GACHAGA: The making of the indebted man in a capitalist economy

I recently came across Maurizio Lazzarato’s The Making of the Indebted Man—nope, I’m not that classy, it was just a snippet from TikTok forwarded by my good friend Bobby (why Bobby is on TikTok is still a mystery).

But the idea stuck with me: debt isn’t just a financial burden. It’s a psychological one. It got me thinking about how we live in a system that quietly trains us to internalise failure.

If you’re struggling, it’s framed as a personal flaw not the result of a structure designed to keep you exactly where you are. This system convinces us that financial security only comes through obedience: take the loans, stay in the corporate lane, consume endlessly. It makes freedom feel not just far away but impossible.

When I first learned about economic systems, back in high school, and later in accounting college, I couldn’t wait to get a good job, conquer “the man,” and ride off into the horizon: bride in one hand, good wine in the other.

Fast forward a couple of decades, and now I’ve got wine in one hand (let’s not stress about whether it’s good) and a calculator in the other, trying to figure out when the next paycheck hits.

It’s got me wondering: are the products sold to us by banks, these shiny, well-branded tools that promise freedom and access, helping us live, or just keeping us afloat?

Maurizio Lazzarato argues that corporations need us to consume. I’m inclined to agree. Take the mortgage, for example: on paper, it’s a sensible product. Take a loan, buy a home and pay it off for more than 20 years.

But is it really that simple? Or are we signing up to spend two decades paying for a house we can barely afford, in exchange for the illusion of stability? Corporations create a constant sense of lack, convincing us that we need their products to be happy, successful, or even socially acceptable.

We spend more than we have, and when we struggle financially, the same system offers us a solution: jobs within those very corporations. But these jobs are structured to keep us confi ned, with promotions and financial growth limited by rigid (I would call them extra) policies.

Success is made to feel like a slow, incremental process, rather than something we can actively build on our own terms.

Why is it so hard to focus on passion, creativity, or the things that genuinely bring us joy and then build a sustainable life around that?

I’m currently mentoring a group of those sharp, see-youthful youngsters, and we’re exploring that exact question. We’re trying to focus on what lights them up, what brings them joy, meaning and flow.

But it’s tough. Can they really resist the man and his carefully designed system, one that funnels them into the workforce with a smile and a slogan? They’re told the only path to success is to commit to a long, stressful 50-year journey of employment, debt, and slow, cautious financial progress.

Before my time and before theirs, people were bound by force. Now? Maurizio argues that we are bound by debt, oh and how right he is. Question: is it possible to break free? Can we simplify our lives, say no to the constant pull of gadgets and status symbols (I say this with all the humility of someone very guilty on this front), and stay away from debt?

If we could, maybe that good wine wouldn’t feel so far away. Maybe it’d be enjoyed in a more modest space, but it’d be ours. The government is not free from this trap either. We all know it; we’ve been consuming more than we can afford for years.

The recent Finance Bill protests made that crystal clear. Our young, determined citizens stood up and pushed back, and for a moment, it felt like change was possible. But here’s the hard truth: the problem hasn’t gone anywhere.

The debt still must be paid and yet we are still borrowing, instead of iPhones and fancy homes, our national wish list includes expressways, housing projects and chapati plans. Maybe it’s time to scale back the ambition and return to basics: healthcare, education, stability.

In other words, KISS—Keep It Simple, Stupid (yes, I’m inclined to put a comma after “simple”).

More broadly, it often feels like African nations are being positioned as the global workforce, caught in a system that keeps us dependent on international lenders, what’s the phrase: Tulipe ushuru tujitegemee. It really should be Tulipe ushuru, walipe deni! All is not lost, though. Someone in Murang’a seems to be getting it right, my favourite rastaman, Governor Kangata is keeping it simple, serving the mwananchi, and using technology to get the basics right.

But I digress—we were talking about debt. As Darren Hardy famously said, “The Compound Effect: if it’s not working for you, you’re working for it.” And that’s the truth. If we can learn to flip the script, use the very same tools designed by the capitalist machine intentionally then maybe, just maybe, we stand a chance.

Alfred Gachaga is a compliance, risk and fintech executive