Wolpe, 1976, The White Working Class...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Montana]
On: 03 April 2015, At: 14:53

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Economy and Society

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reso20
The White Working class in South Africa

Harold Wolpe
Published online: 24 May 2006.
To cite this article: Harold Wolpe (1976) The White Working class in South Africa, Economy and Society, 5:2, 197-240, DOI:
10.1080/03085147600000008
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147600000008
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be
liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of
the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The 'white working
class' in South Africa
Harold Wolpe
Abstract
In general, the analysis of classes in the literature on South
Africa begins from the political and ideological levels and not
from the concept of the mode of production. The effect of this
is to obscure the nature of the class structure and changes in it
and leads t o a neglect of shifts in class alliances in the class
struggle. In this paper, concepts of the 'white working class'
commonly found in the literature are critically analysed and an
alternative conceptualization which begins from the mode of
production is outlined. The paper ends with a brief analysis of
changes in the relationship between the white working class
Downloaded by [University of Montana] at 14:53 03 April 2015
and the state.
1. Introduction*
There is a virtual consensus in the literature on South Africa that no
alliance, either in the trade union or in the political sphere, is
possible between the African working class and the 'white working
class'. This common conclusion is based upon widely divergent
analyses of the class structure and, in particular, of the place of the
'white working-class' in that structure-indeed four, apparently
contradictory, accounts have been provided in the contemporary
literature.'
However, in none of these accounts is the discussion of the 'white
working-class' adequate; there is, in fact, a considerable conceptual
and empirical confusion in many of the texts and, not infrequently,
contradictory views are t o be found within the same text. A major
difficulty stems from the confusion and conflation of the economic,
political and ideological levels of analysis and this, as I shall show,
leads t o a mis-specification of the class structure and, most
importantly, precludes the analysis of changes both in the class
structure, and in the political alignments of different classes and
class fractions which are brought about by changes in the conditions
of the class struggle and by that struggle itself. This in turn leads to
the treatment of classes and fractions of classes as fixed entities
standing in invariant relations t o one another. The outcome of this is
198 Harold Wolpe
that it becomes impossible t o pose the question of alterations in class

alliances-both those of the working-class and those of the dominant
classes.
The purpose of this paper is, first, t o draw out the shortcomings of
the existing accounts of the 'white working-class' and then t o offer
an outline of a more satisfactory analysis which begins, but does not
end, with the identification of classes at the level of production.
I I The 'white working class' in the contemporary literature

This section of the paper begins with an attempt t o set out and
clarify a number of different approaches t o the 'white working class'
and, in the course of this, t o make some critical comments, where
appropriate, on aspects which are specific t o each approach. The
section ends with a brief discussion of more general problems in the
existing analyses.
1. Classes and class fractions or strata:

In a large body of the literature, the analysis proceeds on the basis,
often merely implied, that the division of the South African working
class, into black and white fractions (strata), amounts to nothing
more than the specific form which the fractionalization of the
working class, common t o all capitalist modes of production, has
taken in the South African social formation. That is t o say, while in
none of these accounts is the concept of 'working class' explicitly
defined, it is clearly assumed that what is referred t o as the 'white
working class', in some basic sense, stands in the same relationship to
capital as does the African working class-however, what this entails
is never elaborated but seems t o include non-ownership of the means
of production and a vague notion of 'exploitation'. (See, for
example, Simons and Simons (1969); Lerumo (1971); Turok
(1974); South African Communist Party (1962); Wolpe (1970),*
Legassick (1975a).2
From this perspective, the structured differentiation of the
working class in South Africa into black and white fractions is based,
primarily, firstly, upon the fact that, broadly speaking, skilled jobs
are the monopoly of white workers and unskilled and semi-skilled
jobs the preserve of African workers; and, secondly, upon an
extreme polarization of wages, with white workers clustered at the
top levels and African workers at the bottom levels of the wage
structure. What distinguishes South Africa from other capitalist
social formations, in this respect, is the convergence of the 'normal'
structural divisions within the working class (for example, the labour
aristocracy) with racial divisions. Thus, in South Africa, as
The 'white working class' in South Africa 199
elsewhere, the appearance of such fractions in no way affects the

relations of production as defined above-we have here simply the
emergence of fractions within the working class.3
The definition (at a relatively abstract level) of the common
relationship of white and black workers t o capital in terms of
non-ownership of the means of production and exploitation does
not, however, permit the conclusion, and it has not, in fact, been
concluded by any of the writers referred t o above, that the racially
divided fractions of the working class must inevitably become linked
by a common class ideology or engage in join trade union and
political struggles. On the contrary, although there are important
variations in the analyses offered by those writing from the
standpoint under discussion here, nevertheless, there is a general
agreement that the production and reproduction of the schisms
within the South African working class has been bound up with the
development of racist ideologies in the white working class, with
the struggles of the trade union organizations of the white workers,
not only against capital but also against African workers, and with
the formation of political alliances between the white working class
and fractions of both the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie. The
following passage from Simons and Sinzons (1 969: pp. 61 8-619 )

expresses sharply one such view of the disjunction between
economic class position, on the one hand, and ideology, trade union
and political practice on the other:
White labourism has been a primary cause of policies that incite

racial hostility, isolate colour groups, and dissolve class
consciousness in colour consciousness. The British immigrants
who founded the Transvaal labour movement early in the century
aspired to mastery over the African. Starting with the elementary
trade union plea for protection against labour dilution and unfair
competition, they absorbed the colour prejudices of the colonial
order and identified themselves with every attempt to keep
Africans and Asians in subjection. By means of trade union
combination, political pressure, strikes and physical violence,
they secured for white miners and artisans sheltered employment
which cut them off from their fellow African workers and filled
them with overwhelming racial pride and arrogance. The Labour
Party pandered to this sentiment, agitated for an all-white
franchise, and fought elections on a platform of white supremacy.
It was the Party's proud boast that it had been the first t o propose
total racial segregation. And indeed, by entering into a coalition
with Afrikaner nationalism in 1924, Labour enabled the
Nationalist party to take office and lay the foundations of
apartheid. (p.618-619)
200 Harold Wolpe
It is quite apparent that in the above passage the differentiation of

the working class into black and white fractions is attributed t o the
intervention of political and ideological 'factors7 in the economy.
While some of the other writers who also start from the concepts of
'class' and 'class fractions' have been at pains t o emphasize the
primary role of the capitalist class (and of the petty bourgeoisie (see
07Meara 1975)) in fractionalizing the working class (a consideration
entirely absent from the passage cited), they too analyse the process
in terms of the operation of political and economic factors on the
economy. It is essential t o stress, once more, that here the
intervention of the political and ideological in the economic
structure is not, in this analysis, such as t o affect the relations of
production, but only the distribution of skills, wages, status and so
forth within the working class. Perhaps this view can be summed up
in the following way: It is not differences in the relations of
production to capital which result in the division of the
working-class into black and white strata, but rather their
differential access t o political power and the resulting gains t o white
workers which generates this schism.
While the distinction drawn in this literature between class and
strata must be accepted as correct, the relationship between these

two elements is inadequately specified. This follows, on the one
hand, from the failure t o define the specificity of exploitation in the
capitalist mode of production and, on the other hand, from the total
neglect of the labour process itself. The result of this is that in
general, the 'exploited' are equated with wage-earners. But, on this
basis we are unable t o distinguish, firstly, between productive and
unproductive workers and consequently between different modes of
exploitation and, secondly, between exploited wage-earners and
those wage or salary earners such as supervisors, managers and so
forth who are not exploited and, in fact, carry out the functions of
capital. These aspects will be elaborated in the analysis in Sections
111 and IV.
2. Differences in relations of production
Noting the extremely sharp cleavages between the 'white working

class' and the 'African working class' a number of writers have tried
t o argue, by contrast with the above view, that the differences
between these two 'classes' cannot be construed merely as
differences between fractions within a single class; on the contrary,
it is argued, they constitute two distinct classes, each occupying a
different place in the relations of capitalist production. Three
divergent varieties of this approach have been proposed.
(a) Free and unfree labour

The view that black workers constitute an unfree labour force and
white workers a free labour force is frequently found in the
literature on South Africa. The notions of 'free' and 'unfree' labour
and the 'forced labour economy' are normally used in a rather
diffuse, descriptive manner (See, for example, Trapido (1971); Bell
and Bromberger (1972); Gervassi (1970)), but Rex (1 973) has tried
t o conceptualize the distinction. Rex (1973) begins explicitly by
rejecting the adequacy of an analysis based on class and strata. He
says:
I do not believe that we can get very far by insisting that the
important 'class' difference in South Africa is between those who
own and those who do not own the means of production, whereas
the difference between black and white workers is only a
difference between strata. (p.264). (4)
It, therefore, follows for Rex that important class differences must
be based on something other than property relations and, indeed,
this is his position:
Surely the point is that there are number of different relationships

t o the means of production more subtle than can be
comprehended in terms of a distinction between owners and
non-owners and that each of these gives rise t o a specific
class-situation . . .
The basic distinction which has to be made . . . is that between
free and unionized labour on the one hand and labour which is
subject to avariety of restrictions on the other . . . (1973: p.264).
There can be n o doubt, as I shall show below, that Rex was right to
insist upon the need for a more comprehensive and more refined
conceptualization of class than was encompassed by the bare
reference to property relations. However, it would appear that his
solution t o the conceptual problem is inadequate and, furthermore,
inadvertently results in an analysis almost identical to that based on
the 'class' and 'class fraction' concepts discussed above.
It is clear from the passage quoted above that for Rex to establish
two distinct 'working classes' he must be able t o conceptualize the
'basic distinction' between 'free' and 'unfree' labour and show how
these define specific 'relationships t o the means of production'. In
fact, he is unable to d o this and he merely states:
. . . the relationship t o the means of production of the native

workers is quite different from that of the white working class.
202 Harold Wolpe
The latter have the means t o defend their liberties and their job
security as well as negotiating over the price of their labour. The
former have none of these things. (197 3 : p.280)
He elaborates the last sentence with a schematic empirical account

showing how migrant labour, the reserve system, locations and
compounds, the absence of trade union rights and the opposition of
white workers has the result
. . . that the native worker does enter the labour market but under
inferior conditions only. (1973: p.279. Italics in the original)
Under these conditions:
. . . the white workers . . .form an aristocracy of labour

consisting of skilled and supervisory workers, most of whom
enjoy a high degree of privilege and join with their employers in
policing the exploitation of the natives. (1973: p.280)
Again, in his reference t o the supervising and 'policing' functions of

white workers, Rex has drawn attention t o an important point

which, however, he makes little of because, no doubt, of his
pre-occupation with 'free' and 'unfree' labour. I will return t o this
aspect in a later section of the paper; for the present it is necessary t o
underline the fact that by discussing the structure of constraints
which affect the appearance of African workers on the market, he is
able t o conclude that the working class is divided into two
categories-a white labour aristocracy and African workers in
inferior conditions. It will be noticed that this conclusion, as was
remarked above, is all but identical t o the analysis based on 'class'
and 'class fraction' concepts-Rex appears t o have arrived at a
descriprion of two fractions of the working class and this result can
only be escaped from if the concepts of 'free' and 'unfree' labour can
be invoked in the way Rex wishes t o use them t o distinguish two
classes standing in different relationships t o the means of
production.
As I have already indicated he does not offer us anything more
than an empirical description of the structure of constraints which
operate on black labour. The crucial point, however, is that he is
only able t o distinguish between free white and unfree black labour
because he assumes that there is no structure of constraints
operating on white labour. Although the whole of his analysis is
permeated with this assumption he also states it explicitly:
'What happens is that, in order to guarantee its own freedom, the

The 'white working class' in South Africa
white working class demands the restriction of the natives'

freedom. . .'(1973: p.279)
But, while I d o not wish t o suggest that there are no important

differences in the quality and degree of constraints which operate, at
different moments, on different fractions of the working class, I
would suggest that the notion of a constraint-free class of workers is
quite unacceptable. Within the capitalist social formation, in
addition t o the economic compulsions which force the
wage-labourer t o sell his labour-power (an aspect t o which I will
return below) as a commodity, all labour-power is in some way and
in some degree unfree, the type, gradation or continiuum of degrees
of unfreedom 'merely' affect the intensity of exploitation but not its
mode.
The source of the difficulty lies in the fact that for Rex the notion
of 'relations of production7 encompasses property relations and
(andlor?) the freelunfree couple, but not the mode of appropriation
of surplus labour. If the surplus produced by both white and African
workers in the productive process is extracted in the form of surplus
value by means of the market mechanism, then in what sense, if at
all, can restrictions on the workers freedom be thought of as defining

a different set of relations of production? Quite clearly, for this t o
occur at all, Rex must be able t o specify the nature of the restrictions
such as to make them an essential ingredient of the relations of
production as, for example, Hindess and Hirst (1975 : p.113, 126)
have done in arguing that legal property in the direct producers (the
slaves) is a pre-condition of the slave mode of production. However,
all that Rex has shown is a series of legal, political and organizational
constraints which affect the capacity of African workers to struggle
to reduce their rate of exploitation. Indeed, as we pointed out above,
Rex seems to acknowledge this when he refers t o the fact that
Africans do enter the market but 'under inferior conditions only'.
(1973: 279)
It is precisely on the market that Barrington Moore (1967)
focuses and although he takes a somewhat different route he arrives
at a similar impasse using the notion of a 'labour-repressive'
economy. He begins by recognising that all labour systems are
labour-repressive. He states (1 967 : 34):
It may be helpful to speak of labour systems of which slavery is
but an extreme type.
He goes on:
The difficulty with such a notion is that one may legitimately ask
precisely what type has not been labour repressive?
204 Harold Wolpe
Now despite the fact that Barrington Moore puts in issue the
question of the possible existence of a type of labour system which is
not repressive, he makes no attempt t o deal with the theoretical issue
raised but simply asserts, by implication, that there is such a free
system, namely the labour market. That is, he overcomes the
'difficulty' by asserting a distinction between political mechanisms
and market mechanisms of securing labour supplies:
The distinction I am trying t o suggest is one between the use of

political mechanisms . . . on the one hand and reliance on the
labour market, on the other hand, to ensure an adequate labour
force for working the soil and the creation of an agricultural
surplus for consumption by other classes. Those at the bottom
suffer severely in both cases.
But on what basis is it concluded that the labour market is not a

system of, or part of a system of labour repression. On this
Barrington Moore is silent. The idea of a free market, including a free
labour market is, however problematical and is more appropriate t o
the ideology of competitive capitalism than as a fundamental

concept for distinguishing different labour systems. For, obviously,
if it is assumed that the market is a place into which free and
unconstrained individuals enter out of choice and, having once
entered, engage in free and equal exchanges, then it necessarily
follows that the exchange of labour for wages on the market is free
and that therefore there is a non-repressive labour economy.
This tautological result can only be arrived at by abstracting 'the
market' from the social totality of which it is a part. If, on the other
hand, the market is conceived of in its relationship t o the system of
production then attention becomes focussed both on the mode of
surplus appropriation, rather than on the contrast between a
supposedly free labour market and coerced labour, and on the
different structures of constraint-political, social, ideological and
economic-which condition not only the way in which labourers are
forced onto the market but also the class struggles over wages and so
forth.
The issue can be clarified by reference t o the pertinent passages in
Volume I of Capital (Marx 1961). In his discussion of the buying and
selling of labour power Marx states that capitalism
. . . can spring into life, only when the owner of the means of
production and subsistence meets in the market with the free
labourer selling his labour-power. And this one historical
condition comprises a world's history. (p.170)
In another, well-known, passage Marx specifies more closely the

meaning of the term 'free-labourer'. He says:
For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the owner
of money must meet in the market with the free labourer, free in
the double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his
labour-power as his own commodity, and that on the other hand
he has no other commodity for sale, is short of everything
necessary for the realization of his labour-power.
There are, thus, two aspects t o the concept of free labour. The one
aspect refers t o the condition which forces the labourer t o labour
'for another'-that is t o say, his total separation from all means of
production. The effect of this is that all he has at his disposal is his
capacity t o labour, his labour-power. As Marx expressed it:
. . . the labourer instead of being in the position t o sell

commodities in which his labour is incorporated, must be obliged
t o offer for sale as a commodity that very labour-power, which
exists only in his living self. (p. 168)
However, the obligation t o offer his labour-power for sale on the

market, turns firstly on the existence of a labour market and this in
turn depends on the labourer having property in his own
labour-power-'he must be the untrammelled owner of his capacity
for labour' (p.168) and this ensures his ability t o dispose of it t o
specific buyers for definite periods of time. That is t o say, the
labourer as a person must not be the property of another.
It is in this sense only that the wage-labourer is free-obliged t o
sell his labour power and able t o do so on the labour-market. The
existence of labour-power as a commodity is in no way undermined
by the conditions which curtail the direct producers freedom in
other respects. Thus, both subordination of the labourer in the
labour process and the legal and political conditions which structure
the entry of the labourer into the market (for example, the use of
money taxes t o drive 'subsistence' agricultural producers into the
labour market) and the nature of the class struggle (i.e. the
conditions under which labour-power is exchanged) in no way
displace the extraction of surplus value by means of commodity
exchange.
It, of course, does not follow from this that the forms of
domination within capitalist social formations will not differ in
accordance with the specificity of each formation. Thus, for
example, the entry into the labour market and control of
labour-power reproduced within pre-capitalist modes of production
206 Harold Wolpe
in the period of capitalist development in which gold-mining capital

was dominant in South Africa, was effected by a structure of
domination which differed in important respects from the structure
of domination exercised over white workers within the capitalist
mode of production. (See Wolpe (1972), (1 975); Kaplan (1 974)).
The explanation of such variations is precisely the task of analysis,
but this task it would seem is not advanced by the use of an
ideological notion of 'forced labour' which contrasts with another
ideological conception of 'free labour' and which fails t o
conceptualize the relations and forces of production.
( b ) Classes and the appropriation of surplus value:

One feature of the characterization of distinct classes of workers on
the basis of the notions of 'free' and 'unfree' labour outlined above,
is that it carries with it the interesting implication that the 'white
working class' constitutes a 'classical' working class typical of
capitalist society-it is a free labour force disposing of its
labour-power freely on the market. By contrast, the African working
class is not a working class properly speaking at all; it constitutes a
class of labourers, but a class in some sense bonded and coerced in a

mode similar to labour in non- or pre-capitalist societies.
Curiously enough, the view t o be discussed in this section,
namely, that white workers share in the appropriation of surplus
value produced by African workers, leads t o the very opposite
conclusion. Here, the producers of surplus value, the black workers
constitute the working class, while white 'workers', who appropriate
part of the surplus, cannot be considered t o be part of the working
class properly speaking.
Kaplan (1974) and Davies (1973) have argued most explicitly that
white workers appropriate surplus value produced by African
workers.
In the paper referred to, Kaplan sets out t o show that a crucial role
of the state in South Africa during much of the period since 1886 has
been t o re-distribute the surplus, produced in the goldmining
industry, t o other fractions of capital, in particular industrial and
agricultural capital. In the course of this struggle over the surplus,
the indigenous bourgeoisie (agricultural and industrial capitalists)
supported white mine-workers in their struggle against international
mining capital. At the same time white workers constituted the
social base on which the indigeneous bourgeoisie was able t o rely in
its struggle against mining capital. Kaplan (1974: p. 16) concludes:
The objective basis for an alliance between white workers and the
indigenous bourgeoisie lay in the conflict over surplus-the
critical conflict at the level of the capitalist mode in South Africa.

In essence, higher wages for white workers was only one
mechanism of surplus appropriation from the hitherto dominant
'metropolitan7bourgeoisie. (my emphasis, HW.)
Davies (197 3 ) reaches a similar conclusion :
But if some indication of the detachment of white workers from

the bulk of the South African proletariat, and their alliance with
the settler bourgeoisie emerges from our analysis of employment
and job-status, the conclusive evidence of their politico-economic
position lies in their peculiar income situation. For it is clear that a
section of the labour-force will tend to become most fully tied t o
the bourgeoisie when it benefits from the extraction of
surplus-value in the exploitation of the majority of the working
class. (p.49)
Davies then attempts t o establish the mechanisms by means of which

white workers 'benefit from the extraction of surplus value'. This
mechanism turns out t o be the wage system-high wages are paid to
white workers and low wages t o black workers. More accurately,

higher wages are paid to the former because lower wages are paid to
the latter. The explanation for this differential wage structure is
political:
Black wages are kept low by the laws against effective political
and trade union organization, by the colour bar and by the
migratory labour system-all official instruments of State policy.
Black workers are therefore the victims of a super-exploitation,
which has tended t o increase . . . (p. 5 1)
Finally, Davies sets out t o prove that the very high wages white
workers receive relative t o Africans amounts t o a share in the
exploitation of the latter. Davies begins by defining the 'average
allowable wage with no surplus content' (p.49) as 'roughly an
indication of the average wage each worker would receive if there
were no exploitation.' (ibid.). This average is arrived at by dividing
the total output of an industry by the total number of workers. He
then produces statistics for the mining industry for the period
1911-1972 which show that throughout the period and t o an
increasing degree (despite the higher productivity of African
workers) white wages have far exceeded the surplus-free wage, while
those of black workers have always been far below. Hence,
Since the average white wage is a significant amount above the

208 Harold Wolpe
'surplus free wage', and since it is not based on higher

productivity, the inescapable conclusion is that the white mine
workers benefit from surplus value created by blacks; in other
words they indirectly share in the exploitation of blacks, via their
political support for the State and the economic privileges they
receive from it in return. If we look at similar figures for industry
and construction, we see the same pattern repeated for
fundamentally the same reasons. (p.5 1 )
In Section I1 (1) I showed that a highly skewed wage structure was

perfectly consistent with the notion of workers standing in the same
relations of production being divided into two (or more) fractions.
For Davies t o go further and t o argue that such a distribution of
wages also entails a transfer of the surplus produced by black
workers t o white workers, it is vital that his calculations and the
bases on which they are made should be acceptable, at least in
principle. There are, however, a number of problems in this regard.
First, Davies, by treating the 'white working class' as a
homogeneous entity, fails t o take account of two separate but
related points: (i) the fact that an 'average' wage masks the existence
of a differentiated wage structure among white workers-

consequently we do not know what proportion and what sectors of
white workers actually exceed the 'surplus free wage': (ii)
furthermore, since he takes no account of the division of labour
among 'white workers', it is impossible t o tell whether included in
the calculations are the wages of white wage-earners who are not in
fact productive workers in the sense that they produce surplus value.
Indeed, in an earlier part of the paper, Davies refers t o such a
possibility, but he ignores it for the purposes of his calculations:
Together with the growth of employment, there has been a steady

elevation of the white worker, achieved through the enforcement
of colour bars. 'Civilized labourers' no longer perform manual
work in gangs of subsidised erosion preventers; now the white
worker is increasingly a supervisor or at least a skilled operative.
(p.48)
I will return t o this point below.

Secondly, we may note that Davies nowhere justifies the
calculations of separate productivity rates for black and white
workers engaged in socialized production within a single industry
and nor does he explain the relative increase in black as compared t o
white worker productivity. However, it is by no means clear what
the significance of productivity rates are for Davies' argument since
whether or not the productivity of white workers increases at a
faster rate than that of black workers, so long as the formers'wages

exceed the 'average surplus free' wage and the latters' do not, he
would, on his premiss, be able t o sustain the argument that white
workers exploit black workers.
Related t o this point is a further consideration. It may be noted
that in Table I1 (p.50) presented by Davies (which is reproduced
below), the amount by which average white wages exceeds the
'surplus free wage' is far greater than the amount by which black
wages are below the 'surplus free wage'. Now, for Davies' argument
to hold true, we would expect the rate of exploitation of the black
worker to vary directly with the increase in the participation by
white workers in the surplus. But Table I1 does not show this and the
discrepancy in the figure casts doubt on Davies' contention since it
suggests that the level of exploitation of Africans is governed by
factors other than the political power of white workers to accrue
parts of the s ~ r p l u s . ~
As important as these difficulties are, the crucial problem is a
theoretical one. If Davies had merely contended that white workers
were able t o secure agreaterportion of the variable capital employed
by capitalists in the production cycle as a result of the political,
social and other forms of control on black workers, there would be

little difficulty. But, as I have already pointed out, he wishes t o go
beyond this and t o assert that a portion, at least, of the white
workers wages are derived from the surplus produced by black
workers. That is t o say, he wishes t o continue t o regard a class of
agents in the productive process (white workers), who participate in
the surplus value produced by other workers, as part of the class
which produces surplus value (the class of productive workers). The
statistical indications of the white workers' share in the surplus is
given by Davies in his table which appears on page 210.
What Davies represents as variable capital (V) in the form of wages in
this Table, is in fact made up of two components only one of which
is variable capital, the other being the surplus value produced by
black labour. This fact, however, completely changes the relations of
production in which 'white workers' stand t o capital. For, if the
wages, or part of the wage of 'white workers' are paid out of revenue,
that is the surplus produced in the productive sphere of the circuit of
capitalist production, and not out of capital, then these workers do
not confront capital merely as productive workers, if at all, but
relate to capital and t o the working class, in a completely different
way. The nature of this relation cannot, however, be derived from
the size of the pay packet, it requires an analysis of capitalist
production and the division of labour which, as I have already
indicated, Davies does not provide.
-g TABLE 11 (Davies, 1973: p.50)
z-
U Rough indication of white miners' share in surplus produced in the mining sector (current prices)
e
I 191 1 1920 1930 1940 1950 1961 1970 1972
Total market value of

sales (R Millions) 95,358 136,664 118,570 259,090 393,314 893,281 1,563,375 1,942,344
Which consists of:

Depreciation (C) 28,030 35,686 35,470 71,834 142,726 341,216 615,046 632,739
Wagcs (V) 37,634 46,068 40,446 75,322 139,224 293,259 488,100 570,757
Surplus (S) 29,694 54,910 42,654 111,964 111,364 258,806 460,229 738,848
Average allowable wage

with no surplus content
(annual)
(S + V/labour force) R222 R345 R242 R377 R507 R826 R1.347 R1,963
Average white wage R560 R819 R648 R911 R1.594 R2,501 R4,074 R5,098
Surplus content of
white wage R338 R525 R406 R534 R1.087 R1,675 R2,727 R3,135
Basic grade white rates lowest lowest basic

(selected years) grade grade rate
R624 per R520 per R3036 per
annum annum annum
Average black wage R62 R64 R59 R69 R110 R159 R235 R302
Rate of exploitation of
black labour
(S/total black wages %) 181% 331% 232% 365% 240% 278% 316% 415%
N
The 'white working class' in South Africa 21 1
(c) White workers or white supervisors?

The preceeding discussion leads directly to the important paper by
Simson (1975) in which he explicitly elaborates, by reference t o
certain of Poulantzas' work, the idea that the so-called white
working class in fact is not a working class by virtue of its supervisory
function in the production process. He states:
The white supervisor-black worker relationship can only be

understood if seen in the shadow of the capitalist ruling class in
which it stood. As we have stated, the capitalist had placed the
white wage earners in a functionally contradictory position in the
production process. They both contributed t o the production of
surplus-value and acted as supervisors of the exploited African
proletariat, the latter aspect of their function was determinate
with respect t o their class, i.e. they were not part of the working
class. (p.5)
It is not my intention to pursue this aspect of Simson's paper further

at this stage since in Section 111 of the paper I will attempt t o refine
and develop the basic point made by him in the passage cited.
Instead I merely want t o refer, at this stage, t o the concrete
concIusions he wishes t o draw from his theoretical differentiation
between supervisory and productive work.
His central argument is that the so-called white working class is in
fact composed predominantly of supervisors; there are, indeed, no
white productive workers or white workers whose main role is
productive. It is true that he concedes that in the 1920's and 1930's
'a sizeable part of the white labour force was neither skilled nor in a
supervisory capacity' (p. S), but apart from the fact that he argues
that this section of the white workers was, nevertheless, politically
and ideologically separated from black workers and 'never become
equals on the same production line' (p. 9), he implies that in the
course of time such workers disappeared entirely or, at least, were
reduced t o a tiny and unimportant number in the white population.
I will consider the analytical effect of this conclusion in the
following sub-section.
(3) General comments

From the specific criticisms of the four positions outlined above, it is
possible to extract the following points either directly or by drawing
out the implications of the analysis made:-
First, in each case (excepting, perhaps, Simson), the concepts
used were either extremely vague (the notion of 'exploitation'), or
21 2 Harold Wolpe
inappropriate ('freelunfree') or confused (wages paid out of surplus)

and, in addition, there was no analysis of the labour process in
relation to class formation and fractionalization. The outcome of
this is that no concept adequate t o the analysis of these processes of
class formation and fractionalization was produced, and instead, we
were left with a rather simplistic view of the reproduction, by
political means only, without reference to the productive process, of
classes or class fractions which were, themselves, inadequately
specified.
Secondly, once the classes or class fractions were specified,
specific racial groups were identified with each of these classes or
strata. However, once such an identification had been made, it was
then simply assumed that all the agents of production, belonging to a
particular racial group also fell into the particular class or fraction
identified with that group. That is to say, the impermissible
assumption is made that the racial groups are homogeneous in their
class composition. Thus, for example, Simson (1975) assumes that
all whites engaged in the productive sphere perform supervisory
roles and Davies that all white workers share in the surplus.
In one sense both the tendency t o use broad and inadequately
specified categories in the delineation of classes and the tendency to

treat the racial groups as homogeneous in class terms stems from the
unreflected acceptance of the ideological and political definitions
dominant in the society. Thus, having made the rather crude
distinctions between classes and class fractions referred t o above, the
notion of race is immediately allowed t o govern the analysis which
follows. Since the main form of exploitation tends to be seen as a
relationship between white and black rather than between classes it
becomes unnecessary t o analyse further the relations within and
between classes. Instead, the racial terms result in the treatment of
the classes encompassed within each racial group as homogeneous-
thus 'the white working class' and the 'African working class'. There
appears to be no necessity t o analyse the classes and fractions of
classes within each of these categories.
This homogeneity is reinforced, too, in a different way. The
reference in the literature to the 'organized white working-class' and
in particular t o the white trade union organizations and the Labour
Party involves an acceptance of the correctness of the application of
the term 'working-class' t o groups who so label themselves, simply
on the ground that they, in some sense, regard themselves as
'working-class'. Quite obviously, it is possible for a particular class
having a particular place in the mode of production to align itself
politically and ideologically with other classes. But it does not
follow that the classes then become part of one another. This is the
point which Poulantzas (1975) makes when he says:
between the producers of value, the working class, and the

appropriators of the surplus-value, the capitalist class.
However, the forces of production constitute a necessary element
of the definition of the mode of production. Briefly, we may define
the forces of production as being constituted by the specific
relationship of co-operation and co-ordination of the individuals
involved in the labour process, and the relationship between the
instruments of labour, the object of labour and the labourers.
Hindess and Hirst (p.1 l ) argue:
Now the concept of mode of production as an articulated

combination of relations and forces of production precludes the
construction of the concept of a particular mode of production
by means of the simple juxtaposition of a set of relations and a set
of forces. On the contrary the concept of a particular mode of
production is the concept of a determinate articulated
combination of relations and forces of production. This means
that there can be no definition of the relations or of tbe forces of
production independently of the mode ofproduction in which
t h e y are combined. (my e m p h a ~ i s ) ~
The point in the italicized passage has been made recently in

different ways by a number of writers. (See, e.g. Gorz (1972);
Carchedi (1975); '~oulantzas( 1 975); Braverman (1975)). While, in
the elaboration of this point, a number of issues remain in dispute
and others are unclear, nevertheless, the theoretical analysis has
advanced far enough to make it possible t o draw out certain
conclusions relevant for the purposes of this paper. The discussion
which follows relies heavily on Carchedi (1975) for the theoretical
propositions and on Braverman's (1975) concrete account of the
labour processes under monopoly capitalism in the United States.
Carchedi focusses attention on the processes of capitalist
production, or, as it has been variously termed, the forces of
production or the labour process. He begins by drawing an analytical
distinction within the production process, between the process of
production of surplus value and the process of production of use
values, the former being dominant. This distinction (taken together
with the relations of production which he does not discuss), enables
him t o move from the bald definition of classes in terms of the
appropriation of surplus value, t o an elaboration of the defining
element of classes which derive from conceptualizing production as
both a value and a use-value producing process. At the abstract level
of the 'pure' capitalist mode of production he defines the working
class in the following way:
21 4 Harold Wolpe
carries with it the inference that the analysis can end with the
economic identification of the classes. Indeed I will try to show in
terms of a concrete example how political and economic conditions
affected class relationships in South Africa in the recent past.
I I I Relations of production, the labour process and classes

While in Marxist theory the mode of production has always been
defined, in some sense, as the articulation of 'relations of
production' and 'forces of production', the latter element, until
recently, has remained largely unanalysed. The emergence of the
'new middle class', however, has brought into question the adequacy
of analyses of the class structure which are restricted in a simple way
t o the capitalist and the working classes and to the diminishing petty
bourgeoisie and, furthermore, has raised sharply the distinction
between productive and unproductive labour and the nature of
exploitation of labour-power.
One may question whether the class structure was ever,
concretely, as unproblematical within capitalist social formations as
was suggested in the literature-Lockwood's (1958) study of clerical
workers indicates t o the contrary-and, indeed, in South Africa, the

rise of capitalist production at the turn of this century was marked
by the simultaneous development of what is today referred to as 'the
new middle class'. One reason for the neglect of the complexity of
the class structure lay in the failure t o distinguish between different
levels of abstraction in the analysis.
For the sake of clarity it is necessary t o begin from the concept of
mode of production and here I will utilize Hindess and Hirst's (1975)
clear statement:
A mode of production is an articualted combination of relations

and forces of production structured by the dominance of the
relations of production. (p.9)
Now,
The relations of production define a specific mode of

appropriation of surplus-labour and the specific form of
distribution of the means of production corresponding to that
mode of appropriation of surplus-value. (p.9-10)
Thus, in the capitalist mode of production, surplus-labour is

appropriated in the form of surplus-value and, consequently, it is
possible to define the specifics differentia of capitalism, at a high
level of abstraction, in terms of this specific relation of production
The 'white working c\ass' in South Africa 21 5
A social classs, or a fraction or stratum of a class, may take up a

class position that does not correspond to its interests, which are
defined by the class determination that fixes the horizon of the
class's struggle. The typical example of this is the labour
aristocracy, which in certain conjunctures takes up class positions
that are in fact bourgeois. This does not mean, however, that it
becomes, in such cases, a part of the bourgeoisie; it remains, from
the fact of its structural class determination, part of the working
class, and constitues, as Lenin put it, a 'stratum' of the latter. In
other words, its class determination is not reducible to its class
position. (p.15)
However, by accepting these ideological 'self conceptions' of class,

agents who fall into quite distinct classes are treated as if they, in
fact, constitute a single class occupying the same place in
production.
The consequence of this acceptance of the 'actor's' definition of
the situation coupled with the salience given to race and the
inadequate conceptualization of class is that the ideological and
political are given a predominance such as either to obliterate

differences in relations of production or to give the appearance that
the political and ideological define new relations of exploitation. In
either event the economic level is deprived of any autonomy
whatsoever and the result is that the differential economic relations
of different classes are all but eliminated. This may have important
political repercussions, since it insists ab initio, that since class
relations of production are politically and ideologically defined,
therefore, whatever the nature of the contradictions and conflicts
which may occur in the development of South African capitalism,
there is no possibility of the white working class or any fraction of it
ever entering into an alliance with African workers in a struggle to
overthrow the capitalist state. This is a necessary conclusion of
defining relations of production in political and ideological terms,
rather than in economic terms.
The problem, however, goes deeper for the effects referred t o
above are themselves the result of a more fundamental error,
namely, the failure t o begin from an analysis of the capitalist mode
of production and, in particular, from an analysis of the changes
which are brought into effect in the labour process as a consequence
of changes in the relations of production. It is to this question which
I now turn.
Before doing so, it is perhaps worth making the point again at this
stage, that t o insist upon the need t o clarify the relations of
production and the transformations in the labour process, in no way
216 Harold Wolpe
. . . (1) . . . as the producers (in the sense of producers of surplus

value), and thus as the exploited; (2) . . . as the non-owners of the
means of production . . . ( 3 ) . . . as the labourers [producing
use-values, H.W.] ;(4) . . . as those agents whose income (a) is
determined by the value of their labour-power, (b) is produced by
themselves, and (c) is thus paid back t o them by the capitalists.
(p.13)
He goes on,
The capitalist class is exactly the opposite of the working class and
is thus defined as ( l )the non-producers (and thus the exploiters);
(2) the owners of the means of production, (3) the non-labourers,
and (4) those whose income is derived from surplus value, (b) is
limited by the extent of that surplus value (and by the needs of
capital accumulation), and (c) is not produced by them . . . (p.1 l )
Carchedi's analysis now moves from the 'pure' capitalist mode of

production t o what he refers t o as the socio-economic system level
which allows him to take account not only of different stages in the
development of the capitalist mode of production but also of

structure and processes not considered at the higher level of
abstraction.
Following Marx, he distinguishes, in the first place, the stage of
capitalist production, manufacturing, in which the labourer is only
formally subordinated t o capital in the sense that while he is under
the direct coercive control of capital, yet he retains possession of his
instruments of production and control over his labour process. At
this stage the division of labour is little developed. The drive for
surplus value and capital accumulation, however, effects changes in
the processes of production-science and technology are
increasingly applied t o production resulting in a rapid elaboration of
the division of labour. The outcome of this is that the labour process
ceases t o be the activity of separate individuals but becomes a
co-operative, combined and collective process. In support of his
argument, Carchedi quotes two passages from Marx:
The product ceases t o be the direct product of the individual and

becomes a social product, produced in common by a collective
labourer, i.e. by a certain combination of workmen, each of whom
takes only a part, greater or less, in the manipulation of the
subject of their labour. As the co-operative character of the
labour-process becomes more and more marked, so, as a necessary
consequence, does our notion of productive labour, and of its
agent the productive labourer, become extended. In order t o
labour productively, it is no longer necessary for you t o do

manual work yourself; enough, if you are an organ of the
collective labourer, and perform one of its subordinate functions.
(Marx, Capital 1: quoted by Carchedi 1975 : p.16)
And again:
Since, with the development of real subordination of labour t o

capital and thus of the specifically capitalist mode of production,
the true agent of the total labour-process is not the individual
labourer but a labour-power more and more socially combined,
and the various labour-powers which co-operate and which make
up the total productive machine, participate in various ways in the
immediate production process of the commodities, or, better
said, here of the products-some working more with the hand and
some more with the brain, some as director, engineer, technician,
etc., some as controller, some as hand-labourer or simply as
helper-an increasing number of functions of labour-power is
grouped into the concept of productive labour and an increasing
number of people who can carry out this labour as productive
labourers, directly exploited by capital and subordinated t o its

process of production and surplus value creation. If we consider
that collective worker which is the factory, its combined activity
realises itself materially and directly in a total product which is at
the same time a total mass of commodities-where it does not
matter at all whether what the individual worker does, as a pure
and simple member of the collective worker, is farther or closer to
the actual manual work. (Marx, Resultate: quoted by Carchedi
1975: p.17-8)
The transformation of the productive process from that carried out

by separate, individual producers each performing the same work, t o
the collective worker combined in a complex division of labour
involves, therefore, at the same time the extension of the functions
of labour-power from only manual labour t o include all those
functions which, in the productive phase of the circuit of capital, are
involved in and necessary t o the production of use-values. This
extended complex of activities in the production of surplus value,
Carchedi refers t o as the function of the collective worker. It is t o be
stressed that the collective labourer, no less than the individual
labourer in capitalist production, produces surplus value which is
appropriated by capital. Thus:
. . . t o perform the function of the collective worker means t o

take part in the complex, scientifically organized labour process
218 Harold Wolpe
(ie. in the production of use values . . . ) as a part of the collective

labourer, as agents through which capital in the productive
sphere, produces and appropriates surplus value . . . (Carchedi
1975: p.29)
In the period of private capital characterized by the real

subordination of the collective labourer t o capital,
. . . the capitalist performs a work of supervision and management

which has a double nature. On the one hand this work is necessary
due t o the co-operative nature of the labour process . . . On the
other hand this labour is necessary due t o the fact that, under
capitalism, the relations of production are antagonistic. (Carchedi
1975: p.24)
Thus in the stage of private capitalism, the individual capitalist

performs work of a double nature, work, however, which according
t o Carchedi is separable into a productive function (the work of
co-ordination and unity of the labour force) and a supervisory,
coercive non-productive function (the work of coercing 'surplus
value' out of labour power). He bases this distinction on a passage

from Capital (Marx, 1962: p.376):
The labour of supervision and management is naturally required

wherever the direct process of production assumes the form of a
combined social process, and not of the isolated labour of
independent producers. However, it has a double nature.
On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals co-operate
necessarily requires a commanding will t o co-ordinate and unify
the process, and functions which apply not t o partial operations
but t o the total activity of the workshop, much as that of an
orchestra conductor. This is a productive job, which must be
performed in every combined mode of production.
On the other hand . . . this supervision work necessarily arises in
all modes of production based on the antithesis between the
labourer, as the direct producer, and the owner of the means of
production. The greater this antagonism, the greater the role
played by supervision. Hence it reaches its peak in the slave
system. But it is indispensable also in the capitalist mode of
production, since the production process in it is simultaneously a
process by which the capitalist consumes labour-power.
Just as the individual labourer becomes transformed into the

collective labourer in the process of real subordination, so, in the
The'white working class' in South Africa 219
transition from private t o monopoly capital, the individual capitalist

gives way t o the 'global function of capital' and in the process the
productive work of co-ordination of labour becomes separated from
the coercive function concerned with ensuring the production of
surplus value.
The emergence of the 'global function of capital' coincides, on the
one hand, with the separation of real and legal ownership, with the
former carrying out the work of control and surveillance. On the
other hand, this separation, which is itself necessitated by the
increasing complexity of production, makes necessary the
establishment of a management apparatus for the carrying out of the
global functions of capital. As Carchedi (1975 : p.3 1)puts it:
. . . this function (of control and surveillance H.W.) has become

the task of a complex, hierarchically organized ensemble of
people who collectively perform what used t o be the function of
an individual capitalist . . . The function of capital becomes the
task of a structure not of an individual; that is, transformed into
theglobal function of capital.
It is important t o stress here, in the light of the analyses of the white

working class in South Africa, that the coercive, supervisory, control
and surveillalice component of the function of capital (and of the
global function of capital) is in no sense t o be thought of as a
political element added, from the political sphere on to the relations
of production. On the contrary, control and surveillance, as is clear
from the above, is itself an ingredient of the definition of the
relations of production-an ingredient which changes its form (from
the individual t o the global function of capital) with changes in the
labour process which are, themselves, produced by the effect of the
class struggle on the relations of p r o d ~ c t i o n .This
~ has particular
importance for the identification of a sector of the new middle class.
I pointed out above that Carchedi draws a distinction between,
and the possible separation of, the work of co-ordinating and
unifying the labour process, which is productive labour, and the
work of supervision and control which is unproductive and the core
of the global function of capital. Poulantzas (1975) denies the
validity of this separation and argues that, at most, different
fractions of the same class may be based on the dominance of either
the co-ordinating or the capitalist function:
This question of the class barrier between the agents who perform
the tasks of management and those of supervision of the labour
process respectively is indirectly hinted at by Marx's terms 'work
of management and supervision'. These two terms do not assume
220 Harold Wolpe
a sharp distinction between types of work, since all management

work is at the same time supervisory work, and vice versa (hence
the combination). However, they do imply a differentiation,
within the social division of labour, between controlling instances
and subaltern instances (hence the two separate terms,
'management' and 'supervision'). (p.229)
This, however, is t o deal with the question empirically for there

seems t o be no theoretical reason why the work of co-ordination
should necessarily involve supervision and coercion. (See also
Bullock (1974) p.10 for a similar point). The argument becomes
stronger if we think of particular agents performing both supervisory
work and directly productive work which does not include
co-ordinating functions.
It is precisely this distinction between the work of the collective
worker and the work of the global functions of capital that leads t o
the identification of the new middle class in the sphere of
production. Thus, given the separation of legal and real economic
ownership of capital, it is possible t o identify 3 different categories
within the structure performing the global function of
capital-firstly, that part which performs exclusively the function of

capital, and has real ownership of capital; secondly, that category
which performs this function but does not have ownership of
capital; and finally, a third part which does not own capital and
performs both the function of the collective worker and the
function of capital in varying proportions.
If we return t o the elements in terms of which Carchedi defined
the working and capitalist class at the level of the pure capitalist
mode of production, then it can be seen that this last category, apart
from ownership of capital, combines elements of both classes-it
performs both the functions of capital and of the collective worker,
it is therefore both the labourer, producing use-values, and the
non-labourer and it both exploits and is exploited. As Carchedi
(1975) puts it:
This fact, that the new middle class performs the global function
of capital even without owning the means of production, and that
it performs this function in conjunction with the function of the
collective worker, is the basic point for an understanding of the
nature of this class.
In another respect, Carchedi's delineation of the defining elements

of the working class and the capitalist class, is important although
not without difficulties. It will be recalled that Carchedi stressed
that the 'income' of the working class is determined by the value of
their labour-power whereas that of the capitalist class is determined

by other considerations. Now, in this respect also the new middle
class stands in a dual position for insofar as it carries out the
productive functions of the collective worker it is paid out of
variable capital, a wage, which is determined by the value of
labour-power; insofar as this class performs the global function of
capital it is paid out of revenue and its income represents a share in
the surplus. Both Braverman (1975) and Carchedi (1975) make this
point in different ways:
Their pay level is significant because beyond a certain point it, like
the pay of the commanders of the corporation, clearly represents
not just the exchange of their labor power for money-a
commodity exchange-but a share in the surplus produced in the
corporation, and thus is intended t o attach them t o the success or
failure of the corporation and give them a 'management stake'
even if a small one. (Braverman 1975 : p.405-6)
Under monopoly capitalism, as we have seen, there is a complex

of agents performing both the function of the collective worker
and the global function of capital. Thus, the agent performing

both functions has his wage determined by the value of his
labour-power only insofar as he performs the function of the
collective worker. The more this function outweighs the global
function of capital, the higher in his income will be the wage
component vis-a-vis the revenue component. Conversely, the
more he performs the global function of capital, the more he
participates in the redistribution of surplus value (not as a
labourer but as a non-labourer) the higher will be the revenue
component in his income and thus the weaker the relation
between this income and the culturally determined subsistence
minimum. (Carchedi 1975: p.56)
Finally, in this section, I want t o deal briefly with the question of

workers in the unproductive spheres of the capitalist mode of
production. Thus far, the discussion of the collective worker has
been confined t o the sphere of production within the circuit of
capital. In this discussion, the underlying assumption has been that
the productive sphere is concerned directly with material
commodities which embody surplus value. This seems t o be in
accord with the view expressed by Poulantzas:
We shall say that productive labour, in the capitalist mode of

production, is labour that produces surplus-value while directly
reproducing the material elements that serve as the substratum of
222 Harold Wolpe
the relation of exploitation: labour that is directly involved in

material production by producing use-values that increase
material wealth. (1975: p.216)
This view would appear t o relegate workers who produce use-values

in the form of services which are 'consumed as wage goods by the
working class' (Bullock 1974: p.9) to the sphere of unproductive
labour. Bullock (1974) and Bravermann (l975), among others, have
questioned the validity of a division of productive and unproductive
workers on this basis. It is not necessary for present purposes t o
consider this question further for two reasons. Firstly, we are
concerned here more particularly with workers in those
spheres-banking, commerce, advertising and so forth-which are
concerned with the distribution and allocation of the surplus-value
produced in the productive sphere. Secondly, whether service
workers are productive or unproductive affects only the form of
their exploitation, not the issue of whether they are exploited or
not.
The sphere of unproductive work has mushroomed with the
expansion of capitalist production and the rise of monopoly capital.
This sphere of 'unproductive capitalist production process',

Carchedi defines in the following terms:
The production process in the unproductive enterprise is the

unity of the labour process connected with the appropriation
(share in) the surplus value produced elsewhere. (p.28)
In this sphere, the 'labour process' becomes transformed in much the

same way as within productive enterprises-there develops a vast and
complex division of labour necessitating co-ordination management
and control, that is t o say, we have the emergence of a collective
worker not only in terms of the division of labour but, in certain
respects, in terms of the very conditions of work, domination of
machines, hierarchization and so forth (see Lockwood, 1958).
This 'collective worker' is also exploited (in Carchedi's terms
economically oppressed) not however, through the appropriation of
surplus value (which it does not produce) but through the
appropriation of surplus labour. Here, once more, Carchedi's
discussion of the elements of the definition of the working class are
relevant for, as in the case of productive workers, the wage of
unproductive labourers is determined by the value of labour-power.
The point may be conveniently summed up in the following passage:
If we combine the two definitions concerning the function of the

collective worker, both in the productive sphere (productive, or
pure, capitalist production process) and in the unproductive

sphere (unproductive capitalist production process), we can
submit the followinggeneral definition: to perform the function
o f the collective worker means to take part in the complex,
scientifically organised labourprocess (i.e. in the production of
use values, either material or not) asa part of the collective
labourer, as agents through which capital in the productive sphere
producesand appropriates directly surplus value (economic
exploitation) or through which capital in the unproductive sphere
participates in the sharing of the surplus value produced in the
productive sphere of the economy (economic oppression). It
means to be part of the collective labour-power which allows
capital t o perform its function by being expropriated of surplus
labour either directly (economic oppression) or indirectly in the
form of surplus value (economic exploitation). (29) (Emphasis in
the original)
With these remarks on the new middle class, the collective worker
and the global function of capital we may now return t o the
discussion of the 'white working class' in South Africa. It should be
obvious that no attempt has been made t o analyse in all its aspects
the complex class structure of the capitalist mode of production
even at a high level of abstraction. Our purpose has been simply t o
set out some of the considerations which are directly relevant t o the
purpose in hand.
IV The identification of the 'white working class'

in the South African social formation
The logical conclusion of the above discussion is that an analysis of
the class structure of a social formation must begin, not from the
political or ideological levels, but from an analysis of the articulation
of the relations and forces of production constituting the mode of
production. The discussion in the previous section has provided
some of the concepts (and referred to some others) which are
necessary for the identification, at the level of the economy, of
classes within the capitalist mode of production in the South African
social formation. In particular, these concepts enable us to
problematize the notion of the 'white working class'; that is to say,
they enable us t o distinguish the various classes which have been
submerged under that term.
The reason for this is that by starting from the analysis of the
capitalist mode of production, it is possible t o define, at an abstract
level, the variety of relations of production which characterize it at
different stages, for example private and monopoly capital. At a
224 Harold Wolpe
concrete level, the dominance of this or that class or class fraction,

the size of different classes and so on, of course, require to be
analysed. At this level, too, the allocation of agents to places in the
class structure and the reproduction and maintenance of those
places becomes relevant and it is here that the role of the political
and ideological conditions and their articulation with the economic
and the class struggle become of central importance.
It is not my intention t o spell out the South African class
structure-indeed, as I have suggested that concrete analysis still
requires to be done. We need only say here that a 'new middle class'
(in both the productive and unproductive sectors), a working
class-the collective worker in the productive sector-and exploited
workers in the unproductive sector, comprise and have, in different
degree in the changing social division of labour, comprised part of
the class structure. White 'agents', to differing extents, are t o be
found, and have been found in all these classes. However, the term
'white working class' has been used to cover all of these, thus
reducing the 'new middle class' and the working class (accepting, for
the present that both productive and unproductive exploited
workers constitute a single class) t o a single class. Since, as I suggest
below a considerable and increasing number of whites occupy the

place of the 'new middle class', far exceeding that of other racial
groups, this confusion is a matter of some significance. On the other
hand, it cannot be assumed, as I have already argued, that all white
employees, t o a dominant extent, carry out the global function of
capital and, again in an extremely unsystematic and incomplete
manner, I set out below information which suggests that white
workers were in the past and still are, although t o a decreasing
extent, in the working class.
(1) The new middle class

For present purposes we can roughly demarcate two periods in
South African capitalism-the first, characterized by a combination
of a large-scale, monopolistic goldmining industry and small scale
industrial manufacturing; the second, by a combination of
monopoly capital (which continues t o include gold but is now
dominated by industrial and banking capital) and private industrial
manufact~ring.~
In the first period, gold-mining was of particular importance as
the following tables show:
Table I *
Percentage contribution of miningand manufacturing t o thegrossdomesticproduct
Year Mining-% Manufacturing-%
*Source: State of South Africa YearBook 1969: p.250

Table 2 *
Number of employees in mining and the private manufacturing sector
Year Mining-000's Manufacturing-000's
*These figures are taken from Norvai (1962) and the 1960 South African Census,
Note: In 1924-5 there were 6,866 industrial manufacturing establishments and in 1934-5,
8,689.
The racial composition of the labour force in the gold-mining
industry during the period in question was as follows:

Table 3 *
Year White ' Black
*Source: Wilson (1972: 158)

A considerable proportion, but not all, as Simson suggests, of these
white employees performed both supervisory and productive roles.
Thus, while on the whole these employees are referred to merely as
skilled workers, various accounts of the actual content of their work
show that they constitute part of what is now termed the 'new
middle class'. To quote only one example, miners expressed their
grievances in the 1907 strike in the following terms:
That miners are expected t o supervise 50 t o 60 native labourers
That miners are sometimes expected to supervise two or more

places . . .
That it is impossible for one man to supervise the working of three

rock drill machines and at the same time strictly observe and carry
out the Mining Regulations.
226 Harold Wolpe
(Quoted in Hobart and Dagut, 1972: p.112)
The evidence further suggests that with changes in the mining labour
process, the tendency has been t o decrease the productive element in
the work of supervisors/productive workers and t o increase the
coercive and supervisory content. Thus, Biesheuval (1974) states
that as a result of negotiations between white mineworkers and the
Chamber of Mines,
The White mine worker retains mainly supervisory direction, but

much of the content of his job has been transferred t o trained and
competent blacks, who now function at a much higher skill and
responsibility level. (p.295)
Again, Wilson (1972) outlines the establishment, on the mines, of an

African Personnel Assistant (PA) scheme and comments that this
scheme,
. . . enjoyed a wide measure of support from the White miners t o

whom it was a source of added income. For the remuneration of
the White contract miner depended very largely on the number of

tons of rock he broke each month; this in turn depended on the
efficiency of his gange of black workers . . . (t)he scheme
provided white miners with a better disciplinary weapon than
assault (which was often used before), in that promotion within a
gang depended t o a large extent on what he told the PA upon
whom he depended for a regular supply of high quality labour.
(p. 100)
Finally, we may refer t o Hoaglund's account quoted in Davies

(1973: p.51):
I watched two mine workers . . .3,500 feet down a mine shaft . . .

5 0 miles west of Johannesburg. Willie, the white miner, crouched
inside a four-foot high pit, or stope as it is called by the miners. He
had already marked the face of the rock wall for drilling. A black
labourer, known t o the company not by name but by an identity
number sat on the floor of the pit, his arms and legs wrapped
around a jack-hammer drill. As Willie dropped his hand as a signal
the black labourer started to drill . . .At the end of the eight hour
shift, Willie would insert explosive charges into the hundred holes
being drilled in the rock face, and the blasting apart of the gold
and ore would begin . . .
The necessity for a large body of supervisors in the gold mining

industry stemmed not only from the size of the labour force (within
a few years of the discovery of gold in 1886, over 100,000 Africans
were employed) but also from the very nature of the mining
operations. On the one hand, operations were scattered over a large
number of mines and carried out at deep levels; on the other hand,
given the problems of deep level mining without complex
machinery, the related division of labour and the demand for
maximum output, the direct supervision and control of the labour
process was a sine qua non of the continuity of the required levels of
production.
In this first period, it was otherwise in the industrial
manufacturing sector where, with few exceptions, enterprises were
small (the average labour force in manufacturing establishments was
approximately 22 in 1924) and in general we can assume that there
was no necessity for a large number of supervisors. Nevertheless, it is
quite clear that with the expansion of industrial production a large
class of supervisors has emerged in this sector too. Although the
following tables are far from satisfactory-it is not clear which
sectors the job categories relate to, and in Table 6, miners are
included with skilled and unskilled workers, and so on-they are
sufficient, nevertheless, to indicate the trends:
Table 4 *
Persons engaged in some f o m of managerial orprofessional
work (exclzrdingfarming) 1960
Whites Asiatic Colourcds African Total
1 . Professional,
Technical 132,546 13,830 5,124 48,714 200,214
2. Administrative,
Executive and
Managerial 57,003 1,210 2,568 4,796 65,577
3 . Sales, Working
Proprietors 21,633 3,875 8,924 13,624 48,061
Totals 1 +2+3 211,182 18,915 16,621 67,134 31 3,852

67.3% 6.0% 5.3% 21.4% 100.0%
* Taken from Malherbe (1969)

228 Harold Wolpe
Table 5 *
Persons engaged in some form of managerial and supervisory
work
Occupation Year Whites Africans Total* *

No. Percentage No. Percentage No.
(000s) of total in (000s) of total in (000s)
occupation occupation
Professional1 1946 77 70.6 24 22.0 109

Technical 1951 96 70.6 29 21.3 136
1960 138 67.0 48 23.3 206
1970 202 61.2 93 28.2 3 30
Administrative1 1946 62 82.6 3 4.0 75
Managerial 1951 79 82.3 5 5.2 96
1960 59 86.6 6 8.8 68
1970 70 92.1 3 3.9 76
*Taken from 1970South African Census Report

**Including Coloureds and Asians
Table 6'
Whztes and Africans in various occupations expressed as apercentage
of the economically active population of each group (excluding farming)
Occupation 1921 1936 1946 1951 1960 1970

(a)+ (b)++ (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a)
1-4** 31.3 .8 33.1 .9 38.4 1.9 44.4 1.9 49.4 2.4 57.0
6-8 6.2 28.3 6.5 24.6 14.0 28.0 19.3 35.9 29.0 43.9 27.8
9 7.3 33.1 8.8 33.2 18.0 36.0 14.6 27.1 16.5 25.0 7.0
* Adapted from 1960 and 1970 South Afn'can Census Reports.

* * l - 4 Professional, Technical, Managerial, Administrative, Executive, Clerical and Sales.
6-8 Miners, Transport Workers, Unskilled and Skilled Industrial Workers.
9 Service, Sports, Entertainment, etc.
+ (a) White
++ (b) African
Finally, reference may be made to a survey made by the Federated

Chamber of Industries and reported by Biesheuvel(l974).
It can be concluded, therefore, that Simson (1975) is undoubtedly

correct in arguing that these supervisory/productive roles have been
performed, generally, by whites and that this was so from the
beginning of capitalist production on an extended scale in South
Africa.
The 'white working class' in South Africa
?hble 7
Dzstributiun o f j o b s i n three ethnicgroups o f industrial
labour, 1969 (000's)
Job (W) (CIA) (B) Total Percent of Percent of Own

Category Job Category Ethnic Group
(W) (CIA) (B) (W) (CIA) (B)
Artisan
Apprentice 70 8 0 78 90.0 10.0 0.0 26.1 3.2 0.0
Supervisors 15 3 4 22 68.2 13.2 5.6 1.2 0.07
Operators 65 168 252 485 13.4 34.6 52.0 24.8 67.7 42.6
Semi-skilled - 36 287 323 0.0 11.1 88.9 - 14.5 48.6
Other 118 33 48 199 59.3 16.6 24.1 44.0 13.8 8.1
Total 268 248 591 1,107 24.2 22.4 53.4 100 100 100
(W) White; (CIA) ColouredIAsian; ( B ) Black.
(2)The working class

Despite the obvious extent and importance of the 'global function of
capital' and the high degree to which whites are allocated t o the
performance of that function, it cannot be assumed that in either the
first or second period of capitalist development, no whites were

members of the working class. To some extent the figures cited in
the preceding discussion must be assumed t o include white
employees who, in Carchedi's terms, must be regarded as part of the
collective worker in that they are subject t o exploitation in the sense
of having surplus labour extracted from them. However, in the case
of these workers as in the case of productive white workers in both
Table S *
Employees of different mcialgroupsper 100 of all employees in
each category of skill covered bn, wage determination in periods
stated
Period Race Percentage of employees classed as

Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled
1937-38 White
African
Coloured
Asian
1937-48 White
African
Coloured
Asian
1937-56 White
African
Coloured
Asian
*Source: Simons & Simons (N.D. p.10)

230 Harold Wolpe
gold mining and manufacturing, the basic research still requires t o be

done.
Nevertheless, it is possible t o suggest, both from the
impressionistic literature and, in particular from the statistics that a
substantial number of whites fail t o be included in the working class.
Here we have to rely on statistics relating t o level of skill and while,
once more, this type of data is t o be treated with caution, it seems
possible t o assume that unskilled white workers are and were
predominantly productive workers exercising no supervisory
functions. Similarly, but perhaps with less confidence, the same
assumption can be made concerning semi-skilled white workers and
even a proportion of skilled workers.
Sadie (1971) calculates that the percentage of employed whites

defined as unskilled has declined from 21.8% in 1936 to 4.2% in
1960 and 3.3% in 1970. The most up-to-date information, however,
appears from Table 9 below.
The discussion in this section has been extremely unsystematic and

partial, even given the unsatisfactory state of the source material. Its
purpose, however, has not been to offer the actual analysis of the
South African class structure, but merely t o indicate that there are
grounds t o suggest that whites are t o be found among the various
classes, with which I have been concerned, in the two stages of South
African capitalist development-the working-class (consisting of
productive workers, the collective worker), unproductive exploited
workers and the new middle class performing, t o a variable degree,
the function of capital (coercion and supervision of the labour
process).
The conceptualization of classes in the preceding sectioil and the
partial description of the class structure within the white group in
this section opens the way for an analysis of the class struggle in the
context of changing conditions of the labour process. In the final
section of the paper I want t o briefly touch on this subject by way of
an analysis of certain changes in the class relations among the whites.
V The white working class and the state

The core of the argument in this paper has been that to begin the
analysis of classes from the political and ideological level serves only
to obscure the nature of the relations of production which
constitute the basis of the capitalist mode of production. Up to this
point, therefore, my concern has been with the economic
identification of certain classes and with the effect of changes in the
capitalist productive process on the formation of classes at the
-
m
South African Department of LabourManpower Sztrvey N o . 7 . April 1771 Catego y
S-
A Professional, with degree or 3
.-+
Table includes figures for manufacturing, mining and services, but agriculture is excluded. equivalent qualification. m
B With some lower professional 5
Total working population 4,508,900, made up of Whites 1,385,200 (30.7 per cent), Coloured449,400 (10.0
qualification, including teachers, k

7
per cent), people of Asian origin 165,300 (3.7 per cent), and African 2,509,000 (55.6 per cent). draughtsmen, nurses, etc. m
C Clerical, including bank clerks, plus
Ureakdowrz of' Censuc (000's) shop assistants and other
non-manual jobs. Starus is that of
-.
Y)
3.
Category Whites Coloureds Asiatics African 7htal unskilled non-manual. m
D Skilled manual, jobsusually require {
A formal apprenticeship. This 3
category includes t r a i n e w h o u g h 2
B not apprenticed) African building, i'
dock and transport workers.
C E Semi-skilled, including miners,
machinists, etc., where there is no
D formal qualification. It is learned on
the job. It is not a supervisory
E function in Britain e.g. busdriver.
1
: Unskilled, manual.
F G Military, police, customs and excise
personnel. Central or local
G government employees who are not
industrial o r clerical.
H l1 Domcstic workers including cooks,
laundry workers, canteen, hotel
Total workers, but does not include
private domestic service.
a Including '6,400 registered skilled Bantu building workers.'
b Including '2,000 registered learner Bantu building workers.'
* Taken from Turok & Maxey (1976)

232 Harold Wolpe
economic level. This is clearly not sufficient for the reason that the
way in which classes or class fractions engage in the class struggle is
not determined merely by the place of that class or fraction in the
relations of production, but is conditioned also by the political and
ideological structures of the social formation. The political and
ideological may be said t o provide the 'instruments' which
determine the mode of intervention in the class struggle of classes
defined in terms of the relations of production. This is reflected in
the fact that the class struggle and the competition between
fractions of the same class is not directly pursued in terms purely of
class defined at the level of relations of production at all, but in
racial, religious, political or other forms. Thus, for example,
Carchedi's inclusion of exploited productive and unproductive
workers in the same 'collective worker' may be correct but,
nevertheless, the ideological construction of the difference between
mental and manual labour, for example, may be the basis for a sharp
fractionalization of that class. Indeed, it is necessary to go further,
for concretely, categories defined at the level of production and
fractions which are the result of changes in the labour process and
division of labour, are constituted as classes or class fractions only
insofar as they take on ideological and political forms in the class

struggle. In short, as Poulantzas (1975 p.14) has expressed it; class
practices are determined 'by the relations of production, and by the
places of political and ideological domination/subordination'. This
formulation does not, however, go far enough. The issue at stake is
the question of the articulation of the economic, political and
ideological levels and it must be conceded that the theoretical
elaboration of this articulation remains largely underdeveloped.
In the analysis of South Africa, leaving aside the conventional race
relations literature the inadequacy of which has been dealt with
elsewhere (e.g. Wolpe 1970; Johnstone 1970; Legassick 1975b), the
tendency is t o couple an idealist account based on the ideology of
race with an economist general assertion that ideology and politics
directly reflect the economic; no attempt is made to define the
complexities of the relationship or, for that matter, the specificity of
the ideological, political or economic structures. This is not the place
to attempt an elaboration of the theoretical questions; I want merely
to illustrate how changes in the labour process and consequently in
the class structure defined at the economic level, produce the
conditions in which changes in political practice may occur. The
focus will be on the changing role of the state in relation t o the
allocation of white agents to particular places in the productive
process.
In two important recent articles, Davies (1975) and O'Meara
(1975) have argued, in rather different ways, that the racial division
of labour was the outcome of the class struggle between capital and
labour. O'Meara (p.37) sums up as follows:
Thus the racial division of labour between skilled and unskilled

was finally laid down by the intense class conflict 1890-1922. The
development of the so-called 'white labour aristocracy' has been
well covered by Johnstone and others. The point to note for the
purposes of this paper is that is was the product of thirty years of
bitter and always violent class conflict between capital and
labour. Between the Chamber, interested only in cutting its steep
operating costs and raising often low profit margins, and skilled,
semi-skilled and unskilled white workers, interested only in
protecting their positions from undercutting from whatever
source.
Both writers agree that initially skilled white mine workers resisted
the recruitment of cheap labour from among both Africans and
whites and Davies argues that the initial impetus for a colour bar
stemmed from mining capital.
Be that as it may, by the 1930's, O'Meara contends,
The leadership of the white trade union movement had been

incorporated into the formal structures of power with the Pact
government, and continued in this position under the United
Party regime of General Hertzog. Confrontations between capital
and organised white labour was thus ruled out. (p.38)
Indeed,
through the operation of the interests of all fractions of the

bourgeoisie, white and black fractions of the working class have
been irreconcilably divided, t o the point where the economic and
social position of the former rests on the economic exploitation
and political oppression of the latter. (p.50)
Leaving aside the assertion that the position of the white worker
rests on the 'exploitation' of black workers-a view I criticized
above-what this argument amounts t o is that the maintenance of
the class fractional position of productive and non-productive white
workers in terms of monopoly over skills, wages and status depends
upon the p o l ~ t i c a l . ~The argument should, of course, also be
extended t o the white fraction of the new middle class. The
important point t o stress here is that from the 1930's the
relationship between white workers (productive and non--
productive) and capital was expressed predominantly in a particular
234 Harold Wolpe
form of intervention by the state in the economy. This intervention

of the political, that is of the state, in the economy regulated the
relationship of white labour to capital in a specific way by means of
its intervention in the relationship between both white and black
labour and black labour and capital. This intervention related in
particular to (a) the exclusion of black agents from positions in the
labour process which had, in the course of the class struggle become
defined as 'white' and (b) the maintenance of the monopoly of white
workers over those positions, despite pressures from capital and
from black workers.
This intervention took on an extremely complex form, the
elements of which are well-known and need be indicated only briefly
here. Firstly, laws were enacted which restricted specific places in
the division of labour to white workers-thus certain types of
occupations, skills and functions became defined as 'white work'
and the law operated to exclude black workers. Secondly, the
monopoly held by black workers was strengthened by laws and
policies which tended to undermine the organizational strength of
black workers-thus in terms of the industrial conciliation laws
Africans were excluded from the definition of employee and were
thereby precluded from forming recognised trade unions or

participating in industrial conciliation procedures. Indeed at a later
date strikes by African workers were made illegal. Thirdly, an
immense battery of laws, which were invoked by the state, not only
served t o weaken the ability of the black working class to struggle
against capital, but also weakened it in the struggle over access to the
restricted jobs and positions-here the laws restricting political
organization, the pass laws, the provisions undermining permanent
urban residence and so on are relevant.
The passing and implementation of these laws was coupled with
the more or less consistent support given by the state to the white
worker when they resisted pressures t o open white jobs to black
workers. In short the white workers were able to rely upon and
utilise the state apparatus in maintaining its positions within the
division of labour. This situation depended on the alliance of the
white working class with the classes in charge of the state apparatus
at any given moment. The fact that the reproduction of the position
of classes is directly bound up with the state in the way indicated,
has the consequence that the challenge of excluded workers against
the control by white workers of access to skills, wages and so forth,
involved simultaneously a challenge at the level of the state. It
follows that here the relative autonomy of the political and
economic is reduced.
But, does this mean that the political integument cgn never be
breached or, as O'Meara puts it, that the black and white fractions of
the working class are forever irreconcilable? T o argue in this way,

however, is t o deny any efficacy t o the level of the economy; it is to
argue that the political assumes an unbreakable grip on the
economy. It is necessary, however, t o recall once more that the
domination of the relations of production over the labour process
produces changes in the latter and that such changes may alter in
some respects the political constraints. Indeed, this is what has
occurred in South Africa.
In the post World War I1 period, industrial production in South
Africa expanded at a rapid rate t o the point where in terms of both
employment and output it exceeded the combined totals of
capitalist agricultural and mining production. This expansion has
simultaneously involved a concentration of capital in large
enterprises and the development of vertical linkages in terms of
which productive enterprises secure control of both the sources of
raw materials and also the marketing of the product. In addition
various re-arrangements have occurred, by the process of
concentration, in relation t o enterprises producing components
which are utilised in the final product. It is further important t o note
that the process of capital concentration has been accompanied by,
the familiar, massive increase in the technological base of

production. This development which may increase the organic
composition of capital, has the tendency to offset the decline in the
rate of profit through the intensification of exploitation of labour
power by increasing the productivity of labour. This process has led
to and involved important transformations in the division of labour
and in the class structure. Firstly, there has been a relative decline in
unskilled jobs and a considerable increase in semi-skilled jobs, much
of which has been due t o the fragmentation and redefinition of
skilled work. Secondly, there has been a considerable increase in
technological, administrative and supervisory jobs (the new middle
class).
The black and white labour force has been (and continues t o be)
redistributed into the changed division of labour. Whites have moved
increasingly into administrative and supervisory or supervisory1
productive jobs. Mobility into the new middle class has been
accompanied by a decline of whites in manual work, in both
semi-skilled and skilled jobs. African employment on the other
hand, has relatively declined in unskilled, but increased rapidly in
semi-skilled work.
Nevertheless, partly because semi-skilled jobs have increased
faster than 'higher level' jobs and partly through the devaluation and
deskilling of skilled jobs, a substantial (but diminishing number) of
white workers have remained 'behind' in (or fallen into) the ranks of
the semi-skilled workers. The result is that Africans have entered
236 Harold Wolpe
into skilled work at a faster rate than it has been possible for whites
to move out.
In this sphere, the racial division of labour has tended to break
down, although large wage differentiations between black and white
still exist. The undermining of the racial division of labour has not,
however, occurred without resistance and conflict. Indeed
protracted bargaining and some sharp conflict between white
workers and employers over wages, job re-definition and the racial
allocation of job categories has taken place. The important point is
that the resistance of white workers t o the entry of black workers
into work categories monopolised by whites and their resistance to
the development of new categories available to black workers, has
not been supported by the State. On the contrary, the State has
brought considerable pressure on various sections of white workers
to agree to changes and, in addition, the instruments of the State (in
particular the Job Reservation clause of the Industrial Conciliation
Act which enables the State t o reserve certain jobs for specific racial
groups) have not been invoked on behalf of white workers. Thus, the
relationship between sections of the white workers and capital and
between these workers and the State have changed-the State no
longer operates in the same monolithic way t o defend and protect

the place of white workers in some categories of work in the division
of labour.
How have these workers responded? In fact it is possible to
discern two different reactions (see Mackintosh 1970). One section
of these workers has aligned themselves with the petty bourgeoisie
organised in the 'verkrampte' party-the Herstigte Nationale Party
(the Reconstituted Nationalist Party) of Dr. Albert Herzog. This
party-representing no doubt those sections of the petty bourgeoisie
which was, for whatever reason, unable to utilise the National
Party's control of the State, to gain entry into the capitalist
class-pursues a policy which insists upon the separation of black
and white in all spheres and advocates the encouragement of small
businesses and independent farmers against large farming
organizations and monopolies.
A second section of these workers has begun t o resurrect the
slogan of 'equal pay for equal work' and to call for the recognition of
African trade unions.1 In former days this slogan operated to
preserve the monopoly of white workers over certain jobs; today, it
is an attempt to protect white workers' wage standards, not by racial
exclusivity, since the job categories in question are no longer
exclusive to whites, but by calling for the rate for t h job.''
~ But here,
as in the case of job reservation, the support of the State is by no
means uniform or certain.
It would be going too far to argue that the white working class or
sections of it (to the extent that it still exists) has been abandoned by
the-State. What is clear, however, from the above brief analysis is
that an important shift has taken place in the class relations within
South Africa."
This extremely abbreviated discussion is not, of course, meant to
imply that economic pressures will lead to economic and political
democratization. The point has already been made that whites are
increasingly carrying out the global functions of capital. Nor is it
intended t o suggest that the conditions are emerging for an alliance
of black and white workers (even a specific, relatively small section
of the latter) in a revolutionary struggle against the South African
state. Nevertheless, our analysis shows that changes within the
capitalist mode of production produces changes in the division of
labour which can become the basis for shifting class alliances and
conflicts within the white group. These shifts, if they weaken the
political unity of the classes within the white group may be of
considerable importance in the struggles of the African working class
against the existing state.
Notes
* 1 would like t o acknowledge useful comments on an earlier draft of the paper
by Robin Cohen, Mary McIntosh, Maxine Molyneux, Geof Kay, Ernesto Laclau
and Howard Simson.
1. No attempt has been made here to review all the literature. Although, no
doubt, it would be possible t o extract other notions of 'class' (or, more likely, of
stratification) from the race relations literature, no attempt is made t o d o so
here since in that literature class is regarded as being entirely peripheral t o the
analysis of the social structure and the explanation of conflict in South Africa.
See, for example, P. Van Den Berghe (1965) and L. Kuper (1974).
2. These texts are referred t o since they reflect the argument outlined in this
section (Legassick's article was in fact written in 1972) but as will be clear from
this paper the present author has considerably altered his position and the same
applies t o Legassick who is generally in accord with the views presented here
(see M. Legassick (1975(b)).
3 It is not clear that this is precisely the position of the South African
Communist Party. Thus in the Party's programme, The Sozlth Afiican Road to
Freedom (1962), it is stated:
The relatively high standards of life and wages enjoyed by white workers
represent, in reality, a share in the super profitsmade by the capitalists out of
the gross exploitation of the non-whites. (p.29)
But, the Programme goes on:
However, in reality, the White worker, like the non-White worker at his side,
is subjected to exploitation b y the same capitalist owners of the means of
production. (p.29)
Nevertheless, other passages in the Programme suggest that it is the political
238 Harold Wolpe
alliance of the White workers with capital which enables them t o achieve a
privileged position vis a vis black workers, without, however, altering their
relations of production. (See pp. 2 8 and 38-39).
4. It may be that Rex misconstrued the significance of the notion of 'strata' in
the Marxist analysis he was commenting o n and assumed that it encompassed
only minor differences of status and income and such like. Indeed in a later
article also reproduced in Rex (1973) he stated:
Equally if one looks . . . t o the more general point that class formation and
class membership are dependent upon the relations men have t o the means of
production, whatever the factors which affect those relations, one is likely t o
have a theory of much more general significance. (p.270)
Nevertheless, it will be shown that Rex continued t o hold the position that
white and African workers stand in different relations of production.
5. Robin Cohen has suggested in a personal communication that:
For Davies argument t o hold true, the rate of exploitation of the black
worker must vary inversely with the lessening of the rate of exploitation of
the whire worker. (Or perhaps, more accurately, the exploitation of the
black worker must vary directly with the level of participation of white
workers in the surplus produced by black workers-H. W.) Historically, such
a clear relationship cannot be established because of course the rate of
exploitation of the black worker is contingent on the degree of rural
immiseration, the size of the reserve army etc.
6. See also Carchedi (1975) and Gorz (1972) for a similar view.
7. Poulantzas (1975) argues that:
The reason why these agents d o not belong to the working class, is that their
structural class determination and the place they occupy in the social
division of labour are marked by the dominance of the political relation that
they maintain over the aspect of productive labour in the division of labour.
(p.228) (my emphasis)
The difficulty with this formulation relates to the term 'political relation'. What
meaning does Poulantzas assign t o it? There is no elaboration by Poulantzas in
this text. Taken at face value, t o regard coercion o r authority in productive
relations as political is t o deny t o both the political (and, we may add, the
economic) any specificity. Furthermore, there is n o reason why the political in
this sense, should be restricted t o productive relations; family, sports clubs,
cultural societies, indeed all hierarchical organization would equally qualify.
This seems t o come close t o Dahrendorf's (1969) analysisof class in terms of the
distribution of authority in imperatively co-ordinated associations.
Of course, in his earlier book (197 3), Poulantzas argued that
. . . the political structures (what are called the 'political superstructure') of a
mode of production and of a social formation consist of the institutionalized
power of t h e state . . . (p.42)
I t follows from this that the specificity of political practice depends on its
having state power as its objective. (p.43)
These remarks indicate, in a specific way, a general problem of Poulantzas'
work. He continually asserts that social classes must be conceived of not merely
at t h e level of the economic (which is dominant) b u t as an articulation of the
political and ideological levels with the economic. He nowhere conceptualizes
that articulation except as I have shown above through totally different and
contradictory conceptions of the political.
8. I am not here concerned with agricultural production which in fact became

transformed from feudal production t o capitalist production in the two periods
referred to.
9. T h e conclusion is, of course, not new. A similar point has been made in a
more diffuse way by a number of writers. T h e work of Simons and Sirnons
(1969) is the mos: important in this respect. However, both Davies and
particularly O'Meara relate the production of a racial division of labour much
more vigorously t o the class structure and class struggle rather than merely t o
the operation of the ideological.
10. It is important t o note that fractions of capital are also, in opposition to
government policy, calling for the recognition of African trade unions-the need
for labour discipline and proper negotiating procedures t o avoid disruption of
production (in the wake of the 1973 strikes) is no doubt relevant here.
11. The importance of the 1973 and subsequent strikes must not be ignored in
this regard.
References
Bell, R. T. and N. Bromberger (1972) South Houghton, D. Hobart and J . Dagut (1971)
Africa in a comparative study of industrial- Source Material on the South African
ization: a comment, Unpublished seminar Economy, 1860-1970, Vol. 2 , 1899-1919,
paper: Institute of Commonwealth Studies, Oxford University Press.
University of London. (1973) Vol. 3, 1920-1970
Biesheuvel, S. (1974) Black Industrial Industrial Legislation Commission of En-

Labour in South Africa, South African quiry (1951) Report, U. G. 62-1951
Journal of Economics, Vol. 42, No. 3, (Pretoria)
September. Johnstone, F. (1970) White Prosperity and
Braverman, H. (1975) Labour and Mono- White Supremacy in South Africa Today,
poly Capital, Monthly Review Press. African Affairs, Vol. 69, No. 275.
Buitendag, J. J. and H. W. Van Den Menve Kaplan, D. (1974a) Capitalist Development
(1972) The Movement of Afrikaners into in South Africa. Class Conflict and the
Higher Occupational Levels, Humanitas, State, I. D. S. (Sussex), Unpublished Paper.
Vol. 297-303 Kuper, L. (1974) Race, Class & Power,
Bullock, P. (1974) Defining Productive Duckworth.
Labour For Capital, C. S. E. Bulletin, No. 9 , Legassick, M (1973) The Making of South
Autumn. Africa. 'Native Policy', 1903-1923: The
Bunting, B. (1964) The Rise of the South Origins of 'Segregation'. Institute of
African Reich, Penguin Books. Commonwealth Studies, Seminar Paper.
Carchedi, G. (1975) On the Economic 41974) Capital Accumulation and Vio-
Identification of the New Middle Class, lence, Economy and Society, Vol. 3, No. 3.
Economy and Society Vol. 4, No. 1. -(1975a) South Africa: Forced Labour,
Davies, R. (1973) The White Working Class Industrialization and Racial Differentia-
in South Africa, New Left Review, 82. tion, Forthcoming in R. Harris (ed.), The
41975) Mining Capital, the State and Political Economy of Africa, Schenkman.
Unskilled White Workers in South Africa, -(1975b) The Analysis of Racism in South
1901-1913, Unpublished Paper, University Africa: The Case of the Mining Economy.
of Sussex. Paper presented t o the Conference on
Gervassi, S. (1970) Industrialization. For- Socio-Economic Trends in Southern Africa,
eign Capital av~.dForced Labour in Sozlth I.D.E.P., Dar Es Salaam, 1975.
Africa. United Nations STIPSCAlSet A110. Lerumo, A. (1971) Fifty Fighting Years:
Giddens, A. (1973) The Class Structure of The South African Communist Party
Advanced Societies, Hutchinson. 1921-1971, Inkululeko Publications, Lon-
Gorz, A. (1972) Technical Intelligence and don.
the Capitalist Division of Labour, Telos, Lockwood, D. (1958) The Blackcoated
No. 12.- Worker, Allen and Unwin.
Hepple, A. (1970) South African Workers Mackintosh, P. (1970) When Thieves Fall
Under Apartheid, Defence and Aid (Lon- Out, African Communist No. 4 0 (London).
don). Marx, K. (1961) Capital, Vol. I, Foreign
Hindess, B. and P. Hirst (1975) Pre- Language Publishing House, Moscow.
Capitalist Modes of Production Routledge Moore, B. (1967) The Social Origins of
and Kegan Paul. Ilictatorship and Democracy, Allen Lane.
Harold Wolpe
Norval, A. J . (1962) A Quarter o f a Century African Modernization and Development,

of Industrial Progress in S o u t h Africa Juta, Sage.
Cape Town. Trapido, S. (1971) South Africa in a
O'Meara, D. (1975) White Trade Unions, Comparative Study of Industrialization.
Political Power and Afrikaner Nationalism, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 7,
South African Labour Bulletin, Vol. 1 , No. No. 3.
10. Van Den Berghe, P. (1965) South Africa A
Poulantzas, N. (1973) Political Power and Study in Conflict, Wesleyan University
Social Classes, New Left Books. Press.
41975) Classes in Capitalist Society, New Van Den Merwe, H. W. et al. (1974) White
Left Books. South African Elite, Juta and Co.
Rex, J . (1973) Race, Colonzalism and the Van Wyk, S. (1968) Die Afrikaner in die
City, Routledge Kegan Paul. Beroepslewe van die Stud, Academic Press.
Sadie, J. L. (1971) Labour Supply in South Webster, E. (1974) Background to the
Africa, Finance and Trade Review, Decem- Supply and Control of Labour in the Gold
ber . Mines, South African LabourBulletin, Vol.
Simons, H. J. and R. E. (1969) Class and 1,No.7.
Colour in S o u t h Africa, 1850-1950, Wilson, F. (1972) Labour in the S o u t h
Penguin African Library. African Gold Mines, 1 9 11-1969, Cambridge
-(N.D.) J.-b Reservation and the Trade U. P.
Unions. Wolpe, H. (1970) Race, Class and the
Simson, H . (1975) The Myth of the White Occupational Structure in South Africa,
Working Class in South Africa, African Proceedings o f the 1970 World Congress of
Review, Vol. 4 , No. 2. Sociology.
South African Communist Party (1962) Wolpe, H . (1970) Industrialisation and
The Road t o S o u t h African Freedom Ellis Ra& in South Africa, in S. Zubaida (ed.),
Bowles, London. Kace and Kascism, Tavistock.
Thomas, W. H. (ed.) (1974) Labour Wolpe, H . (1972) Capitalism and Cheap
Perspectives on S o u t h Africa, David Phillip, Labour in South Africa: From Segregation
Cape Town. t o Apartheid, Economy and Society, Vol.
Turok, B. (1974) Strategic Problems in l . NO. 4.

South Africa's L>iberation Struggle, LSM Wolpe, H. (1975) The Theory of Internal
Press. Colonialism: The South African Case. In 1
Turok, B. and K. Maxey (1976) Southern Oxaal et a1 (eds)-Beyond the Sociology of
Africa: White Power in Crisis. Forthcoming Development. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
in I. Wallerstein and P. Gutkind (eds.):
Notes on Authors
Manuel Castells, born in Spain. Maftre de conferences in sociology at

the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Paris and a researcher at the
Centre d'Etudes des Mouvements Sociaux (CNRS). He has previously
taught in the Faculty of Letters at Nanterre, at the Latin American
Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO), at the University of Montreal
and at the Interdisciplinary Centre of Urban Development in
Santiago. Author of many works, especially La Question Urbaine
(Maspero, 1972) and Luttes Urbaines (Maspero, 1973).
Laurence Harris was born 1942 in England and studied at London

School of Economics, B.Sc. (Economics) 1964, M.Sc. (Economics)
1965. He has been a Lecturer in economics at London School of
Economics (1964 t o 1970), Visiting Assistant Professor at
University of California, Berkeley (1966 t o 1967), and, since 1974

has been Lecturer in economics at Birkbeck College, University of
London. Author of various articles on monetary theory and
co-author of articles on the state and conjunctural economic
analysis.
Emilio de Ipola, born in Buenos Aires. Licence in philosophy from

Buenos Aires; Doctorat d'Etat from the University of Paris, with a
thesis on Levi-Strauss. Taught at the University of Montreal; at
present professor at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences
(FLACSO). Author of various articles, particularly on Marxist
theory of ideology.
Caglark'eyder, born 1947, Turkey; studied at Yale (B.A.) and

Berkeley (M.A. in Economics); instructor in Economics, M.E.T.U.,
Ankara.
Harold Wolpe, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Essex. Author of

'Capitalism and Cheap Labour Power in South Africa: From
Segregation t o Apartheid', Economy and Society Vol. 1 , No. 4
1972, and other articles on South Africa.
O Routledge & Kegan Paul 1976
Printed by Butler and Tanner Ltd., Frome and London

T H E O R YO
F
-
by SHINZABURO KOSHIMURA.
Yokohama National University;
edited by JESSE SCHWARTZ,
University fof Waterloo, Ontario.
CONTENTS: l -The Fundamental

Schema. 2-Matrix Notation and the
Reproduction Schema. 3-Value and
Reproduction. 4-Reproduction and
Surplus Value. 5-Prices of Production
and the "Transformation Problem."
6-Demand, Supply, Market Prices.
7-On the Falling Rate of Profit and
Changes in the Structure of Repro-
duction. 8-Monopoly Price and
Profit.
MARX'S SCHEMAS OF REPRO-

DUCTION have never failed to
fascinate generations of scholars.
Rosa Luxemburg, Henryk Gross-
man, Lenin, Tugan-Baranowsky,
and L. v. Bortkiewicz made use of
them. The architectonics of this
textbook are based on Marx's
view of the great cycle of
production and circulation of
commodities. It was first pub-
lished in Japanese in 1956. In our
view, few comparable works in
English afford this glimpse into
the inner physiology of capital-
ism. I t is suitable for use at the
undergraduate or graduate levels.
170 pages. L2.50 paperback; ES.00

cloth. Add postage: UK 2 3 % ~
paperback, 42p cloth; Overseas 15p
paper, 27 cloth.
Send order with payment to:

BMS PUBLICATIONS
90 SHIRLEY STREET
HOVE, SUSSEX
BN3 3WH ENGLAND
k JJ
INDIAN GIVING
Federal Programs for Native Americans
Sar A. Levitan and William B. Johnston
lndian Giving provides the most complete and up-to-date information on the
status of American Indians, o n and o f f the reservation.
The authors examine all aspects of lndian status t o provide a sound basis for
evaluating the relationship between the federal government and the Indians
and what steps should be taken i n the future. The study is divided into six
chapters: Population, including migration, birth rates, and legal status;
Economic Conditions and Development; Education; Health; Social Services;
and a concluding chapter o n prospects for the future. lndian Giving offers
suggestions for improvements in all of these areas, especially regarding the
dilemma posed b y the reservation-on the one hand an obstacle t o lndian
progress and on the other an opportunity for maintaining tribal traditions and
identity.
9 6 pages, cloth 4.90 paper l -45
Johns Hopkins University Press

2-4 Brook Street, London W1
Iannouncing a new series

Studies in ~conomicHistory -
EDITOR: F. M. L. THOMPSON
Professor o f Modern History, Bedford College, London
This new series will be complementary to the well established
Studies in Social History. It will provide an open-ended vehicle t o
carry t o all higher education students, and t o the intelligent and
inquiring general readers the results of original research and fresh
thought on economic history subjects ranging from agriculture t o
railways and from Wales to the world. The first book in the series is:
The Contentious Tithe

The Tithe Problem and English Agriculture 1750-1850
ER IC J. EVANS
University o f Lancaster
Studies the impact on the rural community of a uniquely unpopular
tax. It examines the tithe system during its most contentious
period, when i t was subject to mounting pressure and attack from
political economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo,
agricultural improvers including Arthur Young and James Sinclair
and radical writers, particularly Cobbett, Hetherington and Wooler.
Studies in Economic History 4.75
In our current issue (no. 28):
Hany Chotiner: The American Revolution and the
Bicentennial
Louis Menashe: The Problem of Solzhenitsyn

David Fembach: Toward a Marxist Theory of Gay
Liberation
In forthcoming issues:
Richard Lichtman: Marx and Freud
A series of articles on Afro-American politics, history,
and culture
SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
AGENDA PUBLISHING COMPANY
396 SANCHEZ STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94114
NAME
ADDRESS -p -p--
CITY STATE/ZIP
Subscription (6 issues) $10 Foreign subscription $11
Single issue $2
. .
Contribution $
James Weinstein's Ambiguous Legacy: $ 3 with subscription.

Wolpe, 1976, The White Working Class...

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Wolpe, 1976, The White Working Class...

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This article was downloaded by: [University of Montana]

On: 03 April 2015, At: 14:53

Economy and Society

The White Working class in South Africa

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147600000008

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

and the state.

that it becomes impossible t o pose the question of alterations in class

I I The 'white working class' in the contemporary literature

1. Classes and class fractions or strata:

elsewhere, the appearance of such fractions in no way affects the

following passage from Simons and Sinzons (1 969: pp. 61 8-619 )

White labourism has been a primary cause of policies that incite

It is quite apparent that in the above passage the differentiation of

strata must be accepted as correct, the relationship between these

2. Differences in relations of production

Noting the extremely sharp cleavages between the 'white working

(a) Free and unfree labour

Surely the point is that there are number of different relationships

. . . the relationship t o the means of production of the native

He elaborates the last sentence with a schematic empirical account

Under these conditions:

. . . the white workers . . .form an aristocracy of labour

Again, in his reference t o the supervising and 'policing' functions of

white workers, Rex has drawn attention t o an important point

'What happens is that, in order to guarantee its own freedom, the

white working class demands the restriction of the natives'

But, while I d o not wish t o suggest that there are no important

all, can restrictions on the workers freedom be thought of as defining

The distinction I am trying t o suggest is one between the use of

But on what basis is it concluded that the labour market is not a

the ideology of competitive capitalism than as a fundamental

In another, well-known, passage Marx specifies more closely the

. . . the labourer instead of being in the position t o sell

However, the obligation t o offer his labour-power for sale on the

in the period of capitalist development in which gold-mining capital

( b ) Classes and the appropriation of surplus value:

class of labourers, but a class in some sense bonded and coerced in a

critical conflict at the level of the capitalist mode in South Africa.

Davies (197 3 ) reaches a similar conclusion :

But if some indication of the detachment of white workers from

Davies then attempts t o establish the mechanisms by means of which

white workers and low wages t o black workers. More accurately,

Since the average white wage is a significant amount above the

'surplus free wage', and since it is not based on higher

In Section I1 (1) I showed that a highly skewed wage structure was

of a differentiated wage structure among white workers-

Together with the growth of employment, there has been a steady

I will return t o this point below.

faster rate than that of black workers, so long as the formers'wages

social and other forms of control on black workers, there would be

Total market value of

Which consists of:

Average allowable wage

Basic grade white rates lowest lowest basic

(c) White workers or white supervisors?

The white supervisor-black worker relationship can only be

It is not my intention to pursue this aspect of Simson's paper further

(3) General comments

inappropriate ('freelunfree') or confused (wages paid out of surplus)

specified categories in the delineation of classes and the tendency to

between the producers of value, the working class, and the

Now the concept of mode of production as an articulated

The point in the italicized passage has been made recently in