something different:
“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” (“The Art of War” by Sun Tzu)
Of course knowledge about the enemy can only complement, not replace the knowledge about ourselves.
Sebastian
________________________________________________________________________ AOL eMail auf Ihrem Handy! Ab sofort können Sie auch unterwegs Ihre AOL email abrufen. Registrieren Sie sich jetzt kostenlos.