A DEBATE ON ‘CONTEMPORARY CAPITALISM’

I must correct the report appearing in the November 29 issue of THE NEWSLETTER of the week-end school held at Oxford by the National Association of Labour Student Organizations.

The impression given by your report is that, in the debate on ‘Contemporary Capitalism’, John Saville (co-editor of the New Reasoner) and I took up opposed positions; it is implied that Saville sided with those who see a recent fundamental! change in the nature ‘of capitalism.

So far as I know this is not Saville’s opinion: his article in the third issue of the New Reasoner on the Welfare State scems to me to be in fact one of the best pieces of work in refuting such ideas.

In the debate at Oxford Saville laid the main emphasis on the need for a thoroughgoing analysis of modern capitalism on the scale of Marx’s ‘Capital’, and stressed that without such -a scientific analysis the work of socialists would have less basis for success.

This I did not disagree with at all: my argument was that all those theorics which argue for a liberal self-reform by capitalism ignore the political realities of class struggle and -international economic and political ties.

The basic explanation of these factors is still possible only from the point of view of Marxism.

If there were differences between Saville and mein this discussion they were differences of emphasis only.

I have no doubt that had the question been pursued we would have found plenty to differ about, but your correspondent is entirely wrong in giving the impression that Saville took the line of reformists such as Strachey and Crosland, and that I attacked him as one of their supporters.

Cliff Staughter [Our correspondent writes:

T regret that the. necessary compression of an “entire morn- .

ing’s discussion into. two brief interpretative sentences has ‘appeared to give a false picture of the argument between Saville and Slaughter at the NALSO school.

In his articles and lectures Saville has stated his disagrcement with the Right-wing and Centre reformists, and he did so at Oxford.

However, he also reiterates that the Left is bankrupt of ideas and lays the main emphasis on the need for a new analysis of present-day capitalist society before a path forward can be found.

Whatever Saville’s private opinions may be, this approach and his failure to take a positive attitude to current struggles suggest to his hhearcrs that he believes the classical ‘ideas of socialism are no longer. relevant to present problems. , “In this ‘sense Slaughter’s defence of Marxism and the frequent illustration. of his. argument by, reference ta -the - present struggles of the working class refuted what seemed to this observer the negative arguments advanced by Saville, even if Slaughter personally intended only a difference of emphasis.] Published by Tho Newsletter, 180 Clapham High St. London, SW4.