[buyx]

India and China have both managed to uplift their economies in the last 30 years without the “discomfort” of violent crime, increasing corruption, the collapse of state institutions and an inability to generate electricity.

Of course reducing everyone to grinding poverty is one way of reducing inequality, but it’s hard to see what the utility of that would be.

Blacks will, and do, bear the brunt of the deterioration anyway.

[ashwagary]

>India and China have both managed to uplift their economies in the last 30 years without the “discomfort” of violent crime, increasing corruption, the collapse of state institutions and an inability to generate electricity.

India didn't start out with massive amounts of inequality and is still working at building while dealing with a poverty crisis. It isnt close to the finish line.

China, the most successful at transitioning, had inequality comparable to South Africa at one point. That is precisely what Mao targeted when he came to power. Their effort, which involved redistribution of >90% of the land from tiny minority (<10%) ownership, stamping out corruption, and solving domestic production issues; could hardly be described as comfortable.

Foreign powers worked overtime to sabotage the Chinese effort like they have and will continue to do in South Africa as it gets started on this path away from economic apartheid.

The good news is, modern South Africa being a part of BRICS may be useful in reducing inequality more rapidly by employing wisdom gained by other members... but there will still be discomfort.

The history surrounding this kind of scenario is very clear and not as rosey as your description. Luckily SA is not resource poor and its allies are some of the most capable nation builders on the planet.

[buyx]

Mao’s reforms led to millions of deaths. China grew after the 70s. But in any case, thanks for clarifying your conception of “discomfort”.