Re: Brenner debate? (fwd)

I'm not sure what the debate is -- I thought Brenner's argument was
neo-Schumeterian.  He proposes that the cause of economic instability is
the emergence of Europe and Japan as competitors of the U.S. since the
1960s.  This seems like a perfectly reasonable analysis, but it didn't
strike me as tremendously original or as having crucial implications for
praxis.

Some (ie, Monthly Review) have cricized it as focusing too much on
inter-capitalist competition as opposed to capital-labor conflict driving
change, which seems like a more theological argument than anything else.
(Brenner's response to his MR critics, again, was perfectly reasonable.)

What other debate and/or important issues am I missing?

RH