Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by miningape 365 days ago
I just want to add on to your reply to justify why it's correct to call the ANC a socialist party that is causing the cultural and economic collapse of South Africa.

You could look towards their policies inspired by socialist thought a.k.a. "social justice" (BEE and expropriation). These policies are actively harmful to development while also turning off any potential investors, and are deeply rooted in socialist ideology.

You can look towards their roots being funded and directly aided by the Soviets, China, Cuba, and several others. Especially their military (terrorist) and propaganda training which was heavily influenced by Soviet foreign policy.

You can look towards their re-alignment of the country's economic and foreign policy to engage with the 2nd world, while turning off 1st world investors. This has given us strong economic ties with Russia, China, and Iran. While most of these relationships are useless, the Chinese relationship has been especially damaging to the development, maintenance, and sovereignty of our national physical infrastructure.

But the most damning evidence is the insane socialist parties that have spawned out of the fracturing of the ANC such as the MK and EFF parties (both militant socialist parties, formed by ex ANC leaders). While their socialist rhetoric had to be contained while apart of the ANC (so as to not further turn off investors), the ANC's weakening grip has allowed these nutjobs to become serious contenders in the political race. If you were wondering what the "kill the boer" chants were about they were at political rallies held by the EFF (Julius Malema) - part of the EFF's kit is a red beret (I wonder where they got that from?).

Voetsek to any champagne socialist that wants to ruin yet another country because it makes them feel good to support people and ideologies they do not understand.

1 comments

> Voetsek to any champagne socialist that wants to ruin yet another country

I take it you don't consider the country to have veen ruined under apartheid - aka socialism for whites, rugged-capitalism for everyone else.

Care to explain how an ethno-nationalist government implemented socialism?

> I take it you don't consider the country to have veen ruined under apartheid

Wether or not I consider the country to have been ruined under apartheid is irrelevant to the fact that the ANC is dragging it back to the stone age.

The ANC was handed a functioning economy, solid infrastructure, and hope for a better future - there are now rolling blackouts across the country, soaring unemployment, and a birth rate higher than the GDP growth rate. And that hope for a better future? All but gone - There are more race based laws _today_ than there were under apartheid.

I'm glad apartheid ended 30 years ago, I'm not glad with the direction we're going now. These are not the same thing - you trying to portray it as such says more about your views than it does mine.

Your responses are filled with non-specific references to online memes that suggest that you don't actually understand the problem in any deep sense (i.e you just have a gripe). I'm not going to defend ANCs policy decisions, but you can just point to specific decisions they made and the resulting outcome. You can't just handwave and repeat socialism/capitalism/Trotskyites like some mantra and expect everyone to take you seriously.
Not sure exactly which part of my response repeated socialism/capitalism/Trotskyites? And I gave 4 specific outcomes which are easily tied to ANC policy decisions given they've ruled the country for the last 30 years (blackouts, unemployment, birthrate > GDP growth, number of race based laws).

I'll grant you "dragging us back to the stone age" is an obvious meme.

Did you even read my comment?

> Care to explain how an ethno-nationalist government implemented socialism?

By using the state treasury to provide disproportionate infrastructure and services to the ruling ethic minority, while leaving the bantustans - with no say in national politics or budget - to largely fend for themselves. This incidentally has similarities to the US/Puerto Rico dynamic.

All the things you complain about can be explained by regression to mean[1], which the not even the apartheid government would have been able to prevent had they decided to adopt an egalitarian governance model.

edit: I didn't even get into how the "ethno-nationalist government" seized the means of production for the express benefit of a specific ethno.

1. I fully expect that the per-capita X (for any X you're claiming is worse) has actually improved for South Africans - all South Africans - between 1990 and now.

> State capacity has collapsed across many government functions that are essential for a functioning economy. Critical network industries, including electricity, transport infrastructure and services, security, and water and sanitation have experienced major deteriorations over the last 15 years [1]

> While the racial composition of wealth at the top has changed, wealth concentration in South Africa has not and remains very high. [1]

> while the standard of living has increased for a minority of formerly disadvantaged South Africans and a small black middle class has emerged, there are still huge disparities in both material and subjective well-being [2]

> In 2010, the majority of citizens still hoped for basic necessities, income and employment, to enhance their quality of life. [2]

So no, there is no mean reversion caused by a broader sharing of (the same set of) resources - in fact the policies leading to worsening infrastructure and economic disproportionally negatively impact the poor, black population [3]

The examples I've given (blackouts, unemployment, etc.) are governance and capacity failures above and beyond any "regression to the mean" effect.

[1] https://conversableeconomist.com/2023/11/20/south-africas-ec... [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-012-0120-y [3] https://qz.com/africa/1435910/blackouts-in-africa-affect-the...