The tragic dénouement of a heroic age

It was not to be long before the optimism that greeted the advent of the twentieth would be met with its first significant test. And the nature of this test could not have been more portentous. The ship that “even God could not sink”, the Titanic, collided with an inanimate object, an iceberg, on its first voyage, tragically sinking with it over 1500 people.

It was unsurprising that the ship would be named as such given the confidence in human brilliance typical of the times. This masterpiece of human ingenuity was until that point, unexcelled in technical sophistication and luxury. Such was the confidence of the shipbuilders that basic safety features like lifeboats were deprioritized. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, after all this was the ship that “even God could not sink”

Not unlike the Titanic, the unlimited optimism of the times founded on the supposed sovereignty of man was such that the venture into the unchartered sees of the twentieth century overlooked an obvious reality – man’s amply demonstrable capacity for self-destruction. A taste of the true state of the human heart was to be revealed during the Great War (WWI), a war considered at the time as one to “end all wars”. 

It had been imagined that education had advanced man beyond his historically demonstrated capacity for self-destruction. It was soon to be discovered, on the contrary, that education and the technology it spawned, would merely become instruments of this very proclivity. This was portrayed in acts of such savagery during the twentieth century that man’s erstwhile swagger would suffer an enduring blow. 

Reflecting on this rude reminder de la Croix writes: “Everything bears witness to the eternal and incorrigible barbarity of man”. Almost nine million people died during the First World War, a casualty rate of unprecedented proportions. The First World War thus brought with crushing humiliation the closure of the enlightenment and its boundless idealism. 

The untested radical ideas of the late Karl Marx found a perfect opportunity in war weary Russia, one that his most committed disciple Vladimir Lenin was not going to miss. The social inequalities spawned an atmosphere of discontentment in Russia that were ideal for the launch of his version of Marxism, later to be called Marxist-Leninism, which sought to accelerate the so called dialectical process of history through violent revolution. 

From its small beginnings it was to grow into perhaps the most influential political movement of the twentieth century. As impressive as this success was, the cost was astronomical. Estimates put the number of people who died under repressive communist government well in excess of 100million. 

Following the roaring twenties, the Great Depression of the 1930s was to bring the juggernaut of the world economy to a screeching halt. All manner of State interventions failed to resolve this mysterious phenomenon. British economist John Maynard Keynes offered what seemed an elegant solution. Governments could stimulate their economies through debt-induced fiscal interventions. And thus began the idea of deficit spending, the consequences of which our generation is well familiar (let the Greeks tell you all about it!). When questioned about the long-term consequences of this indebtedness, he retorted with these (in) famous words “in the long-term we are all dead”. 

While the rest of the world battled the Great Depression, a humiliated Germany was busy rising from the ashes of its WWI defeat, quietly growing from strength to strength. Its inspirational leader, Chancellor Adolf Hitler, seemingly could put no foot wrong. Having rescued the country’s economy from its post-war shambles and restoring the self-respect of Germany, he was not satisfied. He was now hungry for world conquest and revenge! The world was therefore plunged into an even bloodier world war, accounting this time for 60 million lives. 

The first half of the 20th century was perhaps the darkest in all history. It seemed an eternity from the soaring euphoria of the enlightenment and the Renaissance, where man was thought capable of carving himself out of an allegorical rock with his own hands. To the discerning, the message was unequivocal, “left to himself man is capable of immeasurable destruction”, bringing to mind the biblical admonition, “the (human) heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” Fredrick Nietzsche’s words penned in 1882 in his famous Parable of the madman, pronouncing the consequences of the shadow that was to be cast on the world with the supposed ‘death of God’, were startling in their prescience:

Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?

Critical conversations about the South African economy, Part II

The task that confronted the post-apartheid South African government was no small one. Cavernous racially tinged economic inequalities, commingled with social antipathies that had been painstakingly nurtured through centuries of conflict, conquest and subjugation implied an unpromising prognosis for the country’s future.

But hope is a powerful force. It galvanised the country towards a triumphant rainbow-hued narrative in hopes of transcending the gravitational pull of its difficult past. Such was its influence, the true scale of the daunting realities momentarily retreated into the invisible background.

Twenty one years into the democratic era, the complexity of these socioeconomic fissures has re-emerged to loom much larger. That all important fuel of hope seems in short supply nowadays.

Political leadership is ultimately about solving the pressing problems of the day. Its mettle is ultimately assessed on the scale of results. On this score the assessment is mixed, with pockets of excellence juxtaposed with areas of unmistakable disappointment.

Success in solving problems in turn hinges on unsullied clarity about the nature of the problem. From this, strategic directions can be plotted.

Missing among the multiplicity of proposals that bespatter the local discursive landscape, is analysis on the implications of the industrial structure of the South African economy. Specifically its relation to the sphinx problem of unemployment, which remains the defining economic challenge confronting post-apartheid South African society.

The evolution of economic modernisation in South Africa was shaped by two distinct politico-economic forces. The nexus of Colonialism and English Capital on one hand as well as that of Apartheid and the emergent Afrikaner Capital on the other.

Both of these deserve much credit for their role in building the economy to the dynamism it became. Albeit appreciably aided by the abundance of land and cheap “surplus” labour that has been previously discussed.

The mining industry, with its large capital outlays, lent itself to a concentrated ownership structure that eventually cascaded into broader South African industry.

The two icons of this structure on the mining side of things were Anglo American, representing English capital and Gencor (subsequently Billiton), which flew the flag for Afrikaner Capital. The financial services sector was a mirror image of the mining edifice, with Old Mutual and Sanlam, playing identical roles in representing the two poles of the apartheid power constellation. 

There certainly were other players but these were among the most conspicuous. Their control extended well beyond the mining and financial service sectors. In fact, such was the dominance of Anglo American, in 1987 the group constituted as much as 60% of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange market capitalisation alone.

The decline of the relative importance of mining to the South African economy as well as timely exits to London and elsewhere have diminished their dominance here. But the legacy of industrial concentration remains an inescapable feature of the contemporary economy.

The implications on unemployment are notable only by their absence from popular analysis. Nevertheless they cannot be avoided.

It is no earth-shattering proclamation to assert that Capitalism is driven by the quest for profit maximization.

Oligopolists, by definition, are in the privileged position of competing with fewer players. This makes for easier coordination between them in the interest of the overarching quest for profit maximization.

Oligopolists are subject to a unique production curve according to economic theory. According to this curve profit maximisation occurs at lower production levels to what can be expected under perfect competition. Lower production entails lessened supply. This in turn culminates in higher consumer prices.

The absence of competition thus makes reducing supply easy for South African oligopolists across a range of sectors.

The comparatively higher prices with which South African consumers are quite familiar are a discussion for another day. My concern today is the reduced demand for labour necessitated by the artificially lower production.

This is because lower production means fewer workers in the production process.

The result is the stubborn unemployment that has proven impervious to the ebb and flow of the local and global business cycles. Thus South Africa has come to be saddled with a problem of structural unemployment that has few peers anywhere in the world.

Restructuring the economy seems the only way it can be rescued from its current dismal loop. There is also no shortage of simplistic suggestions as to how this can be done. Clear thinking is what seems to be in short supply.

Letter to the UCT vice-chancellor

Dear Dr Price,

As a UCT alumni, it has come as an utter shock to learn that a UCT SRC vice-president was suspended from her position on the basis of her Facebook post, “We are institutionalising and normalizing sin. May God have mercy on us...”. This is without mentioning the alleged drive to have her expelled from the university.

Her Facebook post is understood to be associated with the US Supreme Court's ruling, which redefined the meaning of marriage across all of its states.

The presumption is that the forced resignation is on the basis of a construal of her statement as constituting “hate speech”.

I want to state this categorically, I see absolutely no basis for these actions by the university. If anything they are a clear violation of at least two of Ms Pae’s constitutional rights. 

1) The freedom to receive or impart information or ideas (section 16 (1) (b))

2) The right to freedom of conscience, religion thought, belief and opinion. (section 15 (1))

According to the same freedom of expression clause in the South African constitution, it is well understood that freedom of expression precludes (section 16):

i) Incitement of imminent violence

ii) Advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. 

It seems utterly preposterous to imply that the post constitutes anything vaguely resembling the “incitement of imminent violence” or “advocacy of hate”. 

It simply expresses an opinion on a court ruling made in the United States, based on her religious beliefs. The post makes absolutely no reference to any groups or individuals, it is a harmless contribution to an ongoing debate.

Furthermore, the court ruling in question was narrowly passed after much contestation. One wonders how the student's own opinion on a matter that continues to be a subject of vigorous debate across the world, could be seen by the University to be so offensive as to warrant suspension from her position on the UCT SRC, let alone expulsion.

Has the university come to see its role as the arbiter of personal opinions and religious beliefs? It would be a tragic day indeed if this has come to be the case.

It is therefore difficult to see these actions as representing anything but intimidation and the abuse of the power conferred to the university, over a defenceless student, of limited financial means.

It is also difficult not to connect these actions with the role that the UCT SRC played vis a vis the recent “Rhodes must fall” campaign.

In the interest of the constitution as well as the University’s own reputation as the unbiased defender of all human rights, I request the immediate reinstatement of Ms Pae to her elected position as the Vice-president of the UCT Student’s representative committee.