South Africa’s Dubious Liberation

The point about Nelson Mandela is that he was equally willing to go along with both the Stalinist and the lizard-skin-shoe school of economic thought. When Stalinism was the fashion, he was not opposed to it. Nor did he appear to mind much when the lizard-skin-shoe brigade became predominant. He was fortunate that, due to historical circumstances, the second prevailed and prevented him from passing into history as a failed socialist despot. He would have become the latter only after the conclusion of a hideous racial war, but having been head of a guerrilla organization, he had no very settled objection to political violence or to those who employed it.

It does not seem to me fair, however, to blame Mandela for the fact that liberation has left many of the liberated worse off than they were before they were liberated. Liberation has the nasty habit of doing precisely that, and the circumstances in South Africa were particularly inauspicious for a happy liberation. All in all it could have been considerably worse. In the event the compromise—political without economic reform, co-option of a few into the elite, lizard-skin shoes for the truly important—was about the best that could be hoped for, and Mandela fit the bill admirably. He was a nice old gentleman.

The settlement of which he was the figurehead will not be stable, however. I doubt that black South Africans will forever be satisfied with promises about the glorious future or with an economic and social situation that, for them, does not improve. One day an irresistible leader will arise who will persuade them that they must act on the belief that wealth is theft and that with justice prosperity will come.

One day an irresistible leader will arise who will persuade them that they must act on the belief that wealth is theft and that with justice prosperity will come.
“Who does the last sentence remind you of?”

Not who, but what?

What it reminds me to do is ponder why this absurd result happens just as easily at the two extremes: in the poorest 3rd world countries where there is rampant widespread poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, crime, hunger, a sense of entitlement, and disease.

But just as readily in the (arguably) most advanced, opulent, comfortable, well-fed and technically advanced country on earth.
Clearly, what the two extremes have in common is ignorance, arrogance and an overt or suppressed sense of entitlement.

The everlasting tendency to claim that "the belief that wealth is theft and that with [social] justice prosperity will come" seems to find fertile ground at both extremes.
What else they have in common is the usual remedy for the unexpected results : is violent internal conflict or tyranny, or both.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.