Leo, you are correct that Lou should not have characterized your views.
Please don't throw fuel on the fire.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 09:49:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > There
is only one way to accurately describe the characterization of my >
position by Louis Proyect reproduced below: intellectually dishonest. It >
deliberately misrepresents what I said in order to create a straw position
to > argue against, and then throws in a few 'ad hominem' political >
characterizations of me for good measure. > > I said, after a review of a
rather extensive body of South African and > Marxist literature on the
subject which Proyect has continually ignored > throughout this thread and
about which he apparently and happily knows not a > thing: > << To ask the
question, therefore, "Was apartheid South Africa capitalist or >
pre-capitalist?", is to reveal a fundamentalist dualism which is
uninformed > by the actual workings of the South African economy and
social formation. It > is like asking the question, "What was the nature
of the anti-apartheid > struggle -- a class struggle or national/racial
liberation struggle?" It was > both. The capitalist sector or mode of
production was clearly hegemonic, but > it existence did not preclude
pre-capitalist sectors. Far from it, it > specifically relied on those
sectors. And one can not understand race and > nationality in South Africa
without an appreciation of its articulation to > class, or class without
an appreciation of its articulation to race and > nationality. >> > >
Proyect simply makes that position into the one he wants to argue against,
> and proceeds on his merry way. My statement that the South African
social > formation was an articulated combination of capitalist and
pre-capitalist > modes of production, with the capitalist mode being
hegemonic, becomes its > virtual opposite: "the core of the South African
economy has been > pre-capitalist." He manages this by imputing to me the
bizarre position that > the diamond and gold mining industries were
pre-capitalist, which he can only > do by ignoring my comments about the
importance of migrant labor and the > reserves/Bantustans in apartheid --
comments which made it clear that it was > the reserve/Bantustan areas
where pre-capitalist, pre-colonial, virtually > subsistence modes of
production continued. The articulation of those > pre-capitalist modes of
production with capitalist production is only too > clear, as these areas
provided the 'cheap labor' for the mines and for > industry. Apartheid's
legal disenfranchisement of Africans from South African > citizenship,
restricting their legal status to reserves/Bantustans; its legal >
exclusion of Africans from urban areas, giving them only temporary >
residential rights in townships and worksite dormitories for migrant
labor; > the apartheid 'color bars' in industry, reserving the best paid,
highest > skill positions for whites; its efforts to build up and sustain
ethnic group, > as opposed to national, consciousness around
reserves/Bantustans -- all of > this points to the salience of the
articulation of these different modes of > production, and to the
articulation of race and class. > > Unlike Proyect, I do not assume that
one can determine the value of an > analysis by characterizing it as
'Marxist' or 'non-Marxist' or > 'post-Marxist.' All of the literature I
cited was self-consciously within the > Marxist tradition. It was not
without its faults, but on the subject of the > nature of the South
African social formation, and of the interrelationship > between race and
class within that formation, it was quite good and to the > point. It
would well behoove Proyect to actually read some of it before he >
continues his pontification of a pre-given line which can be applied
anywhere > without reference to actual historical contexts. > > << Louis
Proyect: > Leo refers to "entire sectors of the economy which remained
pre-capitalist". > Assuming he is referring to gold and diamond mining,
then we are left with a > rather unambiguous statement that the core of
modern South Africa's economy > has been "pre-capitalist". This was the
answer I was expecting sooner or > later. Since Leo is not a Marxist, it
is difficult to figure out whether this > is some kind of fancy
post-Marxism he is using or the kind of old-school > Marxism that Jim
Devine and Yoshie appeal to. In any case, it seems 100 > percent wrong
whatever it is. I wonder if Jim Devine and Yoshie agree with > Leo. >> > >
Leo Casey > United Federation of Teachers > 260 Park Avenue South > New
York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869) > > Power concedes nothing
without a demand. > It never has, and it never will. > If there is no
struggle, there is no progress. > Those who profess to favor freedom, and
yet deprecate agitation are men who > want crops without plowing the
ground. They want rain without thunder and > lightning. They want the
ocean without the awful roar of its waters. > -- Frederick Douglass -- > >
> >
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
