Whatever our faults, the ordinary working families of South Africa are not sell-outs. We don't put our country second, third or last to secure or protect our individual, class comfortable wealth interests.
Many of my class, a workers class, have been underpaid, unemployed or just plain overworked and still, want their country to succeed as a whole even when it costs them:
their physical health;
mental well-being;
sense of present or future financial security;
the earned income they have lost because of top-end and constantly privatising-based greed;
their sense of safety and security because of largely inequity-driven crime;
jobs because of IMF-driven deindustrialisation and zero (and I mean, zero) innovation or inventions from the corporate sector to make South Africa a global competitor;
piling foreign debt and foreign aid that no one should be dependant on in a country that is resource and soil rich; and
failing and self-serving political and corporate fans of neoliberal capitalism and the un-free markets approach at Africa’s independent development and working class expense.
I know of people, the real rainbow of South Africa, who:
lost their marriages because a small family business failed;
moved in with their adult children because their for-profit (private) or state pensions could not cover their living expenses;
pulled their children out of school because they could not afford the fees, wracked with shame and guilt;
stayed with or moved back in with their aging parents either because they could not afford to leave home (because of privately-held property prices) or they lost their jobs and could no longer afford private property expenses; or
went bankrupt trying to juggle financial expenses in an increasingly privatised country and economy, to the point of relying on interest bearing bank loans to cover expenses that should have been covered by the wealth generated in their motherland and taken by foreigners to serve their foreign elite interests.
My own mother-in-law who has never been a property owner has had to move several times in the democracy from one privately-held residential property (apartment) to another just to live within her means (with and without her children) as prices increase, increase, increase, sometimes above inflation.
And never, never would you hear the ordinary workers say, screw everyone else, my self-interests matter more than the country.
Love for motherland runs far deeper in the blood of workers because our blood, sweat and tears have soaked the soil.
Ordinary people born to and living on the land, a workers class, do not hurt an entire country or continent they love for self-gain and protection of wealth interests.
No, we don’t do that…leave that to South Africa’s elites.
WHAT IS LOBBYING?
Lobbying is where your activity is aimed at influencing a government’s policy and/or law. It can take the form of consultations, conferences, public meetings, face-to-face meetings, and written or telephone communications.
Lobbying your country’s own government is legal.
Say you’re a business owner, Daemon Naartjie who is concerned about a new environmental law in your country. You can ask to meet with the government to explain your predicament and alternative suggestions, which your government can take into account while considering the environmental protections it wishes to secure.
Lobbying other countries’ governments is legal too. But it depends on the circumstances.
In this imagined case, perhaps Daemon Naartjie is looking to secure a smooth transition into country Y as someone from country X. He has heard doing business in country Y is challenging because of the high cost of paying worker salaries. He may legally (whether we agree with this or not) lobby the government through a series of consultations to ask what exactly would be the bare minimum he can pay to workers while offering the government direct employment of Z percent, increasing every year.
Lobbying is legal, until it is not.
Lobbying a foreign government to interfere in some way in the policy making of your country’s government is not considered appropriate in most countries.
In many countries, this might be considered an act of treason (depending on the law) or, if you’re an immigrant who has earned citizenship it might result in your withdrawal of citizenship and immediate deportation…Understandably so.
The upper-middle-to-upper-class lobbying of the US government through media and political meetings took centre stage at a time when ordinary families, the real rainbow of South Africa, had to face the neoliberal capitalist dagger sinking into their chest as VAT was being increased and they were heralded into a 14th year of continued austerity while corporate elites enjoyed their corporate tax cuts.
But neoliberal capitalism's trickle down hellscape that floods upwards and out of our country has now been ramped up by US tariffs.
AN ENTIRE COUNTRY MUST FALL FOR A FEW
The US has made a list of tariffs to be imposed on countries around the world that have been forced for decades to use the US Dollar as the sole currency of trade and financing. This is being done to force these countries to float the US economy until striking a deal with them, at whatever expense to their own workers class…like the impact of increased deindustrialisation:
“Car manufacturer Volvo Cars is considering moving some parts of its production to the United States to avoid possible tariffs, several media outlets report, citing statements from CEO Jim Rowan.
According to Rowan, the company still plans to start exporting its EX30 model (which is made in Europe) to the US this year.
Rowan says the company expected tariffs of 2,5 percent on vehicles, but that they now look to be higher.”—Volvo Cars may move some production to the US, 5 Mar 2025, marketscreener.com.
Remembering that Europe has been conscious of its own neoliberal capitalist deindustrialisation for a while now:
“In France, deindustrialisation has already been underway for a longer time. The debate in France revolves around the urgent need to reindustrialise to boost long-term economic performance and strategic autonomy…
The French Minister of Economy and Finance, Bruno Le Maire, has called reindustrialisation ‘la mere de toutes les batailles’. [The mother of all battles]
In the Netherlands, however, the government has not yet announced a general policy response, although it has acknowledged that the energy prices facing industry in the Netherlands are even higher than those in Germany or Belgium. Instead, the Dutch government is in the process of designing tailored policy packages for the most significant industrial companies, e.g. ASML and Tata Steel.”—Anatomy of a fall: Europe’s deindustrialisation, Noé van Hulst, 9 May 2024, illuminem.com
In South Africa's case, deindustrialisation is not the only punishment faced by a working people, the US tariff that is listed for the country is 30%.
And it gets even better.
The tariff imposed by the US is 10% higher than the tariff imposed on the entire developed and very much still colonial power known as the collective European Union, which sits at 20%.
It is only 4% lower than the tariff listed for China, the second largest economy in the world, although that is said to be increasing.
The tariff on South Africa is also 4% higher than the tariff on the massive economy of India.
STOP INSULTING AFRICAN WORKING CLASS INTELLIGENCE
South Africa’s government-of-national-unity or GNU, a neoliberal capitalist coalition of the African National Congress (our ruling party for decades), the Democratic Alliance (opposition party for decades) and a number of never-before-heard-of parties born of 2024’s election, seem to be trying to pretend they’re not actually trickle-down conservatives that:
agreed to austerity or government spending cuts, seeing that they have furthered it this year and have never fumed over it in the years it has been South Africa’s status quo;
actively supported the crushing or stagnation of worker salaries for corporate interests (both domestic and foreign companies); and
saw the deindustrialisation of South Africa as an enrichment of corporate elite interests, which they protected, either never mentioned or minimised as merely a result of government’s tariffs, electricity prices or BEE requirements (and not because of neoliberal capitalism’s actual design and priorities),
and that’s just to mention a few.
At the end of March 2025, revelations started peeing out of the urine trickle-down bag that the GNU had agreed to the VAT hike that would affect every single South African while knowing full well that:
ordinary families would see development slow down under another year of austerity; and
financial corporate outflows normally through tax avoidance cost the entire continent more than anything working families ever did or should pay for, although it’s never mentioned by the GNU.
“[Finance] Minister Enoch Godongwana [of the GNU] revealed that the Democratic Alliance had agreed to accept the controversial 0.5% VAT hike but there’s a catch.
In a letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa, the Democratic Alliance reportedly offered its support in exchange for the scrapping of the Expropriation Act, [which is outside the scope of the budget] a key piece of legislation aimed at land reform.”—DA’s support for VAT hike sparks controversy, Newzroom Afrika, 29 Mar 2025.
In the midst of the public furore that VAT has been increased, coupled with government spending cuts (sound familiar US, UK workers?), the political coalition parties in parliament have come out swinging, not at our 1994 trickle-down from the depths of hell but at each other, exposing how cutting national development budgets while raising tax on ordinary people involves a fundamental conflict between worker and elite class interests:
GNU—Democratic Alliance:
“The [Finance] Minister is not correct. He is nit-picking out of a long thirteen page document that we sent to the president, in which we set out the economic growth reforms we want to put on the table…
To come and nit-pick the Expropriation Act is disingenuous.
It is high time that the ANC realise that they do not govern alone anymore. This document that the Minister and I refer to was sent to the presidency twelve days ago already.
We received feedback today on the document and the president said he does not agree with the document. And we must just simply support the budget,” Willie Aucamp, DA National spokesperson, 28 Mar 2025, Newzroom Afrika.
GNU—Patriotic Alliance:
“When the GNU was formed, when they were meeting, for three days there was a stalemate between the DA [Democratic Alliance] and the ANC. The stalemate was on one thing, the DA told the ANC we want to come in [to the GNU] but we don’t want Patriotic Alliance in. What happened a month before they said that?
They took out adverts in Cape Town—Radio Heart, Radio Good Hope—everywhere to say Gayton Mckenzie wants to work with the ANC…that was their campaign in 2024.
And don’t act now like you don’t know about it.
Every newspaper, Die Son, all of them, [said] Gayton McKenzie wants to work with the ANC, he wants to take your vote to the ANC…
As a Minister, if I lie about the president, if I lie about something, it’s perjury and I can lose my job…I fought with other parties for a 0.5% [VAT hike]…
What did the DA do? They said they’ll accept the 2% [VAT hike], we didn’t say that. They make a deal, give us NHI [National Health Insurance Act], give us Bela [The Basic Education Laws Amendment] then we will vote for 2%.
Where is the poor there? Where is the poor?” Gayton Mckenzie blasting and exposing the DA. They hate the poor, 3 Apr 2025, Daily Updates ZA.
While there’s all this she said, he did, they want, they don’t care allegations being flung across the parliamentary and media floor, the truth is that the coalition (GNU) government is debating how much cost or pain to pass down to ordinary working families in order to maintain and alleviate the interests of elite corporate interests, foreigners included and especially.
The idea is that punishing the power-less will motivate the power-full to come in, share and growth the wealth of the country.
Because…that’s what the corporate sector do all over the world, especially without the government telling them to, dare we say the word “socialist reforms” or “government intervention”:
“In May, Red Lobster announced it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, closed dozens of stores, and would be selling all its assets. CEO Jonathan Tibus, who was brought in as a restructuring advisor, was quick to blame an endless shrimp deal – where patrons could get unlimited shrimp for $20 – as well as other operational decisions for the closure.
The story, however, may be more complicated than a reckless all-you-can-eat deal…
Corporate narratives often place blame on consumers as scapegoats for financial strains. For instance, Red Lobster attributed its bankruptcy to their endless shrimp deal, suggesting that consumers’ excessive eating in the all-you-can-eat promotion was the cause rather than addressing the company’s debt history. Similarly, 99 Cents Only Stores, which recently filed for bankruptcy, had CEO Mike Simoncic claiming that the retailer’s struggles stemmed from the COVID-19 pandemic, shifts in consumer demand, and even shoplifting[ despite crime data not indicating a nationwide increase in retail theft. These examples illustrate how corporations deflect responsibility onto consumers instead of acknowledging underlying financial mismanagement and the effects of private equity value extraction.
In 2023, private equity portfolio companies accounted for 16% of all US bankruptcy filings. Across all sectors, private equity-owned companies are twice as likely to go bankrupt compared to public companies…
The private equity model prefers short-term profits and rapid value extraction in exchange for the long-term stability of the companies in their portfolios. Focusing on immediate financial gains often leads to significant mismanagement and economic instability, contributing to higher bankruptcy rates among private equity-owned firms…
In 2014, under the ownership of a Golden Gate Capital fund, Red Lobster sold off its premium real estate for $1.5 billion.
The private equity firm used that sale to finance its acquisition of Red Lobster, leaving Red Lobster to pay high rents on the properties it once owned.
Red Lobster raised $761.97 million during Golden Gate’s ownership, but Golden Gate was no longer on the hook for that debt once they sold their stake in the company.
While Golden Gate Capital exited Red Lobster in 2020, this combination of high debt and increased operational costs ultimately led to Red Lobster’s collapse.”—Don’t blame the shrimp: How private equity is bankrupting America, Valentina Dabos, 20 Jun 2024, pestakeholder.org
SOUTH AFRICA’S TRICKLE-DOWN IMPOVERISHMENT STARTED BEFORE NELSON MANDELA BECAME PRESIDENT
Neoliberal—trickle-down—capitalism was brought into South Africa’s post-apartheid context by an International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan that the ANC-led negotiating team were made to accept before 1994’s democratic elections.
The interest bearing IMF loan was without any form of reparations paid to the people of South Africa for the corrupt-by-design cost of the white supremacist capitalist system that deliberately impoverished (economically murdered) millions of people:
“One recent indication of the IMF’s policy advice to South Africa is to be found in the Letter of Intent (Statement of Policies), signed by the fund and the [country’s] Transitional Executive Council, as a precursor to the US$850 million Compensatory and Contingency Financing Facility (CCFF)…
The IMF claimed that it ‘simply wants an undertaking by a legitimate body that the economy would be responsibly managed’. However, the [IMF’s] Letter:
was at pains to point to the dangers of real wages in the private and public sector;
stressed the importance of controlling inflation;
promised monetary targeting, trade and industrial liberalisation [lessening government regulations or restrictions, i.e. “free trade” for corporate benefits]; and
repeatedly espoused the virtues of “market forces” over “[state] regulatory interventions”...
The Letter of Intent [by the IMF] committed the new [post-apartheid] government to the following main principles:
a reduction within a few years of the government budget deficit to 6% of the GDP;
expenditure containment rather than tax increases [including corporate taxes];
containing [limiting] the civil service wage bill;
a continuation of the tight monetary policies of the past four to five years;
monetary targeting;
policies to ‘couple wage restraint [limiting wage growth] and training to foster [company] investment and promote employment’;
maintenance of the financial Rand system without the introduction of a new exchange control mechanism; and finally
a simplification of the tariff system and the phasing out of import licensing and non-tariff barriers…
As Tjonneland (1992) observes, ‘the basic message emerging from the IMF recommendation may be summed as growth first and redistribution later’.”—Debt, Development and Democracy: The IMF in Post-Apartheid South Africa, Vishnu Padayachee, Review of African Political Economy, Vol. 21, No. 62 (Dec., 1994), pp. 585-597 (13 pages).
Because let’s be honest here, whose “growth” is being prioritised by the IMF just after white supremacist capitalism was said to have ended in 1994?
The people who suffered under apartheid or the big businesses, including foreign businesses, that enriched themselves on the back of the economically enslaved and land grabbing from African people?
Before we say apartheid was the good ol’ days, we have to ask who was it good for inside and outside the country?
And how has the IMF been responsible for the pain of South Africa’s workers class for another thirty years, going far beyond incidental corruption that their foreign mainstream media love to focus on but not the corrupt design that ensures corporate interests rein supreme at an African people’s expense?
WAT JY SAAI SAL JY MAAI (WHAT YOU SOW, YOU SHALL REAP)
Let’s not bother pinning the extraordinary tariff imposed by the US on a conflicted government that watched with the public as a group of upper-middle-to-upper-class elites sought to actively seek the undermining, smearing and economic punishment of a not-so independent yet elected government.
Afriforum's political meetings were not mere free speech. Bollocks.
Me writing this post is using my democratic right to free speech. My mom complaining to me is free speech. My mom-in-law expressing her worries in public is free speech. My neighbour standing with a placard outside a government department is free speech.
This was something else, far more than merely thinking about self and expressing your issues out loud.
No.
Don’t pin this on an elected government in South Africa. It’s time for a universal growing up.
Let those who cheerleaded a 30% tariff on an entire African country with their campaigns abroad bear the cost of this.
This, like the entire post-94 neoliberal capitalist system, is not on the working class family in South Africa.
This is on the people who have more, comparatively much much more and don’t like the word “sharing”.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.