Pen-L'ers, Greider implicitly seems to be arguing for some sort of global Keynesianism here, which if it were to be instituted would require that social movements both nationally and internationally put pressure on their states to reverse neo-liberal export-oriented policies. What do pen-l folks make of the following remark: everything else being equal, global Keynesianism is more environmentally benign than global neo-liberalism and export-orientationism (not in the least b/c overcapacity and deflation prematurely idles plant, equipment, infrastructure, which equals waste), but global Keynesianism is hardly a salutary end for a left informed by ecological socialist principles. Nowhere in his NYT article does Greider talk about increased financing of public goods which can be consumed in common (like parks), only about redistributing surplus value in a "fair" way, ostensibly increasing the basket of goods an average household can afford. Three PC's in every house and two SUV's in every garage. John Gulick Ph. D. Candidate Sociology Graduate Program University of California-Santa Cruz (415) 643-8568 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
