Get-Off My Sack!

By Tshepo Phakathi

A bounty has been placed on the heads of the richest black South Africans, effectively labelling them as sell-outs and imperialist pawns. Interestingly, everyone has conveniently forgotten that these politicians cum businessmen cum imperialists cum black capitalists were once hailed as union leaders, cadres, struggle veterans, etc. As comrades, they were encouraged to go forth and pursue commercial interests to take on the establishment, so to speak! Now that they’ve become heavy-pocketed and sit on the opposite side of the "wage negotiation" table, they have become targets of the revolution that seeks to "nationalise" their hard earned wealth!

I am reminded of a song by Jay Z, Errh - the American rapper not the South African President, where in a prelude of his new album he asserts that he and his estranged business partners had equal opportunity to build dizzying 9 figure balance sheets, but not all took the opportunity. In this record, the rapper loosely says: "...grown men want me to sit them on my lap, but I don't have a beard and Santa Clause ain't black..." Sounds like a fitting statement to make?

So I consulted my dictionary, to find a word that could best describe this situation – ENVY is what I found. Then I referred to my mental archives, to understand the “context” of this debate and recalled that COSATU has Kopano Ke Matla, NUM has Mineworkers Investment Corporation, NUMSA has NUMSA Investment Company. WOW? YEP, some of the best priced assets in this country are owned (at-least in part) by these UNION investment companies. Primedia, FirstRand, Saatchi & Saatchi, ACSA, Doves, Mustek, etc, just to mention a few, so I went back to the selfsame OXFORD dictionary, and this time I came across HYPOCRITE and thought; could it be?

The problem with a democracy and a market driven economic system (capitalism) is that only the very best amongst the participants will thrive, the rest will just, uhh, survive. The reason why industrialised nations such as the US, France, Germany and UK are first world, progressive nations is very simple.

They promote and support free enterprise, which creates jobs, develops new medicines, introduces technology for human advancement and is the main engine that drives economic growth. For the owners of these "free enterprises" comes infinite reward. If we suggest that a few hundred million OR indeed a billion is too much wealth for the "risk taker" and should thus be looted in the name of "nationalisation OR the Freedom Charter", we effectively exorcise the very spirit of free enterprise - excuse the pun!

Wealth begets affluence, which leads to the general improvement of the overall standards of living of a nation. Consider this, in 2008 the US had about 400 Billionaires (in US$ terms) but until the 60s, just 40 years earlier, they had none. Their very first Billionaire was Howard Hughes in 1968, I wonder what would have happened had they nationalised his wealth?!

To have more billionaires, more affluent communities, more jobs, better education, better healthcare facilities, etc, we need to start with 1 or 2 ultra wealthy individuals and then provide the necessary infrastructure and support to have many more.

I don't know what you think, but let me offer you my final thoughts on this subject. I don't blame anyone who is poor, working in a 12 hour gruelling shift digging for Gold and then having to go home to a dilapidated mining residence, for feeling hard done by. Much like many other citizen, I am also concerned about the class inequities that are growing by the day. Matter of fact, I support the idea of a broad based empowerment and structured rationing of state owned assets in favour of those communities to whom those assets belong. What I am merely trying to figure out is how do you achieve socio-economic coherence, employment and growth by dragging down those who have legitimately built up their wealth, using "legal" means at their disposal?

It is foolhardy to suggest that the legitimate wealth built by private citizens of this country through their own prowess and sacrifice, is tantamount to permanent indebtedness to the working class or indeed poor South Africans. At the end of the day, we all have a right - as enshrined in our constitution (a product of the Freedom Charter) - to pursue as much affluence as our minds can comprehend, just as long as such pursuit does not prejudice the many rights of other citizens in this country.

What do you think?