1 ^t Jkij^cJL^ Editorial Note THERE is a widely held view that in advanced capitalist countries financial and industrial interests are at variance and that the adoption of Keynesian measures, with their accent on cheap motley and low interest rates for maintaining a high level of activity and employment, marked a triumph of industrial over financial interests. Moreover, since the working class benefits from high employment, Keynesianism, according to this view, represents a convergence of workers' interests with those of industrial capitalists. It is the financial or the rentier interests alone that are supposed to be the villains of the piece. They alone have a stake in monetarist policies whose theoretical basis is entirely dubious and which only serve the narrow sectional interests of 'high finance' at the expense of recession and mass unemployment. A corollary of this view is that as long as financial interests do not once again gain ascendancy, a capitalist economy can remain close to full employment through the adoption of Keynesian measures which do not intrinsically give rise to any crisis. An inflationary crisis, for instance, may arise in a Keynesian regime, but it has nothing to do with the Keynesian measures themselves. Hence it warrants not Amal Sanyal's lead article in this number addresses itself to a critique of this particular view, which, he argues, is consistent neither with the reality of capitalism nor with the content of the