Marxism, capitalism debate highlights roots of authoritarianism
In chiding Marxist academics for what he regards to be their unworkable beliefs, Jonathan Schrire correctly concludes that “no dictatorship has ever worked”, but is mistaken in his assumptions that Marxism leads inevitably to authoritarianism or that it has a monopoly on it (“Letters to the Editor, May 26).
Indeed, capitalism is at least as likely to tread that path. I’m looking at you, Gen Augusto Pinochet, while keeping one uneasy eye on the tangerine tyrant now holding the levers of power in the world’s foremost “liberal democracy”.
While it might be difficult to look beyond the horrors of Stalinism, people often forget that the Indian state of Kerala has been run by communists for 40 of the past 60 years and has historically had the highest human development index score among states during that time, regularly ranking top in literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality and access to healthcare. In 2025 it ranked top in all.
Since 2016 Kerala has been run by the communist-led Left Democratic Front. Earlier this month voters replaced them with the noncommunist United Democratic Front. The transition was peaceful and orderly.
Even dyed-in-the-wool free market fundamentalist economists acknowledge the power and validity of much of Karl Marx’s economic analysis, while disagreeing with his conclusions regarding the end stages of capitalism.
This is as it should be. Dogma, be it Marxist or Libertarian, is the enemy. It should be remembered that communists were at the forefront of the struggle that won people many of the benefits we take for granted today ― the eight-hour workday, five-day week, sick pay, statutory leave pay, workplace safety and maternity leave, to name but a few.
Many of us grew up conditioned to reflexively fear “Die Rooi Gevaar” and only much later learnt the value of much Marxist thought through study. Granted, the democratic tendencies of several prominent adherents have been catastrophically less than ideal, but there is nothing inevitable about this.
We would do well to not throw the developmental baby out with the potentially authoritarian bathwater.
Simon Rhoades
Vredehoek
Swift action on anticorruption commission needed
In his latest communication to “My fellow South Africans” the president has issued an important invitation: “I call on all South Africans to come together once more and be part of crafting a new vision for South Africa that both speaks to our contemporary challenges and lays the groundwork for the South Africa we want to be.”
Indubitably, most South Africans want to live in a land free of the challenges posed by the debilitating effects of rampant grand corruption with impunity that is now the bane of their lives. DA parliamentary chief whip Glynnis Breytenbach is the sponsor of new legislation, pending in parliament since November 2024, that envisages the establishment and empowerment of a new Chapter Nine anticorruption commission.
The commission should be fast-tracked to form part of that “new vision”. Sadly, it languishes on the speaker’s backburner with little progress made in 18 months. Britain’s Peter Hain self-identifies as “a Pretoria boy”. In his latest book, Liberation and Corruption — Why Freedom Movements Fail he refers to the “growing number of South African opinion formers” that has gathered to back an International Anti-Corruption Court (IACC) and strives to garner support from “diverse civil society groups”.
His final remarks on the subject bear repetition, and careful noting by the president: “The establishment of the IACC is not just a legal necessity but a moral imperative. It would provide a collective commitment to a just, transparent and corruption-free world, promoting the principles of fairness, equality and accountability, and help to ensure that corruption has no place to hide”.
The creation of the IACC is the main project of Integrity Initiatives International. Its vice-chair is our own justice Richard Goldstone, under whose leadership a globally diverse group of experts has been convened to prepare a draft model IACC treaty.
Quite clearly, given the visionary intentions of the president set out above, South Africa should broaden its support for the IACC initiative and assist in bringing the project to fruition as soon as possible.
Paul Hoffman
Accountability Now
Border security criticisms expose state’s priorities
The irony of defence minister Angie Motshekga’s sudden attention to the border crisis is amusing at best (“Government rejects ‘Trump wall’ approach to immigration pressures”, May 26).
The government, which struggles to secure our homes and streets, suddenly wants to don its superhero cape and tackle porous borders that have unravelled since the ANC took over.
The minister seems unaware that Developed World border control has a tad more rigour than our charmingly chaotic Developing World approach, where illegals can roam freely, threatening community safety.
Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump managed a 95% reduction in illegal crossings, while our minister and her cadre have achieved … well, nothing since 1994.
Could it be that the ANC is finally worried about losing power and hopes these newcomers will vote it back into office? Curious priorities indeed!
Andy Rodgers
Via Business Day online
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businessday.co.za. Letters of more than 200 words may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.