I WOULD LIKE to suggest that the analysis of South Africa presented by Dr Legassick is faulty in at least three aspects: first, in its characterization of the problems of the country; second, in its account of black opposition to apartheid; and third, in its assessment of the possibilities of reform and indeed the nature of the issues that reform raises. With reference to the first of these issues, while no one can be expected in a short article to clarify entirely their position, Dr Legassick's text is more than a little confusing as to what the problem is. At various points he refers to the necessity for national liberation, the ending of apartheid, the ending of racism, the ending of white domination, the need for democracy, the need for socialism and the need for 'workers' democracy' (whose relation to democracy is left unclear). Overall, however, his text surely allows the interpretation that what makes these solutions more or less the same is that there is only one problem, and that problem is capitalism. This cannot be correct. What Dr Legassick would call capitalism exists all over the world, including multi-ethnic socieities, without apartheid. This rather simple point needs two extensions. First, the rather bizarre kind of capitalism that exists in South Africa has effectively excluded black people except as workers, and even as workers has only included them in a rather limited way. Second, in no sense can apartheid be regarded as meeting 'the needs of capitalism', either historically or today. Theoretically, it is perfectly plain that no Marxist concept of a capitalist mode of production can be made to authorize the necessity of the exploitation of black workers or the prevention of land ownership by black people, or the prohibition of trade unionism for black workers. Practically, apartheid has imposed massive restrictions on capitalism, restrictions which capitalists in South African have learnt to live with and manipulate to their own advantage. The first error generates others. If the problem is not capitalism, then the engine of social change cannot be exclusively identified with the working class. By constantly linking 'industrial' and 'political' struggles (and 'government' and 'employers') Dr Legassick gives the impression that they are, if not the same, then two sides of the same coin. But all the experience of capitalist countries shows that this is not the case. Industrial militancy need not take a political direction, and political activism need not call forth