The Origins of Agrarian Capitalism in South Africa: A Critique of the 'Social History' Perspective

Literature › Works

Martin J. Murray (1989). The Origins of Agrarian Capitalism in South Africa: A Critique of the 'Social History' Perspective. Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Debate). Taylor & Francis.

Type	journal article
Scope	Economics and economic history of apartheid
Method	theoretical or conceptual
Period studied	1870s–1960s
Regions	South Africa, Highveld, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Cape Colony
Themes	agriculture land, origins segregation, comparative theory, methods data sources, politics ideology elections
Citation key	murray1989

Argument

Murray argues that the 'social history' paradigm in South African agrarian studies (Keegan, Beinart, Delius, Bradford, Ross) lacks a coherent theory of agrarian capitalism. He identifies four deficiencies: no precise definition of capitalism, a rigid 'from below' versus 'from above' dichotomy, neglect of the sphere of production, and a privileging of race over class that echoes liberalism. Using Keegan's work as the central case, he claims that Keegan's critique of the 'Prussian path' caricatures Lenin, Morris and others, rests on methodological individualism, and explains agrarian transformation by an under-specified 'white supremacy' ideology. He holds that Beinart/Delius's 'heuristic' use of capitalism and Bradford's circulationist definition produce vagueness. He favours Marxian class analysis centred on surplus-labour extraction in production, as in Morris.

Evidence and method

A historiographical and theoretical critique based on close reading of published work: Keegan's Rural Transformations (1987) and articles, Beinart and Delius's Introduction to Putting a Plough to the Ground (1986), Bradford's A Taste of Freedom (1987), plus Marxist and philosophy-of-history literature (Lenin, Wood, Danto, Lloyd). It uses no new primary or quantitative data.

Place in the debates

• Social history vs Marxist class analysis in agrarian studies (see Historiographical approaches). Murray defends Marxian class analysis centred on production and surplus-labour appropriation against the 'history from below' approach. He credits social history's empirical gains.
• Prussian path / transition to agrarian capitalism (Keegan vs Morris, Greenberg, Trapido, Cooper) (see Agrarian transition to capitalism and the fate of the African peasantry). Murray finds Keegan's rejection of the Prussian path neither definitive nor devastating, because it conflates Lenin and Barrington Moore. He sides with Morris's location of the transition in labour tenancy and the 1920s.
• Role of race/white supremacy vs class in rural transformation; liberal vs revisionist (see Agrarian transition to capitalism and the fate of the African peasantry). Murray argues that explaining white farmers' drive for control by racial ideology reproduces the liberal paradigm and leaves the explanation incomplete.
• Peasant vs proletarian status of labour tenants and sharecroppers (see Agrarian transition to capitalism and the fate of the African peasantry). He rejects defining class by consciousness. In his view labour tenants should be analysed by how their labour was organised and surplus extracted, not by their 'peasant consciousness'.
• Role of the state in agrarian transformation (see Agrarian transition to capitalism and the fate of the African peasantry). Murray says Keegan denies the decisiveness of coercive state policy yet repeatedly relies on state intervention (Natives' Land Act, credit, marketing) to explain outcomes.

Findings

• Murray groups the paradigm's weaknesses into four areas, starting with the lack of a precise definition of capitalism. (p. 4)

  its failure to develop a logically consistent and precise definition of capitalism leads inevitably to imprecision and ad hoc formulations.

• The social history paradigm treats production as non-problematic and reduces conflict to struggles over control, rather than exploitation. (p. 5)

  the 'social history' perspective tends to ignore the sphere of production altogether, or else treats it as theoretically non-problematic

• Keegan's account of the Prussian path conflates two different arguments and caricatures Morris. (p. 7)

  by failing to differentiate between the two substantially different 'Prussian path' arguments (namely, Lenin's classical sphere-of-production theorization of agrarian trans- formation and Barrington Moore's circulationist approach)

• Murray argues that Keegan's methodological individualism ignores structural constraints on social actors. (p. 10)

  Methodological individualism over-emphasizes the autonomy of sovereign individuals precisely because it ignores on principle the real existence of social structures as objects of historical inquiry

• Invoking white supremacy as the driver of agrarian change names an outcome that itself needs explaining. (p. 11)

  to attribute the gradual white monopolization of productive resources to white supremacist propensities is not to explain adequately agrarian transformation but to deflect it onto another terrain

• Keegan's racial-consciousness explanation is said to reproduce the liberal view of racial exclusivity versus capitalist rationality. (p. 15)

  Keegan simply reproduces the classical liberal dilemma of the presumed incompatibility of capitalist economic rationality and the desire for racial exclusivity.

• Despite his denials, Keegan depends on state action to explain the rise of capitalist agriculture. (p. 15)

  Yet at nearly every key historical juncture where capitalizing white farmers reached an impasse, Keegan resurrects state legislative enactments to account for breaking the log-jam.

• Keegan defines the rural proletariat out of existence by consciousness, a circular argument. (p. 13)

  Thus, Keegan reduces class analysis to an investigation of class consciousness.

• Keegan's notion of agrarian capitalism stretches across a century, making it too elastic to be useful. (p. 17)

  Because this conception is capable of almost indefinite extension backwards and forwards over historical time, Keegan's notion of agrarian capitalism is too elastic and malleable to be useful

• Bradford's market-freedom definition would exclude the gold mines and push capitalist agriculture into the 1950s. (p. 20)

  Utilizing Bradford's criteria, large-scale gold mining operations during the 1920s would, quite inconceivably, not be included under the rubric of 'capitalism'.

Evidence ledger

Sources used

Source	Kind	Period	How used
Timothy Keegan, Rural Transformations in Industrializing South Africa: The Southern Highveld to 1914 (1987)	secondary literature compilation	c.1870s-1914	The main object of critique; Murray quotes it extensively to show Keegan's reliance on racial consciousness and conflation of share-cropping and labour tenancy.
Timothy Keegan, 'The Dynamics of Rural Accumulation in South Africa', Comparative Studies in Society and History 28, 4 (1986)	secondary literature compilation	19th-20th century	Source of Keegan's claims about white supremacy, peasant consciousness and the state, quoted and contested by Murray.
Timothy Keegan, 'The Share-cropping Economy on the South African Highveld in the Early Twentieth Century', Journal of Peasant Studies 10, 2-3 (1983)	secondary literature compilation	early twentieth century	Quoted for Keegan's claim that the 1913 Natives' Land Act was the lynchpin of proletarianisation, to show his reliance on state action.
Timothy Keegan, 'The Restructuring of Agrarian Class Relations in a Colonial Economy: the Orange River Colony, 1902-1910', JSAS 5, 2 (1979)	secondary literature compilation	1902-1910	Cited to show Keegan himself devoted an article to the use of political power in restructuring rural class relations.
Beinart and Delius, 'Introduction', in Putting a Plough to the Ground: Accumulation and Dispossession in Rural South Africa, 1850-1930 (1986)	secondary literature compilation	1850-1930	Quoted to characterise the social history stance on capitalism as a heuristic and the 'view from below'.
Helen Bradford, A Taste of Freedom: The ICU in Rural South Africa (1987)	secondary literature compilation	1920s	Murray critiques its definition of capitalism and its reliance on one ICU organizer's recollection of a labour tenant's words.
Recollections of a lone ICU organizer recounting an unknown labour tenant from Vrede district (as used by Bradford)	interviews oral history	1920s	Cited by Murray as Bradford's single piece of evidence that labour tenants displayed an 'insurgent peasant spirit', judged insufficient.
M.L. Morris, 'The Development of Capitalism in South African Agriculture: Class Struggle in the Countryside', Economy & Society 5, 3 (1976)	secondary literature compilation	to 1920s	Cited as the labour-tenant/1920s-transition position that Keegan and Beinart/Delius attack and Murray defends.
Robert Ross, 'The Origins of Capitalist Agriculture in the Cape Colony: A Survey', in Putting a Plough to the Ground	secondary literature compilation	mid-nineteenth century	Cited as an example of an 'over-dressed' concept of capitalism equating it with market-oriented commodity production.

Inference

Quantification: None.

Theoretical and conceptual critique through close reading of published secondary works (Keegan, Beinart/Delius, Bradford) against a Marxian class-analytic framework; no original empirical data are presented. Murray argues by quoting, identifying logical inconsistencies and circular definitions, and by counterexample (e.g. gold mining under Bradford's definition).

Key claims

Claim	Basis	Strength
The social history paradigm lacks a precise theoretical definition of agrarian capitalism, producing ad hoc and eclectic formulations. (p. 647)	Close reading of Beinart/Delius's introduction and the essays in Putting a Plough to the Ground.	Illustrative or anecdotal
Keegan explains agrarian transformation through white supremacist ideology and racial consciousness, which itself requires explanation and mirrors the liberal paradigm. (p. 654)	Quotations from Keegan's 1986 article and Rural Transformations, read against Murray's class-analytic framework.	Illustrative or anecdotal
Keegan denies that state coercion was decisive yet repeatedly relies on state legislation and intervention to explain white farmers' gains, so his account is internally inconsistent. (p. 658)	Keegan quotations on the 1873 masters-and-servants law, 1908-14 state intervention and the 1913 Land Act.	Partial data
Keegan defines labour tenants as peasants rather than a rural proletariat by reference to their consciousness, a circular argument that ignores relations of production on the farms. (p. 656)	Quotations from Keegan, Rural Transformations, pp. 129-131.	Illustrative or anecdotal
Bradford's criteria for capitalism are arbitrary and would exclude 1920s gold mining, and her argument for a peasant spirit among labour tenants rests on a single thin source. (p. 663)	Bradford, A Taste of Freedom, pp. 17-36, and the single ICU organizer's recollection.	Illustrative or anecdotal
Landed whites were not a homogeneous class; the trek of poor white farmers to the cities shows internal differentiation that Keegan's racial category obscures. (p. 655)	Asserted by reference to the migration of marginal white farmers, with no data cited.	Asserted

Gaps in the evidence

The article makes empirical assertions (class differentiation among white farmers, the 1920s as decisive turning point, the labour-tenant system as the origin of capitalism) without presenting any census, farm-level or archival data. Testing them would need agricultural census series, farm-level records on labour tenancy, wages and mechanisation, and magistrates' and Native Affairs Department files by district, much of which existed and has since been used in regional studies. Systematic comparison of regions and periods would be needed to adjudicate between Morris's, Keegan's and Bradford's periodizations.

Replicability: Not applicable.