Nelson Mandela on White Monopoly Capital, White Domination & Real Meaning of Freedom for Africans


Objective of Freedom Charter

“The most important political document ever adopted by the ANC is the ‘Freedom Charter’. It is by no means a blueprint for a socialist state. It calls for redistribution, but not nationalisation, of land; it provides for nationalisation of mines, banks, and monopoly industry, because big monopolies are owned by one race only, and without such nationalisation racial domination would be perpetuated despite the spread of political power. It would be a hollow gesture to repeal the Gold Law prohibitions against Africans when all gold mines are owned by European companies. In this respect the ANC’s policy corresponds with the old policy of the present Nationalist Party which, for many years, had as part of its programme the nationalisation of the gold mines which, at that time, were controlled by foreign capital. Under the Freedom Charter, nationalisation would take place in an economy based on private enterprise” – Nelson Mandela’s statement from the dock at the opening of the defence case in the Rivonia Trial Pretoria Supreme Court, 20 April 1964

  • White Monopolies

“There must be an end to white monopoly on political power, and a fundamental restructuring of our political and economic systems to ensure that the inequalities of apartheid are addressed and our society thoroughly democratised” – Nelson Mandela – Our March to Freedom is Irreversible, 1990

  • Transformation

“Accordingly, during the last three years, the opponents of fundamental change have sought to separate the goal of national reconciliation from the critical objective of social transformation.

In many instances, they have sought to set these one against the other, with a view to the elevation of the first of these aims to a position of hegemony, with national reconciliation defined as being characterised by such measures as would compensate the white minority for the loss of its monopoly of political power by guaranteeing its privileged positions in the socio-economic sphere.

In the detail, we have seen this reflected in the assertion that our programme of affirmative action to address the racial disparities we inherited from the apartheid system, is permissible and can be pursued, provided that it is carried out within such bounds as would be acceptable to those who occupy positions of privilege.

Thus, whenever we have sought real progress through affirmative action, the spokespersons of the advantaged have not hesitated to cry foul, citing all manner of evil – such as racism, violation of the constitution, nepotism, dictatorship, inducing a brain drain and frightening the foreign investor” – Report by Nelson Mandela to the 50th National Conference of the African National Congress (ANC) 16 December 1997

“It is one thing to pronounce a commitment to a representative public service; and another to condemn the selection of blacks, the disabled and women – both black and white – into managerial positions.

And dare we remind ourselves that those of us who went into the
executive were astounded at the absence not only of these groups, but also of white men who did not come from the then “correct ethnic group”.

“We have set out to change all this. And by doing so, we believe we have made South Africa the richer – with our society benefiting from the skills base that the whole nation offers.

If this is cronyism, we proudly plead guilty” – Nelson Mandela in debate on State of the Nation Address, Cape Town 10 February 1999

  • Counter-revolutionary forces halt fundamental change(Regime Change Agenda)

“The defenders of apartheid privilege continue to sustain a conviction that an opportunity will emerge in future, when they can activate this counter-insurgency machinery, to impose an agenda on South African society which would limit the possibilities of the democratic order to such an extent that it would not be able to create a society of equality, that would be rid of the legacy of apartheid.

During the period under review, the counter-revolution has also sought to regroup to create the possibility for itself to act decisively to compromise the democratic system at whatever moment it considered opportune.

Accordingly, various elements of the former ruling group have been working to establish a network which would launch or intensify a campaign of destabilisation, some of whose features would be:

the weakening of the ANC and its allies; the use of crime to render the country ungovernable; the subversion of the economy; and the erosion of the confidence of both our people and the rest of the world in our capacity both to govern and to achieve our goals of reconstruction and development.

This counter-revolutionary network, which is already active and bases itself on those in the public administration and others in other sectors of our society who have not accepted the reality of majority rule, is capable of carrying out very disruptive actions. It measures its own success by the extent to which it manages to weaken the democratic order.

Consistent with the objectives we have just mentioned, it has engaged in practical activities since our last Conference which include:

the encouragement and commission of crime; the weakening and incapacitation of the state machinery, including the theft of public assets, arms and ammunition being among these; the hiding of sensitive and important information from legal organs of state; and the building of alternative structures, including intelligence machineries as well as armed formations.

Evidence also exists that elements of this counter-revolutionary conspiracy have established or are maintaining a variety of international contacts.

Some of these are neo-fascist groupings. Others are old contacts established during the years of the international isolation of apartheid South Africa.

And yet others belong among establishment forces which, for one reason or another, are afraid of and are opposed to the fundamental transformation of our society” – Report by Nelson Mandela to the 50th National Conference of the African National Congress (ANC) 16 December 1997

  • Foreign funded NGOs

“Returning to our own reality we must make the point that our experience of the last three years points to the importance of non-governmental organisations (NGO’s), community-based organisations (CBO’s) and grassroots-based political formations in ensuring popular participation in governance.

The effective and admirable way in which many of these structures have functioned has served to emphasise the point that, in many instances, the public service, however efficient it may be, may not be the best instrument to mobilise for popular involvement and participation.

However, we must also draw attention to the fact that many of our non-governmental organisations are not in fact NGO’s, both because they have no popular base and the actuality that they rely on the domestic and foreign governments, rather than the people, for their material sustenance.

As we continue the struggle to ensure a people-driven process of social transformation, we will have to consider the reliability of such NGO’s as a vehicle to achieve this objective.

The success achieved by many CBO’s based on the contribution of “sweat equity” by very poor communities, points to the need for us seriously to consider the matter of the nature of the so-called organs of civil society

We must also refer to sections on the non-governmental sector which seek to assert that the distinguishing feature of a genuine organisation of civil society is to be a critical “watchdog” over our movement, both inside and outside of government.

Pretending to represent an independent and popular view, supposedly obviously legitimised by the fact that they are described as non-governmental organisations, these NGO’s also work to corrode the influence of the movement.

Strangely, some of the arguments for this so-called “watchdog” role was advanced from within the ranks of the broad democratic movement, at the time when we all arrived at the decision that with the unbanning of the ANC and other democratic organisations, it was necessary to close down the UDF.

Thus we ended up with the situation in which certain elements, which were assumed to be part of our movement, set themselves up as critics of the same movement, precisely at the moment when we would have to confront the challenge of the fundamental transformation of our country and therefore, necessarily, the determined opposition of the forces of reaction.

They lack the issue-driven mass base that is the defining feature of any real NGO and are therefore unable to raise funds from the people themselves.

This has also created the possibility for some of these NGO’s to act as instruments of foreign governments and institutions that fund them to promote the interests of these external forces.

For example, a “Review of the U.S.Aid Program in South Africa” dated November 5, 1996 and prepared by two members of the staff of the US House of Representatives, Lester Munson and Phillip Christenson, has this to say on this matter:

“AID’s program is not so much support for the Mandela government as support for AID’s undisclosed political activities within the South African domestic political arena involving the most difficult, controversial issues in South Africa. By funding advocacy groups to monitor and lobby for changes in government policies and even setting up trust funds to pay for legal challenges in court against the new government’s action or inaction, AID is in some respects making President Mandela’s task more difficult.” – Report by Nelson Mandela to the 50th National Conference of the African National Congress (ANC) 16 December 1997

  • Racist media

Similarly, we have to confront the fact that during the last three years, the matter has become perfectly clear that the bulk of the mass media in our country has set itself up as a force opposed to the ANC.

In a manner akin to what the National Party is doing in its sphere, this media exploits the dominant positions it achieved as a result of the apartheid system, to campaign against both real change and the real agents of change, as represented by our movement, led by the ANC.

In this context, it also takes advantage of the fact that, thanks to decades of repression and prohibition of a mass media genuinely representative of the voice of the majority of the people of South Africa, this majority has no choice but to rely for information and communication on a media representing the privileged minority.

To protect its own privileged positions, which are a continuation of the apartheid legacy, it does not hesitate to denounce all efforts to ensure its own transformation, consistent with the objectives of a non-racial democracy, as an attack on press freedom.

When it speaks against us, this represents freedom of thought, speech and the press – which the world must applaud!

When we exercise our own right to freedom of thought and speech to criticise it for its failings, this represents an attempt to suppress the freedom of the press -for which the world must punish us!

Thus the media uses the democratic order, brought about by the enormous sacrifices of our own people, as an instrument to protect the legacy of racism, graphically described by its own patterns of ownership, editorial control, value system and advertiser influence.

At the same time, and in many respects, it has shown a stubborn refusal to discharge its responsibility to inform the public.

Consistent with the political posture it has assumed, it has been most vigorous in disseminating such information as it believes serves to discredit and weaken our movement. By this means, despite its professions of support for democracy, it limits the possibility to expand the frontiers of democracy, which would derive from the empowerment of the citizen to participate meaningfully in the process of governance through times access to reliable information.

I know that these comments will be received with a tirade of denunciation, with claims that what we are calling for is a media that acts as a “lapdog” rather than a “watchdog”.

We must reiterate the positions of our movement that we ask for no favours from the media and we expect none. We make no apology for making the demand that the media has a responsibility to society to inform.

Neither do we doubt the correctness of our assessment of the role the media has played in the last three years. All of us know too much about what happens in the newsrooms – Report by Nelson Mandela to the 50th National Conference of the African National Congress (ANC) 16 December 1997

Show More


  1. The so-called demise of Communism is a Great Deception, having been stage managed for the transition to world government
    If you wanted a national monopoly, you must control a national socialist government. If you want a worldwide monopoly, you must control a world socialist government. That is what the game is all about. “Communism” is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but is a movement created, manipulated and used by power-seeking billionaires in order to gain control over the world, first by establishing socialist governments in the various nations and then consolidating them all through a “Great Merger,” into an all-powerful world, socialist super-state.
    In the Bolshevik Revolution we have some of the world’s richest and most powerful men financing a movement which claims its very existence is based on the concept of stripping of their wealth, men like the Rothschids, Rockefellers, Schiffs, Warburgs, Morgans, Harrimans, and Milners. But obviously these men have no fear of international Communism. It is only logical to assume that if they financed it and do not fear it, it must be because they control it.
    Jacob Schiff was the Rothschild agent who had taken over control of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, the international banking house, on behalf of his European masters. Schiff had come into his own on the American banking scene some years earlier when, in his capacity as the Rothschilds’ top agent in the United States, he arranged financing for John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the railroad empire of Edward Harriman and the steel empire of Andrew Carnegie.
    When Leon Trotsky’s private army, whose ‘boot camp’ was located on Standard Oil property in New jersey, was sufficiently trained for its campaign of subversion and terror, they sailed from New York on the S.S. Kristianiafiord bound for Russia. With them on the ship was $20,000,000 in gold, supplied by international banker Jacob Schiff.
    … The Red Army, under the direction of Trotsky, was the deadly tool of the Rothschild dominated international bankers.
    Virtually the entire communist project in world domination and terror – from the original Bolshevik revolution and the building up of Stalin, to Chairman Mao’s murderous takeover of China and Fidel Castro’s bloody rise to power in Cuba – has been facilitated every step of the way by Western globalists.
    The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.
    n 1905, while Russia was engaged in the Russo-Japanese War, the Communists tried to get the farmers to revolt against the Czar, but they refused.
    After this aborted attempt, the Russian Czar deposited $400,000,000 in the Chase Bank, National City Bank, Guaranty Trust Bank, the Hanover Trust Bank, and Manufacturers Trust Bank, and $80,000,000 in the Rothschild Bank in Paris, because he knew who was behind the growing revolutionary movement, and hoped to end it.
    The Rothschilds, through Alfred Milner, planned the Russian Revolution, and along with Schiff (who gave $20 million), Sir George Buchanan, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers, the partners of J.P. Morgan (who gave at least $1 million), Olaf Aschberg (of the Nye Bank of Stockholm, Sweden), the Rhine Westphalian Syndicate, a financier named Jovotovsky (whose daughter later married Leon Trotsky), William Boyce Thompson (a director of Chase National Bank who contributed $1 million), and Albert H. Wiggin (President of Chase National Bank), helped finance it.
    The Rockefellers had given their financial support to the Russian Revolution after the Czar refused to give them access to the Russian oil fields, which were already being pumped by the Royal Dutch Co. (owned by the Rothschilds and the Nobel brothers) and giving Standard Oil plenty of competition on the international market. Even though John D. Rockefeller possessed $15,000,000 in bonds from the Royal Dutch Co. and Shell, rather than purchase stock to get his foot in the door and indirectly profit, he helped to finance the Revolution so that he would be able to get Standard Oil firmly established in the country of Russia. As the Congress of Vienna (1814) had shown, the Illuminati had never been able to control the affairs of Russia, so they had to get rid of the Czar so he couldn’t interfere with their plans.
    Communism is the ultimate monopoly, not only controlling the government, the monetary system and all property, but also a monopoly which, like the corporations it emulates, is self-perpetuating and eternal.
    Monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers.
    This new and complete Revolution we contemplate can be defined in a very few words. It is outright world socialism; scientifically planned and directed… The term ‘Internationalism’ has been popularized in recent years to cover an interlocking financial, political, and economic world force for the purpose of establishing a World Government.
    During the 1920s Russian industry was effectively rebuilt by US corporations, with several of Lenin’s five-year plans financed by Wall Street banks. The aim was to prepare Russia for WWII, where it effectively won the war for the allies but was largely ruined (again) in the process and, like the other European powers, incurred massive debt to Wall Street and London bankers.
    Jacob Schiff sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia. Other New York banking firms also contributed.
    The Mellons, Carnegies, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Dukes, Astors, Dorrances, Reynoidses, Stilimans, Bakers, Pynes, Cuilmans, Watsons, Dukes, Kleinwarts, DuPonts, Warburgs, Phippses, Graces, Guggenheims, Milners, Drexels, Winthrops, Vanderbilts, Whitneys, Harkuesses and other super rich families generally get along quite well with Communists, who supposedly want to take away the wealth of these men and give it to the people. However, this is only double talk designed to bolster the superstructure of delusion that Communists are the enemies of all Capitalists. But Communists, like the super rich families, are not the enemies of monopoly capitalism: they are the foes of free enterprise.
    “The main purveyors of funds for the [Russian] revolution were neither the crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The ‘real’ money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause… I have been told that over 21 million rubles were spent by Lord [Alfred] Milner in financing the Russian Revolution.”
    Russian General Arsene de Goulevitch, who witnessed the Bolshevik Revolution firsthand
    “Russian democracy has become victorious, and thanks are due to the Jew that the Russian [Bolshevik] Revolution succeeded.”
    Jacob Schiff, to the Jewish League of American Patriots, May 3, 1917
    If one understands the socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs.
    Communism, or more accurately socialism, its not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.
    We find persistent recurrence of the same names: Owen Young, Gerard Swope, Hjalmar Schacht, Bernard Baruch, etc.; the same international banks: J. P. Morgan, Guaranty Trust, Chase Bank.
    This group of international bankers backed the Bolshevik Revolution and subsequently profited from the establishment of a Soviet Russia. This group backed Roosevelt and profited from New Deal socialism. This group also backed Hitler and certainly profited from German armament in the 1930s.

    By imposing the Bolshevik Revolution on Russia, Wall Street ensured that it could not compete with the USA. For the next 70 years, the ‘managers of the world’ in the US and Western Europe expanded their global domination through the use of a bogus “Communist threat” (which they created). In the late 1980s, the Western banking elite decided that their global power was sufficient to allow them to pull back the ‘iron curtain’ and, once again, open Russia up, but this time for some ‘free market’, ‘open society’ neo-liberal plunder. All was going to plan for most of the 1990s until Vladimir Putin arrived on the scene and began to spoil the Western elites’ ‘we rule the world’ party.
    Through the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations its ideology is constant: That the best way to fight Communism is by a One World Socialist state governed by “experts” like themselves. The result has been policies which favor the growth of the superstate, gradual surrender of United States sovereignty to the United Nations and a steady retreat in the face of Communist aggression.
    International bankers arranged the Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917, and then supported the regime thereafter, both for the profit involved and, presumably, to build up a “credible enemy.
    One barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and Socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists – to their mutual benefit
    Cecil Rhodes understood clearly that the only way [the Western banking/corporate/political elite] were going rule the world was to ensure that Russia never emerged as a competitor to their center of operations – London, and then the USA. From a practical perspective, to achieve that goal they were going to have to perpetually marginalize Russia on the Eurasian continent and prevent European nations, in particular Western European nations, from ever forming an alliance with The technique, used by the monopolists to gouge society, was set forth in the early twentieth century by Frederick C. Howe ‘Confessions of a Monopolist’. First, says Howe, politics is a necessary part of business. To control industries it is necessary to control Congress and the regulators and thus make society go to work for you, the monopolist. So, according to Howe, the two principles of a successful monopolist are, “First, let Society work for you; and second, make a business of politics.Russia. That task began in earnest in the late 1890s. It continues to this day.
    Jacob Schiff of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company in New York [was] the top Rothschild agent in the United States and the main financial backer of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.
    During the civil war in Russia between the Reds and the Whites, while Wall Street financiers were aiding the Bolsheviks quietly, they also began to finance Aleksandr Kolchak (of the Whites) with millions of dollars, in order to ensure that whoever emerged victorious in the war, Wall Street would win.
    The international bankers made a huge capital investment in the Bolshevik Revolution and in the totalitarian regime that resulted from it. Since that time they have used Russia as their ‘foil’ in the plan to conquer the world.
    Since coming to power Vladimir Putin has made moves to do to Russia precisely that which the Western banking elite spent over 100 years trying to prevent: make it a strong independent country, free (to the greatest extent possible) of the Western bankers’ toxic influence. Even worse, Putin’s plan does not seem to be limited merely to freeing Russia, but includes the idea of using Russia’s influence to establish a new ‘new world order’, based not on the hegemony of the few, but on multipolarity, real national sovereignty, mutual respect, and genuinely fair trade among nations. In their 15 short years at the helm in Russia, Putin and his friends have gone a long way towards achieving their goals. The response from the Western elite has been interesting to watch. From NATO’s attempts to encircle Russia in Eastern Europe, to economic sanctions imposed on the basis of trumped-up charges, to sabotaging Russia-EU economic relations, to staging a coup in Ukraine in 2014, to manipulating the price of oil and assassinating ‘opposition figures’ inside and outside Russia; the Anglo-American elite are resorting to increasingly desperate and hysterical measures to maintain the global imbalance they worked so hard to achieve.
    There is a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism for their mutual benefit.
    Communism and socialism are themselves forms of monopoly. The only difference is that in this case, the monopoly is operated by the government. But what if an international banker, through loans to the state, manipulation of a central bank, campaign contributions, or bribes, is able to achieve dominion over a government? In that case, he would find socialism welcome, for it would serve him as an instrument to control society.
    The major money powers of the west enlarged their monopoly ambitions and broadened horizons on a global scale. The gigantic Russian market was to be converted into a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control.

  2. This indeed opens up what is happening in our country right now. Nelson Mandela was a prophet.

    1. Edmund, the script has been written in books on the post-freedom Africa. You know when you read Fanon and see what is happening to the ANC and Africa as a whole, you see it unraveling right in front of our eyes.

  3. Amazing indeed sis Pinky..but believe me the Nelson Mandela foundation and many house negros will dispute this was said by Mandela…

  4. Thank you PK for this great article!

    All south africans should read it to understand the current staus quo.

    1. How amazing is it that things Mandela said at the ANC’s 50th National Conference in Mahikeng in 1997 are unraveling right in front of our eyes.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button
%d bloggers like this: