Flip Buys, voorsitter van die Solidariteit Beweging
Bron: Maroela Media
Daar is ʼn skreeusnaakse toneeltjie in Monty Python se ikoniese Life of Brian, waar Joodse rebelle in ʼn ondergrondse skuiling hulle opstand teen die Romeinse heersers beplan. Die leier van die rebelle sweep sy manne op deur te sê dat die Romeine “alles van ons vadere en hulle vadere gevat het”.
Dan vra hy die retoriese vraag: “En wat het die Romeine ooit vir ons gedoen?”. Net voor hy sy eie vraag kon antwoord, waag een van die rebelle ʼn onsekere “die akwaduk?”. Nog een voeg aarselend by: “sanitasie?”. ʼn Volgende noem “paaie”. Net toe die leier dit toegee en dink hy kan sy motiveringspraatjie verder voer, ryg sy kamerade nog ʼn hele lys uit: besproeiing, medisyne, onderwys, wyn, openbare baddens, wet en orde, vrede.
Die vergadering eindig in wanorde met die leier wat “Stilte!” bulder toe hy nie meer wou hoor wat die Romeine alles gedoen het nie!
Oplossings
Hierdie verhaaltjie hou belangrike lesse in vir Suid-Afrika, wat naarstiglik na oplossings soek om die land te herbou. Die president praat steeds van ʼn “nuwe ekonomie” en “radikale ekonomiese transformasie” wat “bemagtigend vir vroue, jongmense en hoofsaaklik vir swart mense” moet wees.
Die groot vraag is wat die ekonomiese beleid moet wees wat mense uit armoede en ellende kan ophef. Die groot geluk is egter dat ons nie meer in die antieke Romeinse era leef nie en dat die wêreld oor die afgelope 2 000 jaar geleer het wat werk en wat nie.
Die enigste betroubare padkaart uit armoede wat die geskiedenis vir ons gee, is treffend deur ʼn Nobelpryswenner in ekonomie, Milton Friedman, saamgevat: “The record of history is absolutely clear. There is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system…”
Die ANC se weerstand teen hierdie samevatting van eeue se ervaring van die mensdom is dat kapitalisme net die “rykes” baat. Hierop gee Friedman net so ʼn goeie antwoord:
“Industrial progress, mechanical improvement, all of the great wonders of the modern era have meant relatively little to the wealthy. The rich in Ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing: running servants replaced running water. Television and radio? The patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading actors as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets – all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life.
“The great achievements of Western capitalism have redounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person. These achievements have made available to the masses conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful.”
Die ANC se tweede beswaar teen kapitalisme is dat dit tot uitbuiting en groter ongelykheid lei. Friedman se antwoord hou belangrike lesse vir Suid-Afrika in.
“In the past century, a myth has grown up that free market capitalism – equality of opportunity as we have interpreted that term – increases such inequalities, that it is a system under which the rich exploit the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wherever the free market has been permitted to operate, wherever anything approaching equality of opportunity has existed, the ordinary man has been able to attain levels of living never dreamed of before.
“Nowhere is the gap between rich and poor wider, nowhere are the rich richer and the poor poorer, than in those societies that do not permit the free market to operate. That is true of feudal societies like medieval Europe, India before independence, and much of modern South America, where inherited status determines position. It is equally true of centrally planned societies, like Russia or China or India since independence, where access to government determines position. It is true even where central planning was introduced, as in all three of these countries, in the name of equality.”
Werksmag-welstand
Die derde beswaar is dat gewone werkers deur ekonomiese vryheid benadeel word. Maar die vader van kapitalisme, Adam Smith, het meer as twee eeue gelede reeds geskryf dat die “majority of any society comprised, not landlords or merchants, but ‘servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds,’ who derived their income from wages. Their welfare was the prime concern of economic policy. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members is poor and miserable,” het hy gesê.
“It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.”
Die wetgewer se vernaamste ekonomiese doelwit, na Smith se mening, moet die koopkrag van lone wees, want dit is die maatstaf van die materiële welsyn van die grootste deel van die bevolking. Kort gestel, die welstand van ʼn land word bepaal deur die welstand van die werksmag.
Die vierde standpunt van die ANC is dat die oplossing meer in herverdeling as in ekonomiese groei lê. Daarop antwoord die swart Amerikaanse denker Coleman Hughes: “I do not know of a single instance in which an underachieving group rose to economic prominence by asking the government for cash transfers, preferential policies in education and employment, or apologies for past injustices.”
vyfde standpunt van die ANC is dat daar op die verlede gefokus moet word omdat dit die oorsaak van swart armoede is. Die swart Amerikaanse ekonoom, Thomas Sowell, meen egter dat daar eerder na die oorsake van voorspoed gekyk moet word: “There’s no explanation needed for poverty. The species began in poverty. So, what you really need to know is what are the things that enable some countries, and some groups within countries, to be prosperous.”
Sowell vervolg: “What do the poor most need? They need to stop being poor. And how can that be done, on a mass scale, except by an economy that creates vastly more wealth? Yet the political left has long had a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. As far as they are concerned, wealth exists somehow, and the only interesting question is how to redistribute it.”
ANC vs. Vryheid
Die vraag is of ʼn krisis tot ʼn ommekeer in die ANC se dekades-lange rampspoedige ekonomiese denke kan lei. Milton Friedman het goeie nuus: “Only a crisis produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.”
Die bewese sukses van hierdie denkers se idees het die afgelope twee dekades tot die ekonomiese opheffing van minstens 750 miljoen mense in Asië gelei. Die vraag is hoekom daar steeds regerings is wat teen die voordele van ʼn vrye ekonomie gekant is. Friedman se verduideliking daarvoor laat die rooi ligte flikker: “Die weersin in ʼn vrye ekonomie is in wese eerder ʼn weersin in vryheid self”.
Die vraag is of dít nie die ANC se eintlike probleem met ʼn vrye samelewing en ʼn vrye ekonomie is nie. Die belangrikste verskil tussen sosialisme en kapitalisme is uiteindelik dat sosialisme gedwonge is en kapitalisme vrywillig.
