Could you please explain the "socialist cultural rot" and the "eradicate cultures"? You might mean something totally sensible but this wording is quite triggering to me.
Everywhere socialist movements like the ANC take hold- there sets in a "im going to extract as much as i can from the state as he extracts from me - while giving him nothing" mindset. Its prevalent in the older generations in the eastern european block countries, china - its almost universal where the socialist experiment was run. The idealized society does not mesh and work with human nature at all, in fact it brings out the worst.
The old people of china, still steal paper towels on public toilets, because "take it all, while its there, before its gone" is the mindset encouraged. They brought you the tourists-"buffet rush"-genre of videos on youtube.
Ok, this makes sense. I would only add the low-trust society evolving in the west, including the US, which is definitely not caused by socialism. Maybe it's just the way we (all) fall?
Currently, in western countries, socialist policies to import the 3rd world and open borders are directly responsible for the lowering social trust.
> “immigrant rights are workers rights” is not mere rhetoric, and that the defense of migrants and refugees – the vast majority of whom are poor workers – is pivotal to the struggle of the entire global working class regardless of national origin. [1]
The West is slipping because the rich privatize the profits and socialize the costs. It's the worst of both models.
The USA thrived when free markets and value creation were encouraged yet heavily regulated. That way the benefits and costs didn't become too concentrated
== Currently, in western countries, socialist policies to import the 3rd world and open borders are directly responsible for the lowering social trust.==
I don’t know of any western country with an “open borders” policy, can you provide one? Is there a part of the US’s 250 year history where we weren’t bringing in immigrants from poorer countries to provide cheap labor?
> Is there a part of the US’s 250 year history where we weren’t bringing in immigrants from poorer countries to provide cheap labor?
Pretty sure they're referring to a de facto open border policy, where you basically permit all sorts of illegal immigration and don't really enforce the laws. Accepting immigrants at Ellis island was not illegal immigration, for instance, but crossings at the southern border often have been.
== Pretty sure they're referring to a de facto open border policy,==
I’m summary, not open borders. There have been about 20k border patrol agents in the US each year since 2008. Seems like a lot of agents for an open border policy.
For very specific examples you can look towards the EU's decades long stance on immigration which resulted in the refugee crisis since (and before) 2015, as well as countless integration and immigration issues (cf Sweden, France, Italy, etc.).
The socialist and left wing coalition have consistently voted against measures to improve border security and tighten the restrictions for people wanting to enter [1]. As people have become increasingly frustrated with these policies they've increasingly voted in right wing and conservative parties (in comparison to the ruling parties) [2].
We can also look towards the UK where socialist politics have been a mainstay since the 90s, to the point where now the Prime Minister (Kier Starmer, Labour) is a self-proclaimed socialist [3]. This is of course directly tied to the waves of mass migration under Tony Blair (Labour) which also resulted in the Socialist Party splitting from Labour because he wasn't "radical enough" [4].
I don’t see an Open Borders policy in any of those links. Most of them are about how the countries are tightening their rules for allowing migrants. You cannot tighten rules unless they already exist, they wouldn’t exist if the policy was Open Borders.
Invoking “socialists” over-and-over doesn’t prove anything about Open Borders and kind of undercuts your point. There’s also no mention of right-wing leaders like Ronald Reagan or George Bush. They both pushed policies that increase immigration and asylum seekers.
==We can also look towards the UK where socialist politics have been a mainstay since the 90s,==
The UK was lead by the Conservative party continuously from 2010-2024. You somehow skipped all of that and went straight from Tony Blair to Keir Starmer.
I am sure a capitalist system will NOT work great for a tribe of hunter gatherers!
The problem is not the socialist type of ideas, it is whom you are applying them to and at what point. The society must have certain complexity, capabilities and resources to be successful "socialist".
Going from feudalism to socialism was shown repeatedly not to work (ex: Russia, China). The countries that are currently more socialist and successful were not primarily feudal when they applied the socialist ideas. Also, there are huge differences in what is called "socialism"...
Even in the USA, capitalist came with "socialist ideas", like Henry Ford that said that one more free day will boost his overall sales, but the moment was right. I think he could not have done the same 100 years before.
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.
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.
> 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.
