As a young person, I’ve noticed that suffering has been commodified on the internet, and it’s starting to seep into politics in many parts of the world.
The world now feels full of resentment-fuelled populist leaders who look backwards and downplay the progress we’ve made as a global civilisation. In many places, politics no longer seems forward-looking, and there’s a strong sense of desperation that is unfortunately shaping policy.
As someone who consumes mostly left-leaning media, it often feels easier to look around and simply blame “the system” rather than evaluate the whole situation with nuance. I'd happily take in simple platitudes and mantras about how "everything has gone to shit" and align myself with the personalities who say this, rather than engage with the longer, more complex and challenging solutions to why "everything has gone to shit".
I really appreciate this perspective, and I hope we see more nuanced, research-rich contributions on problems like inequality, like this, in public office, the media, and government.
I found this piece thoughtful and grounded in history, particularly in how it situates inequality within long-term social structures rather than treating it as a purely modern phenomenon. That kind of perspective is valuable because it reminds us that inequality did not suddenly appear in the late twentieth century. It has deep roots in how societies have been organized for centuries. That said, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that inequality is not an emergency. While it may be historically persistent, its current scale and consequences—especially in countries like South Africa—make it a pressing issue that cannot simply be normalized.
Johan Fourie, your observation that “inequality is not a new irritant unleashed by five decades of neoliberalism, it seems to be the default setting of agrarian, hierarchical societies” is analytically sound in a historical sense. Many societies have indeed been structured around hierarchy, with unequal access to land, capital, and opportunity. But I would argue that recognizing this pattern should not lead us to accept inequality as inevitable. If anything, it should push us to address it more deliberately, because today we have both the institutional tools and policy experience to mitigate its most damaging effects.
At the same time, I agree with you completely when you write that “people care about poverty and social mobility because they have direct consequences for their lived experience.” This is where the issue becomes tangible. Inequality is not just a statistical measure captured by the Gini index. It is reflected in whether people can access quality education, secure stable employment, or improve their standard of living over time. When inequality becomes extreme, it limits mobility and entrenches disadvantage, creating a cycle that is difficult to break.
Where I diverge from your broader framing is in the idea that inequality is not urgent.
I am not an advocate for mass redistribution of resources as a blanket solution. However, I do believe strongly that structural arrangements must exist to prevent extreme disparities from taking hold. This is not theoretical. We have seen examples where inequality has been managed effectively within market-based systems. Scandinavian countries, for instance, have maintained relatively low levels of inequality through strong institutions, inclusive labor policies, and access to public services, without dismantling capitalism itself. That suggests inequality is not simply an unavoidable outcome, but something shaped by policy and governance.
This brings us directly to South Africa.
The country’s extreme inequality cannot be fully explained by generic historical patterns alone. While I appreciate your effort to situate inequality within a broader historical framework, the present reality must be squarely linked to the legacy of apartheid. South Africa’s economic structure was not just hierarchical—it was deliberately engineered along racial lines. Race became synonymous with class, and access to land, capital, and opportunity was systematically restricted for the majority of the population.
The consequences of that system remain deeply embedded.
Even today, disparities in property ownership, income distribution, and labor market access reflect the economic architecture created during apartheid. This is why inequality in South Africa feels so persistent. It is not merely a continuation of historical patterns. It is the direct outcome of policies that institutionalized exclusion and concentrated wealth in specific segments of society.
Global trends, such as the findings from the Stiglitz-led commission that a large proportion of countries now experience high inequality, are important. But South Africa’s case requires a more specific lens. It is not just about inequality as a global phenomenon. It is about inequality shaped by a very particular history of economic and social engineering.
Johan Fourie, I appreciate your effort to challenge simplified narratives about inequality. But from where I stand, acknowledging its historical roots should not diminish its urgency today. Inequality may not be new, but in contexts like South Africa, it remains a structural constraint that demands deliberate and sustained attention.
While I also prefer not to indulge arguing over mythical abstractions such as "capitalism" and "neoliberalism", I think there is a a concrete thread that may bring them together: urbanisation.
During earlier times (I assume), with labour tenancy and other forms of tenancy and residency, inequality didn't necessarily result in someone being completely down and out.
But with increasing urbanisation, where property prices are being determined by an increasingly smaller number of people (due to increased inequality), and with fewer other options, survival becomes increasingly difficult.
In my part of Johannesburg, there are 2 kinds of residential developments going up - lifestyle estates for the rich, and flats for perpetual rental (owned by the developers). The new homes within the estates that are being built are prohibitively expensive for an increasing number of people. This also means that those who stay in rentals need to forever have an income that is able to pay for that rental, taking away the socio-economic assumptions of home-ownership as a source of security.
All of this I've said may be anecdotal, and studies may show otherwise, so I'm also open to correction.
Die artikel bewys net weer dat dit loon om enige dogma te problematiseer. Dinge is altyd meer ingewikkel as wat 'n oorkoepelende raamwerk of denkpatroon of oortuiging kan weergee - maak nie saak hoe slim die bewoording van so 'n dogma is nie. Ek moet net altyd onthou dat hierdie slagspreke of opsommende stellings eintlik die grootste deel van die werklikheid ontken in 'n poging om 'n algemene woordestel aanvaar te kry.
Dit is o.a. waarom geen strategie dit ooit regkry om ten volle uitgevoer te word soos die aanvanklike stelling(s) nie, maar gereeld aangepas word om die werklikheid beter te benader. En dit is waarom dogmas gereeld hersien moet word - om die werklikheid beter te benader. Dit ontstel baie mense, bloot omdat dit nie van die begin af duidelik is dat ons oortuigings altyd voorlopig en gebroke is. Ons moet (soos die Boeddha sy studente aanmoedig) nie die woorde foutloos herhaal nie, maar toets aan die werklikheid wat elkeen ervaar, en aanpas sodat ons beter kan vaar - al is dit altyd relatief tot die groepie waaraan ons behoort.
Ewige waarhede is nie vir ons arme skepsels beskore nie (al vlieg ons al om die maan).
Ek het selfs verder gegaan as Johan. I argued that inequality is actually a NATURAL state of "things". Nature never intended things to be equal. And with good reason too: nature wants natural selection, since that is how the "strongest" survive, or prosper more than the weak, to hark back to Darwin. That is good for progress, upwardly. But replace strength, or rather add to it human traits like intelligence, ambition, business savvy, visionary thinking, perseverence, cunning, etc., etc.; and you realise that even where human traits developed beyond just Darwin's "strength", one is naïve or totally ambitionless to think inequality can ever be eradicated. More than that: for the human race to continue on the steep upward path of contineous advancement, we should avoid trying to level everybody. That said, that is not to argue against very careful and very well considered redistribution, but in that case then not pretending that we aim to "eradicate inequality". Let's call what we do to make the most unequal better off than they are, what it is: redistribution. And if we can justify a sort of redistribution which is VERY WELL DESIGNED TO AVOID UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, let us then not pretend that we can (or should) attempt to chase the illusion of "equality". It is simply chasing a mirrage. It causes harm too: by falsely creating the impression that we try to achieve equality, we are deceiving the less equal in the sense that some of them will NEVER be satisfied, because they will always expect to be made equal to the ones less unequal than themseves; and the cycle will continue when they were somehow made as unequal as the level above them, and so forth. If those ambitions to become more unequal are driven by self-motivation, self-improvement - even with external help or guidence - that is a different story. That is how nature intended nature's creations to prosper, or not to prosper...
For non-Afrikaans people, please use your favourite AI to translate the opinion piece by myself at the link above. I will much appreciate debate, criticism, arguments for and against, total condemnation, or even compliments... 🤗
I can add reason why everyone should care about inequality (as different from outright poverty). Research indicates a strong connection between economic inequality, high rates of father absence, and increased violent crime. Research also indicate that the solution likely lies in quality education access (especially female education), availability of birth control options, improved birth survival rates, and improved social support structures.
The key word here is 'connection', Fanie, or correlation. Economists care about causal links. Let me take an extreme case again: if the causal link really ran from economic inequality to fatherlessness, then the easiest way to address fatherlessness would be to throw the richest 1000 South Africans into the sea. And yet, I think we can both agree that would do nothing to address fatherlessness. Fatherlessness is a fascinating and complex issue; it has roots in precolonial systems, exacerbated by segregationist and discriminatory 19th and 20th-century policies, that are (and cannot) be addressed without a growing economy. Inequality is the symptom, not the cause.
A perspective I never knew I needed.
As a young person, I’ve noticed that suffering has been commodified on the internet, and it’s starting to seep into politics in many parts of the world.
The world now feels full of resentment-fuelled populist leaders who look backwards and downplay the progress we’ve made as a global civilisation. In many places, politics no longer seems forward-looking, and there’s a strong sense of desperation that is unfortunately shaping policy.
As someone who consumes mostly left-leaning media, it often feels easier to look around and simply blame “the system” rather than evaluate the whole situation with nuance. I'd happily take in simple platitudes and mantras about how "everything has gone to shit" and align myself with the personalities who say this, rather than engage with the longer, more complex and challenging solutions to why "everything has gone to shit".
I really appreciate this perspective, and I hope we see more nuanced, research-rich contributions on problems like inequality, like this, in public office, the media, and government.
Amazing read!
I am reminded of Goodhart's law: once a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric.
I found this piece thoughtful and grounded in history, particularly in how it situates inequality within long-term social structures rather than treating it as a purely modern phenomenon. That kind of perspective is valuable because it reminds us that inequality did not suddenly appear in the late twentieth century. It has deep roots in how societies have been organized for centuries. That said, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that inequality is not an emergency. While it may be historically persistent, its current scale and consequences—especially in countries like South Africa—make it a pressing issue that cannot simply be normalized.
Johan Fourie, your observation that “inequality is not a new irritant unleashed by five decades of neoliberalism, it seems to be the default setting of agrarian, hierarchical societies” is analytically sound in a historical sense. Many societies have indeed been structured around hierarchy, with unequal access to land, capital, and opportunity. But I would argue that recognizing this pattern should not lead us to accept inequality as inevitable. If anything, it should push us to address it more deliberately, because today we have both the institutional tools and policy experience to mitigate its most damaging effects.
At the same time, I agree with you completely when you write that “people care about poverty and social mobility because they have direct consequences for their lived experience.” This is where the issue becomes tangible. Inequality is not just a statistical measure captured by the Gini index. It is reflected in whether people can access quality education, secure stable employment, or improve their standard of living over time. When inequality becomes extreme, it limits mobility and entrenches disadvantage, creating a cycle that is difficult to break.
Where I diverge from your broader framing is in the idea that inequality is not urgent.
I am not an advocate for mass redistribution of resources as a blanket solution. However, I do believe strongly that structural arrangements must exist to prevent extreme disparities from taking hold. This is not theoretical. We have seen examples where inequality has been managed effectively within market-based systems. Scandinavian countries, for instance, have maintained relatively low levels of inequality through strong institutions, inclusive labor policies, and access to public services, without dismantling capitalism itself. That suggests inequality is not simply an unavoidable outcome, but something shaped by policy and governance.
This brings us directly to South Africa.
The country’s extreme inequality cannot be fully explained by generic historical patterns alone. While I appreciate your effort to situate inequality within a broader historical framework, the present reality must be squarely linked to the legacy of apartheid. South Africa’s economic structure was not just hierarchical—it was deliberately engineered along racial lines. Race became synonymous with class, and access to land, capital, and opportunity was systematically restricted for the majority of the population.
The consequences of that system remain deeply embedded.
Even today, disparities in property ownership, income distribution, and labor market access reflect the economic architecture created during apartheid. This is why inequality in South Africa feels so persistent. It is not merely a continuation of historical patterns. It is the direct outcome of policies that institutionalized exclusion and concentrated wealth in specific segments of society.
Global trends, such as the findings from the Stiglitz-led commission that a large proportion of countries now experience high inequality, are important. But South Africa’s case requires a more specific lens. It is not just about inequality as a global phenomenon. It is about inequality shaped by a very particular history of economic and social engineering.
Johan Fourie, I appreciate your effort to challenge simplified narratives about inequality. But from where I stand, acknowledging its historical roots should not diminish its urgency today. Inequality may not be new, but in contexts like South Africa, it remains a structural constraint that demands deliberate and sustained attention.
Interesting post.
While I also prefer not to indulge arguing over mythical abstractions such as "capitalism" and "neoliberalism", I think there is a a concrete thread that may bring them together: urbanisation.
During earlier times (I assume), with labour tenancy and other forms of tenancy and residency, inequality didn't necessarily result in someone being completely down and out.
But with increasing urbanisation, where property prices are being determined by an increasingly smaller number of people (due to increased inequality), and with fewer other options, survival becomes increasingly difficult.
In my part of Johannesburg, there are 2 kinds of residential developments going up - lifestyle estates for the rich, and flats for perpetual rental (owned by the developers). The new homes within the estates that are being built are prohibitively expensive for an increasing number of people. This also means that those who stay in rentals need to forever have an income that is able to pay for that rental, taking away the socio-economic assumptions of home-ownership as a source of security.
All of this I've said may be anecdotal, and studies may show otherwise, so I'm also open to correction.
Die artikel bewys net weer dat dit loon om enige dogma te problematiseer. Dinge is altyd meer ingewikkel as wat 'n oorkoepelende raamwerk of denkpatroon of oortuiging kan weergee - maak nie saak hoe slim die bewoording van so 'n dogma is nie. Ek moet net altyd onthou dat hierdie slagspreke of opsommende stellings eintlik die grootste deel van die werklikheid ontken in 'n poging om 'n algemene woordestel aanvaar te kry.
Dit is o.a. waarom geen strategie dit ooit regkry om ten volle uitgevoer te word soos die aanvanklike stelling(s) nie, maar gereeld aangepas word om die werklikheid beter te benader. En dit is waarom dogmas gereeld hersien moet word - om die werklikheid beter te benader. Dit ontstel baie mense, bloot omdat dit nie van die begin af duidelik is dat ons oortuigings altyd voorlopig en gebroke is. Ons moet (soos die Boeddha sy studente aanmoedig) nie die woorde foutloos herhaal nie, maar toets aan die werklikheid wat elkeen ervaar, en aanpas sodat ons beter kan vaar - al is dit altyd relatief tot die groepie waaraan ons behoort.
Ewige waarhede is nie vir ons arme skepsels beskore nie (al vlieg ons al om die maan).
See my recent opinion piece on the same subject: https://substack.com/@pietpolitiek/note/p-191841512?r=5yb7i8
Ek het selfs verder gegaan as Johan. I argued that inequality is actually a NATURAL state of "things". Nature never intended things to be equal. And with good reason too: nature wants natural selection, since that is how the "strongest" survive, or prosper more than the weak, to hark back to Darwin. That is good for progress, upwardly. But replace strength, or rather add to it human traits like intelligence, ambition, business savvy, visionary thinking, perseverence, cunning, etc., etc.; and you realise that even where human traits developed beyond just Darwin's "strength", one is naïve or totally ambitionless to think inequality can ever be eradicated. More than that: for the human race to continue on the steep upward path of contineous advancement, we should avoid trying to level everybody. That said, that is not to argue against very careful and very well considered redistribution, but in that case then not pretending that we aim to "eradicate inequality". Let's call what we do to make the most unequal better off than they are, what it is: redistribution. And if we can justify a sort of redistribution which is VERY WELL DESIGNED TO AVOID UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, let us then not pretend that we can (or should) attempt to chase the illusion of "equality". It is simply chasing a mirrage. It causes harm too: by falsely creating the impression that we try to achieve equality, we are deceiving the less equal in the sense that some of them will NEVER be satisfied, because they will always expect to be made equal to the ones less unequal than themseves; and the cycle will continue when they were somehow made as unequal as the level above them, and so forth. If those ambitions to become more unequal are driven by self-motivation, self-improvement - even with external help or guidence - that is a different story. That is how nature intended nature's creations to prosper, or not to prosper...
For non-Afrikaans people, please use your favourite AI to translate the opinion piece by myself at the link above. I will much appreciate debate, criticism, arguments for and against, total condemnation, or even compliments... 🤗
Evidence echoing from “de opgaafrolle” is highly informative
I can add reason why everyone should care about inequality (as different from outright poverty). Research indicates a strong connection between economic inequality, high rates of father absence, and increased violent crime. Research also indicate that the solution likely lies in quality education access (especially female education), availability of birth control options, improved birth survival rates, and improved social support structures.
The key word here is 'connection', Fanie, or correlation. Economists care about causal links. Let me take an extreme case again: if the causal link really ran from economic inequality to fatherlessness, then the easiest way to address fatherlessness would be to throw the richest 1000 South Africans into the sea. And yet, I think we can both agree that would do nothing to address fatherlessness. Fatherlessness is a fascinating and complex issue; it has roots in precolonial systems, exacerbated by segregationist and discriminatory 19th and 20th-century policies, that are (and cannot) be addressed without a growing economy. Inequality is the symptom, not the cause.