Apartheid the background (1985)

From the October 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following article first appeared as a chapter in our pamphlet The Problem of Racism: A Socialist Analysis that we published in 1966. We republish it today not only because it outlines the historical background to the situation in South Africa but also because recent events there bear out our analysis that apartheid, far from being in the interests of the South African capitalist class, was an attempt to go against the logic of the capitalist system and so doomed to collapse sooner or later.

A number of changes — all in the same direction — have occurred since the article was written: the virtual disappearance of the industrial colour bar, the legalisation and recognition of African trade unions, the emergence of the Progressive Federal Party as the main white opposition party in place of the United Party, the admission of Coloureds and Indians to some, albeit a paltry, say in national political matters, the abolition of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. All these changes represent victories for the logic of capitalism — "the market is colour blind", or better "exploitation is colour blind" — over the system of apartheid. And now sections of the South African capitalist class are calling for negotiations with African nationalists to bring about political reform.

The present population of the Republic of South Africa are descendants of people who came from many parts of Africa. Europe and Asia. The latest census figures, those of 1960. show that out of a population of 16 million some 11 million (68 per cent) are Bantu or Africans. 3 million (19 per cent) Whites. 1 l/z million (10 per cent) Coloureds and nearly half a million (3 per cent) Asians, mainly Indians. The principal race problem arises over the relations between Whites and non-Whites, especially the Africans, though this is not the only race problem as the African anti-Indian riots in Durban in 1949 show.

White people first came to South Africa in 1652 when the Dutch East India Company established a post at the Cape. Settlers, mainly Dutch, came not long after. Within a few years slavery was also introduced. The original Hottentot people were not actually enslaved but were reduced to a servile status by various laws which forced them to work for the Whites. The slaves in South Africa came from many places: West and East Africa. Madagascar. India. Ceylon, Malaya. In the early days there was much intermarrying between Whites and Hottentots and slaves and eventually emerged the group now known as the Cape Coloureds. In the 150 years after the original settlement a pattern emerged: the whites were the masters and people of colour the servants. This colour division marked off groups that were almost castes, and the habit of thought became deeply rooted and still survives. In this period there was a self- sufficient pastoral economy with sheep and cattle farming, which required wide ranges of land and led to expansion inland. But as the White farmers or Boers moved inland they met Bantu tribes coming in from the north for much the same reasons. There were clashes, the first major one being that of 1779.

A further complication was introduced in 1806 when the British government finally acquired control of the area from the Dutch. The new governors tried to introduce an efficient governmental machine by streamlining taxation, the law courts, land registration. etc. They also interfered with the traditional master-servant relationship. In 1828 the Coloureds were given the same legal status as Whites and, in 1834, the slaves were freed. In 1820 the first immigrants from Britain arrived. As a result of these measures many Boers, together with their servants, moved inland in the Great Trek and away from British rule setting up the two Republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. As the Boers advanced they came increasingly into conflict with the Bantu tribes, and generally, but not always, the Boers triumphed. In doing so they did not drive the Bantu back before them; these Africans were reduced to being landless squatters and labourers on European held land. Denied access to the land the Africans became entirely dependent on their Boer masters. In 1877 the British government intervened, annexing the Transvaal and setting up Native Reserves. After a revolt four years later the Boers achieved independence under British sovereignty. The Orange Free State was now also independent, the territory having been first annexed by the British in 1848 and abandoned six years later.

The Indians were introduced into South Africa in the 1860s as indentured labourers on the sugar plantations of Natal. When their contracts expired many stayed on while others came of their own accord.

In 1867 occurred the discovery of diamonds which was to transform the South African economy. It was not long before diamond mining fell into the hands of big capitalists like Cecil Rhodes. The independent diggers were reduced to wage-workers; skilled workers were introduced from Europe and America, while the unskilled work was done by Africans. When gold was discovered in the Transvaal 17 years later the same pattern emerged: whites got the skilled high-wage jobs and blacks the unskilled low-wage jobs. This was not purely a matter of discrimination as the whites were the more skilled but eventually the pattern became fixed. The caste division of the farm was introduced into industry.

The coming of capitalism to South Africa had a serious effect on the self-sufficient pastoral communities of the Boers. In the Transvaal under President Kruger they did all they could to prevent capitalism breaking up their way of life. In the end it came to war in 1899. This war, which lasted for three years, was a classic imperialist war with gold as the prize for British imperialism. Although the Boer Republics were incorporated on equal terms into the Union of South Africa in 1909, anti-British, anti-imperialist Afrikaner Nationalism survived.

The advent of capitalism not only had its effect on the Africans, turning many into urban wage-workers, but had a similar effect on the Boers. Many became landless themselves, reduced like the Africans to being squatters on European-held land. After the first world war many drifted to the towns creating a poor white’ problem. Unlike the workers who had been imported into the diamond and gold mines these Whites were unskilled and unused to industrial discipline; left to compete with Africans on equal terms they would have been reduced to the level of destitution of the Africans. The government adopted various measures to deal with this problem. One of these measures was the extension of the industrial Colour Bar. Some skilled and semi-skilled jobs were legally barred to Africans. Jobs were reserved for Whites in the State-run railways and public services.

Striking by Africans had been a criminal offence since 1911. The pass laws, the beginnings of residential segregation and other restrictions date from this period. In 1936 the African voters on the Cape Province electoral roll were removed to a separate roll. The various inter-war governments were, in effect, trying to protect white society’ from the effects of capitalism. In other words, the pre-industrial farm ideology of the Whites as masters and Blacks as servants was surviving and reacting on capitalism. At the time most of the capitalist class were prepared to go along with this policy as segregation and the colour bar were not pursued in a systematic fashion but were a series of patchwork measures not ruling out change in the future. Some did protest. They protested at State interference in the market. They pointed out how wasteful and unprofitable it was to deny Africans access to skilled jobs. They protested at having to pay wages on a colour basis rather than on the quality of the labour-power.

The capitalists and their economists took the same orthodox liberal line as does W.H. Hutt in his "The Economics of the Colour Bar’’, published in 1964. In a chapter entitled "The Market is Colour-Blind”. Hutt puts the capitalist case against colour and other forms of prejudice quite plainly.- "When we buy a product in the free market, we do not ask: What was the colour of the person who made it? Nor do we ask about the sex, race, nationality, religion or political opinions of the producer. All we are interested in is whether it is good value for money" (page 173).

The present Afrikaner Nationalist government was first elected in May 1948 with a race policy of preserving the domination of the white people come what may. The somewhat haphazard segregationist policies of previous governments was succeeded by a policy of ruthless apartheid, social and political. While previous governments had preferred mainly to rely on custom to separate the races’, the Nationalists believed in using the law and the full power of the State machine. In implementing their policies the Nationalist government, amid protests from the conservative opposition United Party, has shown scant regard for the traditional parliamentary procedure or for academic freedom or for established civil liberties. The so-called Communist Party was banned in 1950.

The names of the Acts passed since 1948 show the pattern of apartheid: Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, Population Registration Act, Group Areas Act. In 1956 the Coloureds were removed from the Cape Province electoral roll as the Africans had been 20 years previously. Other acts provided for a separate, inferior education for Africans, encouraged tribalism and restored the powers of the chiefs in the reserves. The Bantu Self-Government Act of 1959 provided for the establishment of so-called Bantustans. The first of these has been in the Transkei where elections took place in 1963.

The Nationalists have enforced their policy with a logic that is sometimes cruel and sometimes ridiculous, as in the reported case of the bleaching of two Chinese women before moving them to a White hospital ward — or perhaps not so ridiculous as when Japanese are classified as White so as not to embarrass visiting Japanese businessmen. Today the non-Whites live apart from the Whites; are provided with separate entrances, park benches, buses, railway compartments, schools, beaches, etc. The African is given an education which does not allow him to compete on equal terms with Whites in the labour market; he is forbidden to strike; his trade unions are not recognised; he has to carry a degrading pass and is always subject to the petty arrogance of the police. By and large the non-White, and especially the African, is inferior socially, economically and politically. This policy has not been enforced without resistance.

In 1952 a large-scale civil disobedience campaign ended in violent rioting — in 1956 began the notorious Treason Trials. In 1960 at an anti-pass laws demonstration at Sharpeville police opened fire on an unarmed crowd killing and wounding many. The provisions of the Suppression of Communism Acts have been freely applied against all advocates of racial equality. Other Acts, such as the Sabotage Act. have made great inroads into traditional civil liberties.

In South Africa a government deriving its inspiration and programme from the racial attitudes of a pre-industrial society is trying to force a policy of racial separation on an economy which is becoming increasingly dependent on non-European labour. Today it is no longer only a primary producer of diamonds and gold; it has also developed other secondary industries. In both mining and other industries the bulk of the workers are non-White, and these make up the majority of the population of most of the large cities. A permanent non-White urban factory proletariat has been created.

The tendency of capitalism everywhere is to reduce all previous social divisions to the one great division between owners and non-owners of the means of production and distribution. In South Africa it is working against the traditional white/non-white caste division. The Nationalist government is trying to prevent this effect of capitalism working itself out. The capitalist class itself appears to be perturbed at the restrictions that apartheid places on its profit-making activities; it wants to pay wages according to skills not skin colour; it wants to train Africans as skilled workers to meet the acute and ever-growing shortage of skilled labour in South Africa (indeed there is evidence that non-whites are already illegally doing jobs reserved for whites).

This appears to be happening also on the State-run railways and in the public services. The Times (23 November 1964), under the headlines 'Manpower shortage causes breach in apartheid: job reservation by colour unworkable', reported that as a result of shortages "and apparently with the tacit approval of the Cabinet — non-White labour is beginning to infiltrate into these public services. The railway colour bar has already been breached in Durban where non-Whites (mainly Indian) are being employed in semi-skilled work. They are to do rivet-heating and coach-washing, jobs formerly reserved for white staff'. Others "are already employed on shunting operations without either official approval or protest".

In 1959 a number of leading capitalists broke with the opposition United Party because of its ineffectual opposition to apartheid and formed their own Progressive Party with the slogan merit not colour'. Unfortunately for them the White, mainly Afrikaans, working class is solidly behind the Nationalists. Should the Progressives or the more radical Liberals triumph then the main effect would be to simplify the class situation in South Africa. Pre-industrial caste attitudes would be pushed aside and the working class (of all colours and races) would stand opposed to the capitalist class (of all colours and races). In this respect a class of wealthy Indians has long been in existence; wealthy Africans are also beginning to appear. Thus the ground would be cleared for the final struggle between these two classes.

The present policy is a bid to preserve the values and attitudes of the old agricultural order. Afrikaner Nationalism tried once before to hold back capitalism when gold was discovered in the Transvaal; they failed that time — and. soon or later — they will fail this time too. By trying to divide the Africans through tribalism, by building up vast internal security forces and by repressive legislation the Nationalists may ward off the inevitable for a time. But sooner or later apartheid will go; the question is when and how. Although the Progressives and Liberals still hope for a peaceful solution, many of the African Nationalists have come to accept that violence is the only way. In any event capitalism must triumph in South Africa, peacefully or violently.

Blogger's Note:

As mentioned previously on the blog, sadly, the text of this pamphlet is not on the SPGB website. I'm not sure what happened. 

Does race exist (1999)

Book Review from the August 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Racialization of America by Yehudi Webster. St Martins Press. 

In the pub after a meeting a socialist was arguing with a man with dreadlocks. “You’re not black,” he said. “Yes, I am,” the man replied. “No,” the socialist went on, “you are no more black than I’m white. We’re both human beings.” Yehudi Webster, the author of this book, would have appreciated this exchange; indeed, he became acquainted with the Socialist Party and our ideas when he was in Britain before moving on to America.

Webster’s basic argument is that the all-pervading classification of the population in America into “whites” and “blacks” is logically absurd, scientifically unsound, self-fulfilling, counter-productive and in fact racist. There are of course anatomical differences between human beings—millions of them in fact—but it is not nature which decides which of these are to be regarded as significant for purposes of classifying people into so-called “races”. That is done by humans and, in this case, on a completely arbitrary basis. Races don’t exist in nature but are an artificial politically-motivated creation.

A question on race was first included in the US Census of 1890, at a time when segregation was being consolidated and given a legal basis. But, nowadays, racial classification is championed more by people who consider themselves anti-racists than by open racists. Sociologists, educationalists and others routinely carry out studies based on comparing the education, health, level of employment, unemployment, wages, housing, etc of those they classify as “whites” and “blacks”. In fact, many universities now have special departments devoted to studying “race relations”. But, argues Webster, as this classification is scientifically absurd, it creates or at least perpetuates artificial “racial” divisions amongst the population by encouraging people to think of themselves as “whites” and “blacks” who are homogeneous groups competing with each other for access to limited resources. In other words, it encourages “racial consciousness” and so racism.

Some partisans of racial classification for social studies purposes, realising that the definition of races on the basis of anatomical characteristics is scientifically unjustifiable, seek to define race more in terms of culture than of anatomy; hence their talk of “ethnic groups” rather than races. But this, says Webster, is even more racist as it posits a link between a person’s psychology and behaviour and their supposed race. And of course, as all humans are capable of acquiring any culture, no particular culture can be, or is, exclusive to one supposed race.

Others, some imagining themselves to be Marxist, try to combine race and class and see those they call blacks as a super-exploited fraction of the working class. Webster has no trouble demonstrating the contradictions of this view. All he does is to point to the existence of “black” capitalists and better-paid “black” workers, thus showing that those “blacks” who are below the poverty line cannot be said to be poor just because they are black. In fact, in absolute numbers, there are more “white” people in America below the poverty line than there are “black” people. Clearly, then, poverty is not due to racism but to some other cause.

Although Webster shows himself to be well aware of the Marxian theory of class and class consciousness—at one point he denies the existence of a so-called middle class—apparently he no longer agrees with a class analysis of society (he sees capitalism as an irrational human social arrangement which prevents humans from living in a human way). Nevertheless, he still realises that a class analysis and a race (even a race/class) analysis of society are quite incompatible. Either you analyse society and history in terms of class or you analyse them in terms of race, but it is not possible to analyse them in terms of both.

This is why we as Socialists are so opposed not just to racism but to racial classification (we refused to answer this question when it was introduced, for the first time, intoBlogg the British Census in 1991). Both encourage racial consciousness while our task is to encourage class consciousness and, once classes have disappeared, a universalist human consciousness. We want people to think of themselves as members of a world working class and as members of a single human race, citizens of the world, Earthpeople, rather than as British, America, French or black or white.

Is Webster, then, denying that there is such a thing as racism and discrimination against people with black skin? Not at all, but he sees this as but one example of the many ways in which some humans treat or have treated other humans in an inhuman way. Those who oppose such discrimination should, he says, oppose all other inhuman treatments too and strive for a world in which all humans would treat each other in a human way. The answer to “racial” discrimination is not a multi-racial society in which each “race” would get exactly the same treatment (an equal percentage of unemployment, of people living below the poverty line, in bad housing, in bad health, etc) but a completely non-racial society from which the very concept of race would have disappeared. In his view, the first step towards such a society should be the ending of all racial classification, for whatever purpose, both by governments and by social scientists.

Adam Buick

Blogger's Note:

Link to a C-Span discussion from 1993 which features Yehudi Webster discussing the book.

Election race issue (1978)

From the March 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is a spectre haunting the politicians—the spectre of elections. And when that ghost walks, the politicians suddenly remember that there are votes to be won and lost. They then recall that their future jobs depend on workers' votes. So as the doubtful day gets nearer, the politicians scurry about looking for vote-catchers. One such vote-catcher could be the immigration issue; which is why Mrs. Thatcher has recently tripped over it.

Race and immigration serve a double purpose for capitalism. First, they can be used as straight-forward vote winners for the politicians. By trading on the prejudices that capitalism and its politicians have themselves instilled into the working class the politician hopes to suck in the votes of irrationality. Second, the race issue has at least one important function — it provides a "easy answer" to the difficulties of capitalism and so turns attention away from the problem. The result is that instead of the real issue, Socialism or capitalism, confronting the electorate at election time, the issue of race is thrown up. While the workers are busy blaming each other for their problems (the whites blame the blacks, the blacks the jews, the hews the Irish, the Irish the protestants etc, etc.) instead of seeking the real causes, capitalism continues in safety.

Crude Attempt

Mrs. Thatcher in her speech on Granada TV (30/1/78) has made a crude attempt to steal the National Front's clothes in a search for votes. Her remarks caused a political storm;—so what did she say? She began with a suggestion that by the end of the century there would be 4 million people of the "new Commonwealth and Pakistan" in this country. Note the double talk from the start. She is supposed to be discussing immigration—she is actually discussing coloured immigration. But she knows that of she said there will be 4 million blacks or coloureds here, that would lose her votes. So she disguises the prejudice with the words "new commonwealth." Who is deceived?

Mrs. Thatcher continued in her best stockbroker voice: "Now that is an awful lot and I think it means that people are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture . . . (Transcript in The Times 31/1/78). It is worth stopping on this passage for a minute. Note that Mrs. Thatcher says that people are afraid. Later in the interview she said: "We (presumably the Royal "we" means she is aiming for the crown as well as the PM?) are not in politics to ignore people's worries: we are in politics to deal with them." What Mrs. Thatcher is saying is that she accepts the prejudices that capitalism creates, and far from pointing out their causes, she is going to do her best to trade on them. This is emphasised by her ridiculous phrase about being "swamped" by different cultures. First, how 4 million could "swamp" some 55 million is quite baffling. Second, note again the double talk of "different cultures." What different culture there is, soon vanishes : coloured children are growing up on baked beans, Coronation Street and skate boards just like their white brethren.

Cultural Relations

The ultimate reason why immigration must cease, claims Mrs. Vote-catcher, is "that if we get them coming in at that rate people will turn round and we shall not have good race relations with those who are here." This is of course the ultimate sick-joke. People are afraid says Mrs. Thatcher, (something which The Times editorial of the next day ignorantly echoes). Of what are they afraid? That we are not directly told—presumably by inference it is of this culture that is going to swamp them. But the one way this fear (if it is the fear) would be broken down is just the opposite of Mrs. Thatcher's panacea. If there is fear, it is of the unknown; of the different life-styles so called. If there were more immigration, not less, people would mix more with those different cultures and by force of assimilation those fears could vanish. Besides, coloured immigrants are soon absorbed into the "culture" of the council estate, the production line, the office routine, the dole queue, the worker's daily drudgery that Mrs. Thatcher is so anxious to preserve intact for the true blue British working class.

One thing Mrs. Thatcher has done, is to bring the immigration issue squarely onto the election platform. So the Labour Party, equally desperate for the votes of both the immigrants and the racially prejudiced, rush in trying to ride both horses at once, and fail to stay in the saddle of either. The Labour Party's racialist credentials are of course well known. Mr. Callaghan was the Home Secretary at the time the previous Labour Government passed the notorious Act preventing British passport holders from East Africa entering the country—the first time a British government had passed legislation openly discriminating on the grounds of colour. No sooner had the last echo of Mrs. Thatcher's speech died away when the current Home Secretary hurries out figures to reassure the racialist Labour voters. "Immigration into the United Kingdom fell sharply last year according to provisional figures released yesterday by Mr. Rees." (The Times 4/2/78) Mr. Rees went on to say that in 1977 an estimate 70,000 immigrants were accepted in this country compared with over 80,000 in 1976 and over 82,000 in 1975. The implication is that the reduction will continue under a Labour government. Still reaching for the other horse, however, some government ministers and Labour Party members rant about "commitments" and "humanitarian grounds" etc. The implication intended here is that they are in favour of immigration and are "entitled" to the immigrant vote. In the same Times report Mr. Healey accuses Mrs. Thatcher of trying yo grab the Alf Garnett vote. Funny that though—it was Mr. Healey's party which quietly accepted the support of Alf Garnett's political incarnation—Enoch Powell—at the first 1974 election.

Economics

Ultimately immigration is not about race, colour, culture, or swamps; it is about economics. How many workers do the capitalists need? If there is a shortage, as there was in the 1950s and to an extent in the 1960s, capitalist politicians (Powell included) will tell the world about the delights of British wage-slavery to workers of all colours. If there is a surplus working population, with unemployment, as at present, capitalists will seek ways to halt immigration and even talk about "repatriation" of its surplus workers. The former Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, understands all this and is quite open in his hypocrisy. In a report of a radio interview he gave he says of the previous Conservative government: "We saw no reason why we should allow in a large number of immigrants unless we NEEDED THEM FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE and, at the moment, we do not." (The Times 1/2/78—emphasis added). Very true—capitalism doesn't really care about colour—it cares about profitability. For that it needs workers of any colour. When it has too many of these expendable creatures, it puts some on the waste tip (the unemployed) and to try to ensure those tips don't get too unsightly and spoil the landscape unduly, it shuts the door on others.

A cynical business yes—but the politics of capitalism cannot work in any other way.

Ronnie Warrington