Review of Alf Stadler, The Political Economy of Modern South Africa (London: Croom Helm, 1987)¶
Baruch Hirson (1988). Review of Alf Stadler, The Political Economy of Modern South Africa (London: Croom Helm, 1987). Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Oct. 1988). Taylor & Francis.
| Type | other |
| Scope | Wider apartheid literature |
| Method | synthesis review |
| Period studied | 1899–1987 |
| Regions | South Africa |
| Themes | business and state, politics ideology elections, methods data sources, unions strikes, resistance social movements |
| Citation key | hirson1988 |
Argument¶
Hirson reviews Stadler's book on the political economy of modern South Africa and finds it weak as history and as political economy. He argues that Stadler's stated aim of identifying constraints on change cannot be met while the 'forces working for change' are set aside. He says the book hedges, asserts the state-capital relationship without demonstrating it, and defines no key concepts, the state included. He also lists many factual errors, mostly on early 20th-century labour and political history (ICU, Mine Workers Union, Natives Representative Council). He adds that the book is thinly referenced and fails to explain central events: the South African War, the 1907-10 settlement and Soweto 1976.
Evidence and method¶
The review rests on Hirson's own knowledge of the historiography, a comparison of Stadler's claims with a cited research paper by M. Roth, and a check of specific pages (132, 144-147) of the book. It also refers to two newer studies of the 1946 mine strike and to Hirson's own 1977 colloquium paper.
Place in the debates¶
- How to theorise the state and its relationship to capital in South African political economy (see The state and capital: instrumentalism, autonomy and fractions of capital). Hirson criticises Stadler for asserting that the state-capital relationship is crucial without defining the state or demonstrating the claim. He implicitly calls for explicit conceptual grounding.
- Reform from above vs pressure from below as the driver of change under apartheid (see Why apartheid ended: reform, transition and elite bargaining). Hirson holds that, since Stadler concedes reform aimed to control and divert pressure from below, the forces working for change must be central to any analysis. Stadler sidelines them.
Findings¶
-
Stadler's stated aim is to identify constraints on significant change, not to predict or to analyse forces for change. (p. 2)
The purported intention of the book is to 'identify the kinds of constraints that would need to be transcended in order for significant changes to be accomplished'
-
Hirson says the stated aim undermines itself, because constraints cannot be understood apart from the forces pressing for change. (p. 2)
As an exercise in history the text leaves much to be desired; as a parade of restraints, it is sorely deficient precisely because these depend on the 'forces working for change'.
-
Hirson accuses Stadler of hedging on basic questions such as local versus foreign capital. (p. 3)
Throughout the book Stadler seems to hedge his bets. Local capital dominates the economy, but foreign investment is still important for the economy (p. 22);
-
The state-capital relationship is asserted rather than demonstrated. (p. 3)
The reader is informed that the relationship between the state and capital is crucial (p. 22). This might or might not be obvious, but this is precisely what has to be demonstrated - and not asserted.
-
The book offers no definition of the state and cites theoretical literature perfunctorily. (p. 3)
There is no definition of the state, and the reader is only informed that theories relating to this central concept range 'over the major contemporary theoretical positions'.
-
The book lacks conceptual definitions generally, which weakens its account of mechanisms of control. (p. 3)
nowhere, in this work on the political economy of South Africa are there any definitions that would guide the reader through a maze of descriptive statements.
-
Hirson says the text is full of factual errors. (p. 3)
Like the curate's egg, the text was addled, and there were pages in which it was possible to find several howlers, or plain errors of fact.
-
The book misstates the leadership of the African Mine Workers' Union in the 1946 strike. (p. 3)
the Mine Workers Union was led by Radebe, a member of the Communist Party. Both these are non-facts: Radebe had been expelled from the CPSA some years back, and the union was led by J.B. Marks.
-
The book is thinly referenced. (p. 4)
The book does not usually provide references, and there are only 79 footnotes for the entire text
-
A political economy must explain central events, not only describe them. (p. 4)
A book that sets out to explain the forces at work in South Africa must offer explanations, even if it won't predict the outcome of the struggle on hand.
Evidence ledger¶
Sources used¶
| Source | Kind | Period | How used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alf Stadler, The Political Economy of Modern South Africa (Croom Helm, 1987), the book under review | other | Written from 1980; published 1987 | The reviewed text is the object of the critique. Specific pages (pp. 4, 22, 24, 28, 72, 132, 144-7) are checked for errors, hedging and missing definitions. |
| M. Roth, research paper on the Natives Representative Council (NRC) | secondary literature compilation | Not stated | Used as a check on Stadler's account of NRC membership, which the reviewer says misreports Roth's paper. |
| Hirson's 1977 colloquium paper on the alleged bombing of northern Transvaal villages in 1942 | other | 1977 | The reviewer cites his own earlier paper to say the 1942 bombing claim could not be verified, yet Stadler presents it as fact without a reference. |
| Clements Kadalie's own account of the founding of the ICU (Cape branch) | other | Early 1920s, as recounted later | Referred to when disputing Stadler's claim that Kadalie formed the ICU. The reviewer says the account is itself dubious. |
| Two recent studies of the African Mine Workers' Union and the 1946 strike | secondary literature compilation | 1946 strike; studies c. 1980s | Cited to show that Stadler's facts about the union and the 1946 strike have been challenged in newer work. |
Inference¶
Quantification: None.
A book review. The reviewer checks specific factual statements in Stadler's book against his own knowledge of labour and political history and against a cited source (Roth's paper). He also judges the book's conceptual coherence and its failure to define terms or explain events.
Key claims¶
| Claim | Basis | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Stadler's account of the 1920s-30s is riddled with factual errors, for example on the ICU's origins, the ISL and Ballinger's arrival. (p. 3) | The reviewer's own knowledge of the period, with no sources cited. Pages 144-5 of the book serve as a sample. | Asserted |
| Stadler wrongly says the Mine Workers Union was led by the communist Radebe, when J.B. Marks led it, and he repeats an unverified claim of village bombing in 1942. (p. 3) | The reviewer's knowledge and his earlier 1977 colloquium paper. Newer studies are referred to but not named. | Asserted |
| Stadler misreports his own cited source, Roth's NRC paper, on who was elected to the Natives Representative Council. (p. 4) | A comparison of Stadler's page 132 with Roth's paper, as characterised by the reviewer. | Partial data |
| The book is thinly referenced and never defines its central concepts, such as the state, so its claims are asserted rather than demonstrated. (p. 4) | The reviewer's reading of the text, including a count of footnotes and the treatment of state theory on p. 22. | Partial data |
| The book fails to explain the causes of central events, including the 1899 war, the 1907-10 transfer of government and the Soweto revolt, and it neglects the forces working for change. (p. 4) | The reviewer's judgement from reading the text, with no external data. | Asserted |
| The book hedges between opposing positions, for example on foreign versus local capital and autarky versus export dependence. (p. 3) | Selected passages of the book at pp. 22, 24 and 28, as paraphrased by the reviewer. | Illustrative or anecdotal |
Gaps in the evidence¶
The review lists errors without citing archival or published sources, so its corrections cannot be checked from the text alone. It does not name the 'two new studies', and it does not give the text of the passages it criticises. A fuller audit would set Stadler's footnoted claims beside the original sources, namely Roth's paper, union records, Hansard and the Native Bills legislation. These sources existed at the time and are accessible now.
Replicability: Not applicable.