[ineedasername]

Economic pressure is usually cited as a primary factor leading to the end of apartheid, beginning in 1990, which is before the collapse of the former Soviet Union. I'm not disagreeing that the collapse played a part, but I think it's safe to say there was no single cause. Without ever-increasing sanctions the ball might not have started rolling in 1990. Without Soviet collapse it might not have unraveled quite as fast or in the way that it did.

[sangnoir]

The article is revisionist BS. There was no "misunderstanding" of what Apartheid and its value system were, it is just that back then, institutional racism wasn't a deal breaker for allies involved in overt and covert proxy wars against communism in southern africa. The South African government negotiations with Mandela predate the fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet collapse. The post facto rationalization to say "Apartheid was the real socialism, and should have been rejected for that reason" rings a little hollow when it's said in retrospect, but it's on-message for reason.com

[ineedasername]

That was kind of my thinking too, the ball was right rolling 2-3 years before the Soviet collapse. Though I know 1994, after the collapse, was a major milestone is finalizing the end of apartheid, so I'm not sure if the Soviet collapse had a large effect... I'm don't know (I didn't think) the Soviets had much influence in SA, but it seems plausible that the upending of world power structures in general broke down the realpolitik dynamics that might have preserved toxic power structures like apartheid, even indirectly. I honestly don't know, except to say that change began before the collapse.