Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, who died on May 28, is a legend whose writings and thoughts will linger forever. He immortalised African history and struggles through his work. Ours has been an oral history, one that needed to be written for posterity.
Writer Philip Ochieng once talked about the concept of the “content and container”. To put it simply, the soda bottle is as important as the soda itself. Many would refuse to drink the same soda if offered in a gourd. In Ngũgĩ, both his style (the container) had a good feel, just like his substantive message (the content).
But let us deal with his content. His books reveal Ngũgĩ as one rooted firmly in the left-wing corner of politics and economics, that is, socialism. In the 1960s and 1970s, socialism was in vogue. It is an economic and social system in which the means of production are controlled by workers, as opposed to the private sector. Production is based on human needs, not profit. Eastern Europe, China, Tanzania, and similar places had various forms of socialist economies.
Socialism during that era had a specific appeal – its drive to abolish social classes and create an egalitarian society, and its alignment with anti-colonial and anti-imperial forces. Probably, these ideals drew Ngũgĩ.
But socialism fell. China was the first major socialist nation to realise it might fail — in the late 1980s, Deng Xiaoping instituted policies that attracted private capital. The USSR and Eastern Europe also pivoted away from socialism around the same period.
There are many possible reasons. Economists argue that socialism could not allocate resources efficiently, particularly under central planning. It failed to adequately reflect consumer demand and changing conditions. The lack of competition created lethargy and poor outcomes. Without incentives, individual effort declined, which hampered innovation. Moreover, concentration of power in central planning often bred autocracy and repression.
Capitalism, on the other hand, lifts people in curious ways. Competition fosters innovation and better productivity, which in turn creates economic growth. Everyone in a capitalist society needs to produce something of value to have any standing in the marketplace.
To succeed in a capitalist economy, ensure you have two things. First, produce something of great value. A farmer’s output is agricultural produce; a miner’s is minerals; a lawyer’s is legal services; a journalist’s is news; a driver’s is driving skill. The more valuable the output, the higher the price it will fetch. Hence the need to keep innovating.
Second, specialise to gain mastery of your trade. These two facets – owning something valuable and specialisation – are as important to individuals as to countries. China is prosperous because it produces valuable goods – toys, machinery, and the like. The United States is wealthy largely because it produces valuable ideas – films, music, software like Facebook, and science.
In capitalism, the government is not the centre of value production. The private sector is. The Wealth of Nations is calculated as the total value of goods and services produced in a year. The government’s role is to create an enabling environment for prosperity – roads, water, electricity, and internet.
Indeed, China lifted millions out of poverty after it discarded socialism and embraced capitalism. Poland was part of the Eastern socialist bloc in the 1980s. Today, it is among the newly affluent EU states. Vietnam also abandoned socialism – and is rising.
Argentina’s Peronism was socialism. But the country’s new president, Javier Milei, has embraced anarcho-capitalism, which is contributing to economic growth. Kenya is approximately twice as rich as Tanzania – some say because of the socialism Julius Nyerere introduced after independence. Was Ngũgĩ therefore wrong? Not necessarily.
Capitalism as we know it arose in the late 15th century. Historical evidence suggests that early capitalism did not immediately improve human well-being, such as life expectancy.
Capitalism began to pick up with mechanisation, especially in Britain. Simultaneously, left-wing politics rose to strengthen workers – curbs on child labour, paid leave, organised labour, medical insurance. In response, capitalism adopted “welfarism”: public healthcare, education, pensions. Stakeholder capitalism emerged, and human development improved. Both owners of capital and workers benefited.
Indeed, some leftist leaders brought real progress. José Mujica of Uruguay was described as the world’s poorest president, but under his leadership, poverty reduced and social inclusion increased. Maybe the answer in the debate between capitalism and socialism lies in the middle.
Probably, that’s the lesson the Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland – offer the world. They consistently rank among the happiest and most prosperous on earth.
These countries combine the best of both worlds: they have competitive industrial sectors that unleash economic potential, while providing strong social safety nets to protect the vulnerable.
Maybe we should view Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o through this lens – as a leftist who deeply cared for the underclass, but was pragmatic enough to acknowledge the limits of socialism. After all, he chose to live – and die – in the USA, capitalism’s citadel. Or perhaps, neither capitalism nor socialism matters that much. Maybe Deng Xiaoping was right when he said, “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.”
And this matters deeply to Africans. We often fixate on the past – especially on how we were colonised and oppressed. Yes, that history was painful.
But maybe our focus should now shift to the future: What kind of society shall we bequeath to our children? Japan oppressed South Korea in the 1940s. Today, South Korea aligns with Japan. Germany fought against the US in World War II. Today, they are allies. Maybe what matters most is how Africa maps its futuristic interests – and moves forward.
