Paul Phillips writes: >I think there is some confusion and misunderstanding about long wave/swing theory. The term wave or swing was substituted for cycle precisely because of the debate over whether the process was sinusoidal (cyclical) or sigmoidal (series of upswings followed by stagnations with different and non-endogeous causes). As I understand Mandel, the upswing was induced by exogenous causes (technological change or more usually, war) while the stagnation phase was endogenous caused by the falling rate of profit a la Marx.< That's a good distinction. It moves us away from the usual bit about long waves being "natural" so that we can predict that the economy will recover over the next 25 years (or whatever) no matter what we do or what policies the gov't pursues. It also incorporates the Marxian idea that there are internal contradictions in capitalist prosperity. >For the Schumpeterians, the upswing was caused by major innovations -- technological or market (e.g. imperialism/ change in labour process, etc.) Others saw in it batches of invention accumulating until a critical mass was achieved at which the innovation of one brought a flood of new products/processes/technology unto the market promoting bursts of investment etc. (The principle is that of the septic tank.)< This seems iffy. >Others (Forrester I think) approach it more, as I understand it, from the Sante Fe approach based on swings in capital formation, if I remember correctly, tied to long term infrastructure investment. (a kind of long term accelerator.)< iffy, again. >...However, I think the most useful variant of long swing theory is that developed by the French regulation school and the American Social Structures of Accumulation school, both of which have strong marxist underpinnings. For statistical evidence see Gordon, Edwards and Reich, Segmented Work, Divided Workers or the Van Dijn volume, The Long Wave. For a succinct statement of the SSA/ Marxian theory of "stages of accumulation", see David Gordon, "Stages of Accumulation and Long Economic Cycles" in T. Hopkins and I Wallerstein, eds, PROCESSES OF THE WORLD->SYSTEM, Sage 1980.< I prefer these types of theories to the technological-determinist theories of long cycles. However, when I teach using Bowles & Edwards' book, UNDERSTANDING CAPITALISM, I emphasize the changes between the cycles much more than the cycles themselves. I also have a lot of criticisms of the Regulation & SSA theories. My critique of the Regulation school shows up in my article on the origins of the Great Depression, the web page of which I've posted to pen-l many times. (In simple terms, I found that Mark Glick & Bob Brenner's critique of Regulation theory in NEW LEFT REVIEW to be largely valid.) >Louis wonders why we spend our time and effort investigating such things. Well, capitalism is a relationship that is in constant flux and unless we understand how and why it is changing, we will not be very effective in opposing it or countering its effects on people. After all, isn't that why Marx developed his whole theoretical analysis of the origin and the laws of motion of capitalism?< right. We need to understand the world in order to change it. My understanding doesn't rely on long swings, however. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
