Re: Re: S. Africa/mode of prod. debate

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

>It's not a matter of typology but a question of historical
>transformation.  Everyone here agrees that the area that came to be
>South Africa wasn't always capitalist; again, everyone here agrees
>that South Africa is now capitalist.
>
>Yoshie

Not everybody agrees in the same way. I made the point repeatedly that
South Africa was capitalist when the workers were conscripted and when
political coercion rather than market forces dictated. This is a CRUCIAL
distinction in the dependency theory debates and one which now seems all
too easily swept under the rug. As I said the reason for this is that it is
easy to deem 17th century Peru, Bolivia and Mexico as precapitalist because
men rode around on horses, called themselves Don Fernando, used whips on
the peons, wasted gold on doorknobs and candlesticks and practically
screamed out for intervention by Zorro. On the other hand, South Africa was
a joint British-Dutch colony and the men wore sensible coveralls, prayed in
modest Protestant churches, believed in soil improvement and pinched
pennies. So this was a place where capitalism might have sunk roots despite
the fact that the CLASS RELATIONS WERE IDENTICAL TO MEXICO, ETC. In other
words, the criterion is not hard and fast and based on strict economic
considerations. Therefore, it seems made of mush.

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/