The Radical View of Australian Capitalism: A Reply

Abstract

In his comment on my article, Orthodox and Radical Interpreta tions of the Development of Australian Capitalism, Tim Rowse has chosen to concentrate upon my discussion of the dilemma facing con temporary radical writers. As he has isolated this particular aspect from the article's wider context, it appears necessary to restate my original purpose, which was to explain the different interpretations of the various authors concerned with the development of Australian capitalism. In the process of this exercise it became apparent that the New Left's1 attempt to discredit the earlier radical tradition was not securely based upon empirical research. I argued that, having rejected the historical research of Brian Fitzpatrick and having failed to replace it with their own detailed empirical study, the Australian New Left faced a serious dilemma: where should they seek the 'concrete realities' of the Australian economic system? I concluded that: 'The wisdom of their present solution, in turning for support to the orthodox camp, is highly doubt ful', because of their prior rejection of orthodox economic theory. Of course, the dilemma will be resolved once a detailed empirical Marxist study of the emergence of Australian capitalism is undertaken; an event to which I look forward. My intention was, therefore, to be critically constructive, not, as Rowse has stated, to 'accuse' Rowley and McFarlane of 'intellectual inconsistency'. Rowse appears to agree with my main point, that a major Marxist empirical study of Australian capitalism is necessary. To this end he has outlined a possible framework for a study of this nature and has admitted that the various writings of Rowley and McFarlane 'do not go as far as they could' in this direction. He disagrees, however, that these authors have employed the conclusions of orthodox economists to a significant extent and he attempts to justify what use they have made of these conclusions by arguing that: (a) orthodox historical scholarship is superior to that of Fitzpatrick; (b) unlike Fitzpatrick, orthodox economic historians are looking in the correct direction even if for the wrong reasons; and (c) it is perfectly valid for Marxists to employ the conclusions of non-Marxists, because the former can 'see past these bland phrases' and 'are not bemused by those historical chimeras'. It is with these matters that the remainder of this reply will deal.