首页> 外文学位 >FROM LAISSEZ FAIRE TO INTERVENTIONIST STATE: SUBJUGATION AND CO-OPTATION OF ORGANISED LABOUR ON THE SOUTH AFRICAN GOLD MINES 1902-1939.
【24h】

FROM LAISSEZ FAIRE TO INTERVENTIONIST STATE: SUBJUGATION AND CO-OPTATION OF ORGANISED LABOUR ON THE SOUTH AFRICAN GOLD MINES 1902-1939.

机译:从LAISSEZ失败到干预主义国家:1902-1939年南非金矿上的有机劳动的征服与合作。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The literature on twentieth-century South Africa is prone to over-emphasise the unique aspects of South African society, such as its highly institutionalised and rigid system of race discrimination. This has led to an impasse, making it difficult to analyse and situate South Africa in general and comparative contexts. It is increasingly seen as a deviant, even bizarre, case among modern industrial states; and its historians have tended to seek unique causes for these ostensibly unique effects. The quest is usually carried out in a highly selective way which ignores or understates important contextual and contingent processes, distorting both past and present.;The study rejects the virtually unanimously held theory that the protracted capital-labour conflict between 1907 and 1924 was essentially about the substitution of poorly paid black labour for exceptionally well-paid white labour. Rather the overriding issue was the struggle for industrial dominance between capital and labour, and the state's growing intervention in the conflict.;The study consequently also rejects the equally widely held "turning point" theory which argues that international mining capital won the "battle" of 1922 (by crushing the Rand Revolt), only to lose the "war" of 1924 (when a new government ostensibly representing Afrikaner nationalists and white labour was elected).;The events of 1922-1924 marked a decisive defeat for organised labour, a definite victory for the expanding interventionist state, and a qualified but important victory for mining capital. They did not constitute a turning point, the study demonstrates, because they were logical consequences of both the long-standing and growing state-capital alliance and the uneven but unidirectional process by which the state subjugated and co-opted organised labour.;This study places South Africa in a broader analytic framework by focussing on the increasingly interventionist nature of the state in the conflict between capital and organised (white) labour on the gold mines. It is at the same time a detailed examination of the South African decision-making process and the relationship between mining capitalism and political power.;Neither did the increasing state support for import-substitute industrialisation after 1924 mark a "turning point": it was a wholly logical development of previous governments' preoccupations with stabilising revenue and expanding employment opportunities for the white electorate.;The results of the study define certain types of situations--relevant to other industrial states as well as South Africa--which tend to influence the speed, degree and quality of state intervention in a fairly predictable way wherever they occur. (1) In "developing" or "developed" states where the government must account to an electorate there tends to be an expanding state role in all sectors of the economy, especially in the creation of jobs and the control of the capital-labour conflict. The role is a major part of what some social scientists refer to as the "legitimation imperative" of the state. (2) Where an economy is heavily dependent on a single product (such as gold), the state will be especially prone to safeguard its major source of revenue by intervening in crisis situations to guarantee the producing industry's viability. This role corresponds roughly with what has been called the state's "accumulation imperative." (3) Where the electorate's economic divisions are significantly cross-cut by ideological and cultural divisions (as in South Africa), the true purposes of state intervention are even more than normally apt to be dissembled. This is achieved by processes such as formal co-optation, which supply organised labour with the shadow of power rather than its substance, and mask the state's informal alliance with capital.
机译:二十世纪南非的文献倾向于过分强调南非社会的独特方面,例如其高度制度化和僵化的种族歧视体系。这导致了僵局,使其难以在一般和比较情况下分析和定位南非。在现代工业国家中,越来越多的人将其视为一个异常甚至奇怪的案例。其历史学家倾向于寻找这些表面上独特影响的独特原因。该研究通常以高度选择性的方式进行,它忽略或低估了重要的上下文和或有过程,从而扭曲了过去和现在。该研究拒绝了几乎一致认为的理论,即1907年至1924年之间旷日持久的劳资冲突实质上是关于用低薪的黑工代替高薪的白工。相反,最重要的问题是争夺资本和劳动力之间的工业支配地位,以及国家对冲突的不断干预。;因此,该研究还拒绝了同样被广泛使用的“转折点”理论,该理论认为国际采矿资本赢得了“战斗” (通过镇压兰德起义),直到1924年的“战争”失败(当时,一个表面上代表南非荷兰民族主义者和白人工人的新政府当选)。; 1922-1924年的事件标志着有组织劳动的决定性失败,对于扩张中的干预主义国家而言,这是绝对的胜利,对于矿业资本而言,这是合格但重要的胜利。该研究表明,它们并没有构成转折点,因为它们既是长期的,不断发展的国家资本联盟的逻辑结果,又是国家征服和选择有组织的劳动的不平衡但单向的过程。通过将重点放在金矿的资本与有组织的(白人)劳动力之间的冲突中,国家越来越具有干预主义的性质,从而将南非置于一个更广泛的分析框架中。这同时是对南非决策过程以及矿业资本主义与政治权力之间关系的详细考察。1924年以后,国家对进口替代工业化的日益支持也没有标志着“转折点”:这是先前政府对稳定白人收入和稳定收入以及扩大白人选民就业机会的全心全意的发展。研究结果定义了某些类型的情况-与其他工业州和南非有关-往往会影响无论发生在哪里,国家干预的速度,程度和质量都可以通过相当可预测的方式来预测。 (1)在“发展中”或“发达”州,政府必须向选民负责,在经济的所有部门,特别是在创造就业机会和控制资本劳动冲突中,国家的作用往往正在扩大。这一角色是某些社会科学家称之为国家“合法性当务之急”的重要组成部分。 (2)在经济严重依赖单一产品(例如黄金)的情况下,国家将特别倾向于通过干预危机情况来保障其主要收入来源,以保证生产行业的生存能力。该角色大致与所谓的国家“积累势在必行”相对应。 (3)如果选民的经济区隔被意识形态和文化区隔极大地割裂(如在南非),那么国家干预的真正目的甚至比通常更容易被分解。这是通过诸如正式合作的过程实现的,该过程为有组织的劳动力提供了权力的阴影而不是权力的实质,并掩盖了国家与资本的非正式联盟。

著录项

  • 作者

    YUDELMAN, DAVID.;

  • 作者单位

    Yale University.;

  • 授予单位 Yale University.;
  • 学科 History African.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 1977
  • 页码 340 p.
  • 总页数 340
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号