This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]

On: 19 March 2015, At: 14:05

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

Journal of Southern African

Studies
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjss20

On the articulation of modes

of production: review article
a
Archie Mafeje
a
American University , Cairo
Published online: 24 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Archie Mafeje (1981) On the articulation of modes of

production: review article, Journal of Southern African Studies, 8:1, 123-138, DOI:
10.1080/03057078108708037

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057078108708037

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
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015
 On the Articulation of Modes of
Production: Review Article
ARCHIE MAFEJE
People make their own history, but they do not make it exactly as they please -
Karl Marx
Our point of departure in the present article is a collection of essays entitled
The Articulation of Modes of Production.* It is, however, important to note
that the intention is not to review the collection in its entirety but rather to
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

concentrate on those essays which have a bearing on African anthropology

and history, and on the theorization of development in Third World countries
in general. This emphasis arises out of the Manchester conference on
anthropology and history in Southern Africa in September 1980. This would
indicate a specialist interest.
Nevertheless, in this case specialist interest should be understood in its
diversity. Apart from being specialists on southern Africa, the participants at
the conference consisted of anthropologists and historians, Marxists and non-
Marxists, Europeans and Africans and black and white southern Africans.
These are not mentioned merely to draw invidious distinction amongst people
but rather to ascertain whether or not such diversity has any implications in the
process of knowledge-making. The relevance of these socially-derived
categories became a bothersome and ticklish issue in some of the discussions at
the conference.
Among the issues raised which made the review of some of the theories of
the articulation of modes of production so pertinent were:
i. Whether idiographic enquiry yields deeper insights into societal processes
than nomothetic enquiry. Traditionally, history and anthropology are
idiographic disciplines unlike Marxism which, conventionally, is
associated with nomothetic statements e.g. the theory of modes of
production,
ii. Whether 'mode of production', as a unit of analysis, is a suitable
substitute for 'tribe' or 'nation' as used by both anthropologists and
historians,
iii. The relationship between cultural relativity and meta-theory, as
exemplified by Marxism which treats culture as a purely super-structural
phenomenon,
iv. If a Euro-centric view of history is unacceptable, then what would be the
determinations of a counter-theory from, say, the Third World?

1
H. Wolpe (ed.), The Articulation of Modes of Production (London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1980). These eight essays are all reprinted from the first five volumes of Economy and
Society (1972-6). Wolpe has written an introduction to the collection as a whole.
 124 Journal of Southern African Studies
v. In an imperialist-dominated world what is the responsibility of the social
scientist?
Implicit in these questions are problems not only of theory but also of the
philosophy of social science and sociology of knowledge in general. For our
purposes and to avoid being lost in abstraction, it is proposed that we
approach the general via the specific. Wolpe's and Morris' papers are thus our
natural starting-point.2

Capitalism and the Problem of Labour-Power in South Africa

Both authors are concerned to comprehend the development of capitalist
relations and the specific mechanisms of labour-reproduction in 20th century
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

South Africa. While Wolpe's analysis is focussed on the African reserves,

Morris' is confined to white agriculture. The two writers are bound by a
common epistemology (Marxism) and more or less the same conceptual
armoury - 'mode of production', 'production relations', 'forces of
production' and 'social formation', variously defined. Wolpe uses 'social
formation' interchangeably with 'economic system' and at times with 'whole
society'.
Furthermore, Wolpe uses the term 'state' uncritically. By this it is not meant
that he is unaware of the role of the state in South Africa at least since the
Union (see pp. 293-4), but that he has no specific theory of it other than that it
has been 'utilized at all times to secure and develop the capitalist mode of
production' - a usual Marxist orthodoxy. Surprisingly, the same is true of
Morris who, despite his pre-dispositions to the work of Poulantzas and the
stress he places on the specific place and role of the 'State', limits himself to a
'few perfunctory comments'. Finally, while Wolpe's notion of 'economic
system' includes different modes of production (p. 295), Morris has no such
notion. His 'articulated combination' or 'structured combination' refer to a
single mode of production.
Wolpe's thesis is that:
i. In South Africa, the development of capitalism has been bound up with . .
the deterioration of the productive capacity and then the
destruction of the pre-capitalist societies. In the earlier period of
capitalism the rate of surplus value and hence the rate of capital
accumulation depended . . . upon the maintenance of the pre-capitalist
relations of production in the Reserve economy which provided a portion
of the means of reproduction of the migrant labour force,
ii. . . . Apartheid, including separate development, can best be understood as
the mechanism specific to South Africa in the period of secondary
!
Wolpe's essay (pp. 289-320), 'Capitalism and cheap labour-power in South Africa: from
segregation to apartheid', first appeared in Economy and Society 1, 4, 1972, pp. 425-456. Morris'
essay (pp. 202-253), 'The development of capitalism in South African agriculture: class struggle in
the countryside', first appeared in Economy and Society 5, 3, 1976, pp. 292-343.
3
Cf. E. Laclau, 'Feudalism and capitalism in Latin America', New Left Review, 67,1971, pp.
19-38.
 On the Articulation of Modes of Production 125
industrialisation, of maintaining a high rate of capitalist exploitation
through a system which guarantees a cheap and controlled labour-force,
. under circumstances in which the conditions of reproduction . . . . of that
labour-force is rapidly disintegrating (p. 296).
This posed, for capital the problem of preventing a fall in the level of
profit (p. 308).
iii. This relationship between the modes of production is. . . .contradictory
and increasingly produces the conditions which make impossible the
continuation of the pre-capitalist relations of production in the Reserves.
The consequence. . .is the accelerating dissolution of these relations and
the development towards a single, capitalist, mode of production in
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

which more and more of the African wage-labour force is freed from
productive resources in the Reserves. This. . . .transfers the major
contradiction from the relationship between different modes of
production to the relations of production within capitalism (p. 296).
Morris' thesis, on the other hand, is that:
i. There can no longer be any doubt about the capitalist nature of
'commercial agriculture' in South Africa by at least the second decade of
the 20th century. Labour tenancy. . . .was neither a pre-capitalist form of
appropriating surplus nor a pre-capitalist form of the productive forces
(pp. 217-218).
ii. A mode of production cannot effect its reproduction/transformation in
and of itself. This can only be ensured as the outcome of specific class
struggles conducted within those very conditions. The class struggle in
social formations is the only cite in which the existence/reproduction of a
mode of production can take place (p.218).
Wolpe's first proposition is not at issue. In fact, as is shown by his
references, the same observation had already been made by liberal researchers
such as Schapera, van der Horst and, more recently, Wilson. However, the
question is whether the relationship between the rate of accumulation of
capital and the conservation of pre-capitalist modes of production for
purposes of labour reproduction is true of South African capitalism in
general. From Morris' account it would seem that the supposition is
unwarranted. The burden of his argument is that in South Africa capitalist
agriculture triumphed precisely by transforming pre-capitalist forms. The
capitalist farmers saw advantage in depriving totally the African producer of
the means of production of his labour-power, viz., land and grazing rights.
This would imply that the rate of capital accumulation in agriculture was not
necessarily dependent on retention of pre-capitalist relations of production.
Bradby's argument that different capitals at various times require different
things from pre-capitalist societies is of particular relevance here. The
extension of labour migrancy into agriculture in South Africa is a recent
development, which coincided with the mass removals of African squatters in
the 1960s and early 1970s. While it can be proved that capitalist agriculture in
South Africa has benefited very greatly from the system of cheap black labour,
 126 Journal of Southern African Studies
it can hardly be demonstrated that in the specific case this is contingent on the
problem of reproduction of labour.

The Problem of Archaic and Relative Surplus-Value

As is well-known, Wolpe's thesis (ii) about maximisation of surplus-value
through the transfer of the cost of labour reproduction to the 'Reserve
economy' has been criticised on other grounds by analysts such as Williams,
Fransman and Legassick in particular.4 The arguments turn on the question of
relative surplus-value. It is suggested that, whereas in the earlier period of
mining and primitive agriculture resort to archaic surplus-value was
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

necessitated by lack of relative surplus-value, in the later period of secondary

industrialisation and capitalist agriculture the need for archaic surplus-value
cannot be regarded as the immanent force within capital in South Africa. On
the contrary, some (e.g. Williams) contend that apartheid constitutes an
onslaught against the black working class precisely because of the tendency of
the rate of profit to fall in those sectors of the economy which are capable of
generating relative surplus-value.
According to Marxist theory, this proposition holds for all capitalist
economies. But then it fails to explain why in South Africa this tendency has
manifested itself in the form of Apartheid. Secondly, we have no evidence that
the rate of profit in the central industries in South Africa is lower than that of
the border industries, where labour is even cheaper by Wolpe's reckoning.
Legassick, somewhat hedging on the question of relative surplus-value, once
asked, 'if the major contradiction lies within the capitalist mode of production
entirely, what is the objective meaning of African nationalism?'5 In the
context of Apartheid, he might as well have asked what is the objective
meaning of Afrikaner nationalism, as the two have been moments of the same
dialectical unity since the middle of the 19th century. Obviously the debate has
not yet exhausted its object of discourse. The contradiction between town and
country, as it is revealed by Wolpe's and Morris' work, is more perplexing
than one would suspect. Whereas in Wolpe's case it is the pre-capitalist mode
of production which is meant to ensure the reproduction of migrant labour, in
Morris' case it is labour migration from white farms to the cities which
guarantees the reproduction of the labour-power of the direct producers. In
his words:
There is evidence.. .which confirms that he was unable to provide for his own and
family subsistence on the basis of the land granted to him by the farmer Therefore
4
M. Williams, 'An Analysis of South African capitalism - neo-Ricardianism or Marxism?',
Conference of Socialist Economists Bulletin 4, 1, February 1975; M. Legassick, 'Legislation,
Ideology and Economy in post-1948 South Africa', Journal of Southern African Studies 1 , 1 ,
1974, pp. 5-35. For an excellent summary of the whole debate see M. Fransman, 'Theoretical
Questions in the Understanding of South Africa', Marxistisk Antropologi 2, 2-3, 1976, pp.
115-130.
5
Op. cit., p. 9.
 On the Articulation of Modes of Production 127
the existence of a separate patch of land allocated to the labour tenant did not serve to
separate in time and space the necessary labour from the surplus labour as under the
FMP. The labour tenant in our case is sufficiently separated from the means of
reproduction to render him crucially dependent upon the sale of his labour power for
his reproduction (pp. 215-16).
If Morris' argument that labour tenancy had become a form of 'wage' is
correct, then the 'freedom' of the tenant 'to sell his labour-power either to the
farmer for the rest of the year, or to other farmers, or to migrate to the towns
seeking work is tantamount to supplementing wage with wage. Does this
signify an essential difference between a labour tenant on white farms and a
peasant in the reserves, who definitely expends his labour-power on his own
behalf?
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

This distinction would confirm both Wolpe's and Morris' theses. Yet in
some respects it might be an illusion shared by both of them. According to
Morris, the dividing line between feudalist and capitalist relations of
production is land-rent and wage-labour. These come under the rubric of
'relations of real appropriation'. They are, in turn, counterposed against
'property relations' in the manner of Poulantzas. These are neat categories,
handled with a certain deftness by Morris. It is clear that on the white farms
the Africans, unlike the landlords, did not own any land. It is also true that,
historically and traditionally, they never owned land anywhere. But this did
not stop certain processes of accumulation and social reproduction among
them. 'Land-rent' and 'wage-labour' notwithstanding, it is arguable that
Africans on the white farms were doing more than one thing, while using
identical instruments of production - cattle and agricultural implements.
Under share-cropping, while owning no land, they were able to indulge in
capital accumulation during the late 19th century. Otherwise, even those who
had not reached the same levels of accumulation, using the same instruments,
were busy trying to reproduce the lineage mode of production in the form of
the extended family herds and subsistence agriculture. In the circumstances are
cattle to be regarded as property or as instruments of production?
Morris has an over-simplified model of social relations on the white farms in
South Africa. In his case 'pre-capitalist' need not mean feudal mode of
production simply because of ground-rent and landlordism. Unlike Lenin's
Russia, here we are dealing with a polyglot society. If Morris succeeded
eminently in locating the transition to capitalist agriculture in South Africa,
his downfall has been to reduce all else to a residual category called 'feudalist
relations'.
Conscious of the ambiguities involved, Wolpe tried to present a more
comprehensive scheme than Morris did. In a rough and ready way he sees in
South Africa the development of a dominant capitalist mode of production
'inextricably linked with two other modes of production - the African
redistributive economies and the system of labour-tenancy and crop-sharing
on White farms'. Here, I am not sure who would be more horrified,
Meillasoux or Morris, by such lack of rigour in defining modes of production.
 128 Journal of Southern African Studies
As has been argued by Morris, 'labour tenancy' and 'share-cropping' do not
connote one and the same thing. Nor are the relations therein readily divisible
into 'feudalist' and 'capitalist', as Morris supposed. When the road to
capitalism had been effectively closed to Africans on white farms through state
intervention, they clung even harder to the idea of a patch of land and grazing
rights for their stock.6
Secondly, their attempts to reproduce the minimal lineage structure (the so-
called extended family) never ceased. Where conditions did not permit, it was
not unusual for them to send part of the family (normally, old parents and
younger children) to the reserves with some of the stock accumulated on white
farms. This is particularly true of the eastern Cape, where such people are
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

categorised as amaranuga (those who go around collecting value specifically

from the white farms). What 'value'? It is traditional value in the form of
livestock, for a sharp distinction is made between amaranuga and amaqheya
(meaning up-rooted farm wage-labourers).
This brings us back to the question of whether cattle are 'property' in the
sense of means of production or simply 'instruments of production'. In order
to arrive at a satisfactory answer, it will be necessary to show what property
means or does not mean in the South African context. For both Morris and
Wolpe, the term 'property' or 'means of production' refers exclusively to land
in the agricultural economy. Under what he calls 'African redistributive
economies', Wolpe assumes that 'land is held communally by the community'
(p. 295). This overlooks an important but little-known fact that under the
system of quit-rent all arable land is individually registered at the magistrate's
court in the name of the family head, who then accepts liability for the annual
rent. All such land is vested in and revertible to the state. By this token, are not
all peasant cultivators in the reserves, far from being owners of land, tenants
of the State in the strict sense? If so, how are they distinguishable from
amaranuga on the white farms? The only difference might be that under the
quit-rent system registered plots are heritable according to African customary
law. From the point of view of communal property theorists, this compounds
the problem even more. In practice, it means that particular descent groups are
able to hold the original plots in perpetuity. What is communal about that?

The Problem of Lineage and Labour Reproduction

If it were not for the persistent confusion of communal ownership with
redistributive kinship units in South African literature, it would have been
possible by now to grasp the significance of Meillasoux's and Rey's notion of
'lineage mode of production'. The specificity of this is lost in both Wolpe's
and Morris' analysis. Wolpe is aware of the fact that in the reserves land is
worked by 'social units based on kinship' and that 'the product is distributed

' Report of the Native Farm Labour Committee 1937-39 (Pretoria, 1939), p . l i ; cited by
Morris (p. 234).
 On the Articulation of Modes of Production 129
in accordance with certain rules'. What product and what rules? It is obvious
that in Meillasoux's theorization of the lineage mode of production 'prestige
goods' play a critical role in the social reproduction of the lineage. Whether in
the reserves or on white farms, cattle among South African peasants are a
prestige good par excellence and play a critical role in lineage reproduction
under the system of lobola. But what of subsistence or reproduction of
labour? In purely pastoral economies, as are found in the Sudanic belt of
Africa, the two coincide. In modern South Africa the two functions are largely
separated. Subsistence is met by crop cultivation or wage-labour. On reflection
it would seem that what has remained constant throughout are the
requirements for lineage reproduction. It is apparent that, under conditions of
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

scarcity of land, a conflict develops between the two functions. How is the
problem resolved?
Without detracting from the general thesis that subsistence requirements are
the root-cause of labour migration, it can still be asked if this has been an
invariable factor over time. If so, then how do we explain the fact that for the
greater part of this century African peasants in the reserves as well as on the
white farms, given the opportunity to invest in land or in cattle, showed a
marked preference for the latter? Both Wolpe and Morris note the fact but are
inclined to resort to the usual stereotypes about 'low standard', 'irrationality'
and 'inefficiency' as an explanation.7 If cattle among rural Africans in South
Africa are neither means of production nor means of subsistence, what are
they? It would seem that they can only be means of lineage reproduction.
Subsistence requirements, basic as they are, tend to be adjusted to this fact of
life. This may include foregoing opportunities for investment in land and
migrating for wage employment instead to fulfil subsistence requirements and
re-stocking. This may-suggest that in our particular case the grazing grounds,
which are communally owned, are a critical issue. It is well to remember that
the peasant rebellions of the late 1950s and early 1960s in South Africa were
provoked by stock-limitation and fencing of grazing grounds rather than the
halving of the quit-rent plots, which are associated with individual family
rights.
It then becomes apparent that Wolpe's division of the population in the
reserves into 'those who own or occupy land, those who are both landless and
own no cattle, and those who are landless but own cattle' is purely notional.
'Own or occupy' hides more than it reveals. At the time he wrote only 6 per
cent of the land in the reserves was privately owned.8 Furthermore, his
statement that 'the development of classes in the Reserves which had
already begun in the nineteenth century, was intensified and broadened' flies
in the face of all available evidence.' The process was effectively halted by the
7
Wolpe, op. cit., pp. 215, 234, 303.
1
M. Horrell, The African Homelands of South Africa (Johannesburg, 1973), pp. 1-4. In the
same source it is noted (p. 80) that 'existing landholders are not being dispossessed'.
' Cf. C. Bundy, The Rise and Fall of the South African Peasantry (London: Heinemann,
1979).
 130 Journal of Southern African Studies
state through the Land Act of 1913. Thereafter, it was only Paramount Chiefs
who, under the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951, were granted farms as a form
of bribery. It is true that since 'independence' Bantustan government
Ministers, through graft and corruption, have availed themselves of some land
- probably from areas 'released' from whites. This does not amount to an
intensification or broadening of a 'land-owning class'.
To conduct class analysis we do not have to invent classes, but rather to be
alert to possible mediations in the process of class formation. For instance, the
fact that there is hardly any market in land in the Bantustans is an important
barrier to land consolidation. Likewise, the persistence of lineage structures
militates against large-scale expropriation of either arable or grazing land. In a
redistributive lineage system such as the South African one, to claim that a
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

man who is a custodian of a plot of four acres belongs to a different class from
one who has no such control, or to say a family which is blessed with a
hundred cattle belongs to a class above one which has five cattle, is to reduce
all social relations to mere quantities.
Meillassoux suggests in his paper that in the lineage mode of production the
elders, through control of prestige goods, are in a position to maximise their
advantage when brought into contact with other modes of production e.g.
slavery or capitalism. Then, we may ask: what advantages did the African
elders in South Africa reap as a result of contact with capitalism? The answer
is: if at first they benefited from trade by virtue of control over means
of subsistence and of lineage reproduction, under the system of reservation
they lost everything. Under conditions of deteriorating subsistence production
and of migrant labour, they became absolutely dependent on the young men
for subsistence. Similarly, by virtue of their wages, young men became
relatively independent of them for cattle. This might have strengthened the
economic tie between father and son and would undermine Meillassoux's
supposed solidarity of the elders. In addition, Meillassoux in his case under-
estimates the importance of the cyclical development of domestic groups.
Under lineage organization, the youth are the elders of tomorrow. Secondly,
whatever their common interests, the elders are biologically committed to
succession. Therefore, they cannot be treated as a 'class', despite their
monopoly over means of social reproduction and subsistence.
In the case of the South African reserves, this is not to say that there is no
class differentiation. It is just a warning that class-formation is not only an
object in theory but also an object of empirical investigation. For instance, it is
apparent that in the Bantustans, while the migrant workers might depend on
subsistence production for the reproduction of their labour-power, the new
petit-bourgeoisie depend on revenue and commercial capital, and not land.
Wolpe confirms the point when he says, referring to the various Development
Corporations in the Bantustans, 'up to the present they have largely served to
assist small traders and commercial interests by means of loans' (p. 315).
In pursuance of the idea of a dividing line between idiographic and
nomethetic enquiry, we would refer to Wolpe's declaration that 'It is one thing
to argue that pre-capitalist relations of production may be transformed into
 On the Articulation of Modes of Production 131
capitalist relations; it is quite another to assume that this is both an inevitable
and necesary effect of the CMP' (p. 41). This is a hindsight on Wolpe's part
which is not borne out by his analysis, in so far as he presents no supporting
examples. Even in his case capitalism is the active agent. Yet idiographic
experience shows not only positive response but also a certain resilience on the
part of the so-called pre-capitalist modes of production. Therefore their
history is as important as that of capitalism. But their specificity remains
unintelligible, without a general theory i.e. nomothetic enquiry.
In an attempt to reconcile universal with local history, Morris uses the
notion of 'class struggle' as a catch-all concept. Although he is convinced that
there is no single invariant path to capitalism, he still conceives of the
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

transition in South African agriculture as being 'from feudal agriculture to

capitalist agriculture', i.e. the content of the 'concrete struggle' is pre-
determined by his designating concepts. The omission of parallel struggles by
originally autonomous pastoralists, clans and lineages as a reaction to
conquest is indicative of an inability to theorize the colonial factor. How else
do we explain African (or Third World) nationalism in answer to Legassick's
question? If in the current situation the instance of colonial imposition has
largely been superseded by the spread of international capitalism
(imperialism), nonetheless it should be recognized that nationalist struggles
stem from it though they be increasingly informed by class struggles on the
broader front.10 To do otherwise is to succumb to the fallacy of a history
without subjects and to the substitution of modes of production for human
action and consciousness.

On Articulation Modes of Production

The question of modes of production is a vexed one in Marxist literature, as is
shown in the introduction by Wolpe. For our purpose, the concept of 'mode of
production', whether in the 'extended' or 'restricted' sense, will be taken as
understood. Greater attention will be paid to its applicability to different
situations. Already notions such as 'extended mode of production',
'articulation of modes of production';and 'social formation'are symptomatic of
the inadequacy of the concept in dealing with complex situations. Whereas its
precision, as an abstract concept, is not in doubt, its substantive referent is.
In his paper on South Africa Wolpe adopts Laclau's distinction between a
mode of production and an economic system, but is also concerned to identify
'the constituent elements' of the latter. These are, as we mentioned earlier, the
capitalist mode of production, the 'African redistributive economies' and the
'system of labour-tenancy'. As has been pointed out already, the latter two
especially are neither products of serious intellectual labour nor of reliable
empirical knowledge. This is in sharp contrast to the intensity of Morris' effort

10
Similar agreements have been advanced by writers such as Anderson and Arrighi (see A.
Foster-Carter, 'The Modes of Production Controversy', New Left Review, 107, 1978, p. 77) and
are implicit in the work of Third World scholars such as Amin, Frank, Alavi and Banaji.
 132 Journal of Southern African Studies
in trying to identify the particular mode of production with which he is
concerned. For Morris a mode of production is an 'articulated
combination'/'structured combination', in fact, a determinate structure
(p.218). Following Hindness and Hirst, he denies absolutely that a mode of
production is determinative:
"Transition from one mode or the displacement of dominance from one mode to
another is not the consequence of a given necessity internal to the structure of a mode of
production. The 'next' mode of production is not contained in the 'previous' one, nor is
it produced by a movement internal to that structure. To argue so is to negate the
primacy of the class struggle as the motor of history" (pp. 218-19)
Here occurs a big epistemological break: there can be no theory of
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

mediation or of articulation between modes of production. Contradictions

occur neither between modes of production nor within a mode of production,
but rather in class struggle within given social formations. This amounts to an
abandonment of dialectical materialism, unless the material conditions of class
struggle are accorded the same theoretical/logical status as the mode of
production to which they refer. In orthodox Marxism this is provided for in
the concept of 'contradiction' within a mode or between modes of production.
The fact of the matter is that Morris has no equivalent concept. In his case
'social conditions' and 'natural conditions' are used descriptively and at times
interchangeably. Consequently, we fall from high theory to bad empirical
history and price theory. In order to sustain his case he reverts to the 19th
century and speaks about the white farmers at the time in the same vein as in
the post-World War I period. Secondly, his comments do not take into
account the differences between the British colonies and the Boer Republics
during this period. Finally, in an extra-ordinary paragraph on p. 219 he
excuses the white capitalist farmers of maintaining the labour-tenant system
on the grounds of lack of 'high money wages' or cash to pay their labour. If
white farmers were pecuniary, did they have to be capitalists and exploit
blacks? The logic of capitalist development and the actual situation in the late
19th century point to the contrary.
Morris knows that what changed the situation was intervention from above.
But his substantive knowledge of this is in doubt, for he believes that this was
due to 'the existence of a powerful landlord class based on the existence of
large. . .agricultural estates with a high political and economic
subordination of the African peasants In addition the landlord class was
heavily supported by state power '. During the 19th century all
landowners did not constitute a 'class' and, secondly, the economic
competitiveness of African bywoners or share-croppers was one of the reasons
for state intervention." But who was the 'state'? The politics of conquest in
the Republics of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal had made all whites
heirs to state power to the exclusion of all blacks, irrespective of their
economic position. From the point of view of 'class struggle' this is an

" This is fully documented by Bundy in his excellent study, Rise and Fall, op. cit.
 On the Articulation of Modes of Production 133
important political mediation which neither Morris nor Wolpe are able to
theorize.12 In this case economic interest was primary but not necessarily in
command. From 1913 onwards politics was in command. If politics be
'concentrated economics' in the Leninist sense, then it follows that political
and economic instances/moments can be reversed without breaking their
dialectical unity.
While Wolpe would probably agree with Morris that 'all modes of
production exist only in the concrete economic, political and ideological
conditions of a social formations', he would probably object to Morris' non-
recognition of 'articulation of modes of production'. Indeed, whereas Morris
constantly refers to 'social formation' he has no theoretical definition of the
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

same. In contrast, Wolpe has a clear definition of both a 'social formation'

and an 'extended mode of production'. The latter is contingent on the
specification of the mechanisms of social reproduction or the 'laws' of motion
of the economy. The former is conceived as a 'combination of modes of
production'. As Wolpe puts it in his introduction, 'The distinction between the
abstract concept of mode of production and the concept of the real-concrete
social formation conceived as a combination of modes of production
constitutes the explicit or implicit presupposition of all these articles' (p. 35).
Here, we encounter serious problems of theory or philosophy of science. It
would seem that, while happy to adopt the now famous distinction between
the two concepts, Balibar's followers have paid no attention to his warning
that
". . .the term 'social formation' which Marx uses, may be either an empirical concept
designating the object of a concrete analysis, i.e., an existence: England in 1860, France
in 1870, Russia in 1917, etc., or else an abstract concept replacing the ideological notion
of 'society' and designating the object of the science of history insofar as it is a totality
of instances articulated on the basis of a determinate mode of production."
There is no doubt that 'concrete' is used more or less as a slogan by the
majority of the 'articulation' theorists. Yet it is a matter of logic that a
relationship between abstract concepts cannot be concrete. The
comprehensiveness of the concept of 'social formation' does not derive from a
lower level of abstraction vis-a-vis 'mode of production'. This would be the
case only if 'social formation' were thought of as a model of existing realities.
For Marxists this would be an unmistakable lapse into empiricism. For our
authors, then, what unit of analysis does 'social formation' stand for? This
ranges from Quijano's 'Latin-American social formation' to Morris' 'concrete
economic, political and ideological conditions' of a particular
instance/existence, e.g. South African capitalist agriculture in the twentieth
century. It should be noted that Quijano's more 'abstract' geographial
12
Research on the Transvaal and the Orange Free State by social scientists such as Trapido,
Keegan and partly Denoon, Legassick, Fransman, Kaplan, Bundy and Francis Wilson shows that
this was one of the critical factors in the closing years of the 19th century. Therefore Morris'
analogy with the 'Prussian Road' to capitalism is ludicrous.
13
E. Balibar, Reading Capital (London, 1970). p. 207 n. 5.
 134 Journal of Southern African Studies
designation remains arbitrary until it is specified in terms of economic,
political, ideological and historical instances. In principle this is no different
from Morris' seemingly restricted notion. In fact, Morris' instances are
variable according to the chosen unit of analysis, i.e. he could have talked
about district, national, sub-regional and regional capitalist agriculture,
without changing his terms of reference. His only crime was not to do that
systematically so as to reveal the variations in South African capitalist
agriculture. However, there is general consensus among the various
protagonists that a 'mode of production' is an 'abstract concept'. As such it
can be an object only in theory and not in concrete analysis, as Morris points
out, i.e. it cannot be a unit of concrete analysis.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

However, there is still disagreement on whether or not modes of production

reproduce or destroy themselves through mechanisms internal to them.
Morris, following Hindess and Hirst and Poulantzas, denies absolutely that
they do, as has been mentioned. Logically, he is right: abstract concepts
neither do nor undo in the substantive sense. In contrast, Wolpe's proposition
(iii) (see p. 000) implies not only logical but also historical necessity. Therefore
his laissez-faire declaration that '. . .there seems to be no reason for insisting
upon the necessary assymetry of modes of production' and that 'it is perfectly
possible to envisage a social formation, .in which no extended mode is
dominant' (p. 37) comes as a surprise. Is this a new version of FurnivalFs
pluralism - a 'real medley, for they mix but do not combine'? Is not the
market an integrating force, and does it not ultimately affect the resource base
of the weaker? The same question might be asked of Bradby, regarding her
Amazones. Whether it be raw materials or labour supplies that capital requires
for its reproduction, the effects on the conditions of production in the local
community are profound. 'Underdevelopment' is a dialectical concept. Wolpe
admits as much when he declares: "The persistence of pre-capitalist enterprises
must be analysed as the effect of the struggle of agents organised under
differentiated relations and forces of production'. But what agents?
This might not be as self-evident as it appears, for Marxism, like all science,
often uses the language of metaphors. In the articles under discussion 'capital'
or 'capitalism' is often talked of as a noun agent with an inexorable logic such
as an insatiable quest for unlimited supplies of labour and raw materials, or as
being driven to gobbling up all antecedent modes of production so as to realise
itself universally. In her two Peruvian examples Bradby objects not so much to
the implicit teleogy but to the supposed blind logic of capitalism. For instance,
she points out that capital might be embarassed by increasing labour supplies
in situations where unemployment has become a chronic problem. Wolpe is
most vulnerable to this observation because he does not see any limit to the
demand for cheap, migrant labour. Yet in recent years we have witnessed in
South Africa the dumping of unwanted labour in the reserves, not to
reproduce their labour-power but to perish. Indeed, in an unpublished report
Meillasoux argues that, having created but being increasingly unable to solve
the problem of unemployment, capitalism is now embarking upon a
 On the Articulation of Modes of Production 135
programme of genocide, especially in underdeveloped countries.14 The
'impoverishment, starvation, high rate of death and debilitation' referred to
by Wolpe (p. 303) lend support to Meillasoux's hypothesis and cast doubt on
his own supposition.
It is, therefore, apparent that beyond the metaphor there are real people and
that their real interests are opposed to those who seek to use them as labour or
as disposable surplus labour. Theoretically, dialectical materialism poses this
as a contradiction between capital and labour but, practically, as a struggle
between classes. It transpires, therefore, that there is a strategy behind Morris'
denial of any immanent force in modes of production. By eschewing the
language of metaphor, he guarantees the role of human agents in the struggle
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

for existence, namely, the 'class struggle'. Unlike Wolpe who sees 'social
reproduction' as the key to the problem of integration of discrete enterprises
or modes of production, he insists that all this occurs in the concrete
conditions of class struggle. But is this enough justification for not having a
developed concept of 'social formation'?
The issue here is the articulation between economic and political instances.
We have already referred to the theoretical status of 'mode of production'.
Now it remains to check whether or not the concept of 'extended mode of
production', proposed by Wolpe, can encompass processes such as
'circulation, distribution, the state and so forth', whose functioning he refers
to as 'the laws of motion' (p. 36). In this context 'functioning' is an ambiguous
term, as it could refer either to practice or to a mathematical or abstract
relationship. At the level of modes of production, which are abstract, 'laws'
are possible but at the operational or concrete level there can be no laws. If
used in the former sense, reproductive processes get dissociated from 'mode of
production'; if used in the second sense, they get incorporated into the concept
itself, as is assumed by writers such as Bettelheim and Balibar. Extension of
the concept in the first case is logical nonsense and in the second case is
superfluous.
Conventionally, the problem we are dealing with could be conceived of as
the articulation between 'infra-structure' and 'super-structure'. But, as is now
recognised, these are not instances but broad theoretical concepts. In classical
Marxism they received their concrete expression in 'class-struggle'. Therefore,
the question to put to those Marxists who, like Wolpe, press for an 'extended
mode of production' is: what are the concrete reproductive processes which
exceed class-struggle? It is conceivable that the answer would be those
situations which involve more than one mode of production. But this would be
an argument for a theory of 'articulation of modes of production' not for
extension of the concept of 'mode of production'. The immediate implication,
despite Wolpe's various alternatives (pp. 36-38), is that the two concepts
overlap to the point of redundancy. Nevertheless, this holds true only if they
are assumed to apply at the concrete level. It is not clear from Wolpe's remarks
" Les Effects de I'apartheid sur la Famille Rurale Africaine et sur la nutrition, en Afrique du
Sud (Paris, 1978).
 136 Journal of Southern African Studies
whether or not the 'extended mode of production' applies at the concrete level.
In contradistinction, it is abundantly clear that he and other 'articulation'
theorists believe that the concept of 'articulation of modes of
production'/'social formation' applies at the concrete level. This is an illusion.
'Social formation', conceived as 'articulation of modes of production', is as
abstract as its component units and is at best inferential. Therefore, either way
it cannot be an object of concrete analysis. If this were not the case, countries
such as the USA, (or South Africa if Wolpe's drift towards 'a single mode of
production' is realized) which are characterized by a single mode of
production, according to Rey,1S would have neither a 'social formation' nor
would they be amenable to concrete analysis - an obvious theoretical and
empirical absurdity.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

Therefore the only way to avoid such absurdities is to submit that a social
formation is not an articulation of modes of production but rather a nexus of
economic, political and ideological instances. This is implicit in Morris'
analysis at the concrete level. However, his attempted formulation is vague
and partial. For instance, he ignored lineage reproduction and overlooked
nationalism/racism by treating the 'state' not as an extension of the 'concrete
economic, political and ideological conditions' but rather as an extrinsic
factor.u Yet the inclusion of such political and ideological dimensions makes
it possible to comprehend specific instances, without relativising theory. Thus
the apparent contradiction between universal and local history is seen for what
it is: moments within the same dialectical unity. Through struggle and by
transforming the particular, the local agents change the whole.
In this respect, it is interesting to note that no less a writer than Wolpe, who
otherwise is only concerned with the essence of the 'capitalist state', is willing
to accept variability in political instances by supposing that, had the policy of
the United Party, 'which included certain restricted reforms and modifications
of the racial political-economic structure', been implemented in 1948, it might
'possibly have had consequences for both the Afrikaner petit-bourgeoisie and,
also, the White workers which would have led them into a collision with the
State' (p. 309). In other words, South Africa would have been a different
capitalist state. The Afrikaner rural petit-bourgeoisie would not have been
able to use directly state-power and capital as vehicles for its own nationalism,
among other things.

Conclusion
In an extremely condensed and apparently incomprehensible text, at the
conference in Manchester I tried to hint at some of the problems raised in this
review. Among these were the problem of idiography and theory, the
authenticity of social science representations in Third World countries, and the
13
The founder of the theory of 'articulation of modes of production' as it is currently used.
16
This is not attributable to Poulantzas' conceptualisation, as is implied by Wolpe (pp. 10-11).
17
Cf. A. Cabral, 'Brief Analysis of Social Structure in Guinea', in Revolution in Guinea (New
York, 1969).
 On the Articulation of Modes of Production 137
status of meta-theory vis-a-vis ideological/subjective representations. From
our discussion, it is apparent that most South African Marxist theorising
about Africans is based on texts which are largely divorced from context.
Hardly any of the protagonists have acquired idiographic knowledge through
field work. Instead, they have relied on work done by liberals whose
empiricism is a guarantee for doing field work. As proof we have the work of
the anthropologists, the linguists and some economists such as Sheila van der
Horst, Houghton and Francis Wilson. Even historians have started using the
technique of oral traditions. If for a long time Marxists have disdained field
work either because they associated abstract theory with superior knowledge
or because they could take for granted the context of their texts, that
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

separation is no longer tenable. Encounter with novel situations dictates so. It

is noteworthy that Althusser's and Balibar's abstract theory of articulation of
modes of production has been advanced significantly by empirically-based
studies such as have been undertaken by Meillasoux, Rey, Bradby, Dupre,
Copans and others.
But then 'kinship', 'community life' or 'lineage' as reference points in these
studies imply recognition of cultural categories.n This is contrary to orthodox
Marxism, which has no room for cultural categories for they are presumed to
be non-determinant.18 Yet, in his letter to J. Bloch in September 1890, Engels
warned against twisting the materialist conception of history 'into saying that
the economic element is the only determining one' and that he who does this
'transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase'.
Certainly, ideology was not among the other elements which Engels would
have countenanced, as it is 'false'. The falsity of ideology notwithstanding, it
is observable that ideology is pervasive in human activity. In the absence of a
meta-language i.e. a language which is historically and culturally neutral,
ideology remains intrinsic to social theory. Language expresses a group's sense
of what is important and true, i.e. it edits the universe. Secondly, if 'class-
struggle' is the motor of history, can this be materialised, without political
agents? Concomitantly, can we conceive of political agents, without an
ideology/subjective identity? In our times imperialism means not only
economic exploitation but also confrontation between different subjects of
history. But how are subjects materialised?
Marxism has several images of the human being which find theoretical
expression in the concept of 'subject'. It conceives at once a subject who is a
product of society and of a subject who acts to make society. In other words,
the human subject is constituted in ideology and by history and, at the same
time, acts to make history and rationalisations of its instances, i.e. they are the
live social formation. From this point of view, political practice produces the
reciprocal relations of social agents, of forms of social organisation and the
resultant relations of domination and subordination within the social
formation. Politically-understood, ideology is the way in which human agents
" For a lively discussion of the problem, see P. Worsley, 'Marxism and Culture: the missing
concept', Occasional Papers, No. 4 (Manchester University, August 1980).
 138 Journal of Southern African Studies
actively reproduce their subjectivity within a social formation. It is a practice
to produce a particular articulation of meanings which appeal to certain
subjects. These 'montages of notions', as Althusser would call them, help
individuals to take up concrete positions with respect to real objects and social
problems arising out of their particular history. Thus nationalism can be seen
as a construction of subjects for ideological representations and conversely
ideological representations as a process of fixing the identity of the subjects.
Nor is this surprising. Social process necessitates that there should be a subject
in order that any predication, and therefore communication/consummation,
can take place.
We thus reach simultaneous reflection on the separation and reciprocal
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:05 19 March 2015

action of the two categories of 'subject' and 'object' in the movement of

historical process; and not suppression of the subject. It must be insisted that
'subject' and 'object' are moments of the same dialectical unity. Any
separation between the two inevitably leads to either idealism or to its obverse,
mechanical materialism.19 This is not to assert the primacy of identity over
contradiction. It is to argue that, while a contradiction might be universal, its
instances are usually specific and, therefore, the identity of its subject variable.
This calls for a theory of mediation, i.e. incorporation into social science
thought categories, which are European-derived, of that which has been
excluded.20 To overcome Euro-centric social theory, it is imperative that the
absent must be made present because the greater part of the truth, as is shown
by the continuing revolutions in the Third World, is in that which is absent.
Authenticity in this case is the refusal to accept the rules of a game in which the
dice are loaded. Inclusion of that which has been excluded is the responsibility
of the critical social scientist. Ultimately, this means new forms of awareness
and self-identification. However, despite liberal self-flagellation, as long as
basic contradictions exist among people, so long will the lines ever be drawn.

" Which is not uncommon among South African communists, who have always maintained
that African migrant workers are unambiguously proletarian by virtue of selling their labour-
power to industrial capitalists.
10
Thomas Hodgkin is one of the few First World scholars who has taken a positive interest in
the 'deviations' of Third World Marxists. See his 'Some African and third world theories of
imperialism', in R. Owen & Bob Sutcliffe (eds.), Studies in the theory of imperialism (London,
1972). See also Anouar Abdel-Malek, 'Sociology and economic history', in P. Gutkind & P.
Waterman (eds.), African Social Studies (London, 1977).