Much unfortunate misunderstanding has arisen from the simple use of
the terms “capitalist” and “monopolist” in the discussion of South
African matters. Without the appending of explanation, they convey a
false impression. These terms, so familiar to the students of social
phenomena in Europe and America, are generally used in connection
with a larger, but a quite distinct body of problems. The terms
“capitalism,” “monopolist,” and “millionaire” are now generally
associated with the question of the forming of “trusts,” “corners,”
etc., and the question whether it is desirable that society should so
organize itself that one man may easily obtain possession of twenty
millions, while the bulk of equally intelligent and equally laborious
men obtain little or nothing from the labor of humanity. This question
is a world-wide question; it is not one in any sense peculiarly South
African; it is a world-wide problem, which, as the result of much
thought, careful consideration and many experiments, the nations of the
civilized world will be called to adjudicate upon during the twentieth
century; but it is not the question with which South Africa stands face
to face at this moment. The question before us is not: Shall one South
African possess twenty millions, live in his palace, live on champagne,
have his yacht in Table Bay, and deck women with a hundred thousand
pounds’ worth of jewels, while the South African next door has nothing?
This is not our question. Our problem is not the problem of America.
In America there are many individuals possessing wealth amounting to
many millions, but when the United States in their entirety is taken
the £40,000,000 of the richest individual sink to nothing; and, were it
the desire of the richest millionaire in the States