Ghana empire


For many centuries, Africans have been lied to about their history and their children taught European history in European colonial schools. The true history of African Kings and empires were hidden from Africans for centuries, and the arrivals of Europeans in Africa to destroy anything good about Africa and enslave its children for European development because of the skills and capacity that Africans possessed during that time were never told to African children until in the 20th century when greatest leaders were born.

The Europeans first made sure that they destroy the history and identities of Africans while ensuring that they inherit their land for future generations of Europeans in Africa. And these had begun trails of damages to the future of African children for thousands of years.

I have met much of resistances in my writings about Africa and the destruction of Africa by the Europeans since the arrival of the Portugal, Britain, USA and Germany many centuries ago. I wrote in my last article: “AFRICA WAS DOING JUST FINE BEFORE THE EUROPEANS CAME TO DESTROY IT”. Some of the Europeans; the descendants and offspring of former conquerors and slave muster – who have inherited African land and property, lashed at me calling me “Nonsense racist”.

And I have taken the opportunity and space to present little evidence of “AFRICA WAS DOING JUST FINE BEFORE THE EUROPEANS CAME TO DESTROY IT”, well researched and documented by trusted African researchers and historians in African labs all over the world:

The arrival of the Portuguese in Africa marks the beginning of the end of 4800 years of the Kamits’ (blacks) glorious history. They came to Africa with the consent of the Vatican in order to enslave Africans and steal their wealth. The Portuguese destroyed methodically and violently Kongo dia Ntotila (the Empire of Kongo), the very rich East African Coast and the Southern African lighthouse which was the gigantic empire of the Mwene Mutapa (Monomotapa); Black people resisted heroically.

Pope Nickolas V. wrote a letter, on January 8th 1454, authorizing Portugal to start the European slave trade and the destruction of Africa. Part of the letter reads:

“We had formerly – with letter among other Kings – granted King Alphouse with the whole ability- amongst others – to attack, to conquer , to defeat, to reduce and to subject all Saracens (if it is to say Blacks), pagans and other enemies of Christ, whenever they are, their Kingdoms, their duchies, principalities, domains, properties, piece of furniture and real, all the goods they possess; to take those Kingdoms, duchies, lands, principalities, properties, possessions, and goods which belong to the unfaithful Saracens and pagans…”

Now the question is, if the Europeans – Portugal, wrote letters authorising their colonial military leaders such as Pope Nicolus V. “to attack, to conquer, to defeat, to reduce and to subject all Saracens (if it is to say Blacks), pagans and other enemies of Christ, whenever they are, their Kingdoms…their duchies, principalities, domains, properties, piece of furniture and real, all the goods they possess; to take those Kingdoms, duchies, lands, principalities, properties, possessions, and goods which belong to the unfaithful Saracens and pagans”,

What does this piece of letter mean? It means Africans had rich Kingdoms, duchies, lands, principalities, properties, possessions, and goods that the Europeans (White man) needed so much that he unleashed his evil military powers over unarmed African nations.

Another evidence of “AFRICA WAS DOING JUST FINE BEFORE THE EUROPEANS CAME TO DESTROY IT”, is presented in the German historian Leo Froberius, who wrote in his report about the Kongo empire (Angola-Congos-Gabon) and the African East coast – which already in the 11th century, used to trade with Australia. He wrote:

in the Kingdom of Kongo, the crowd was all dressed with silk and velvet clothes. There were great and well organised states down to the very last details. There were powerful sovereigns and wealthy industries. They were civilised to the bone! It was the same in the Eastern African countries”

Further, the same he said about the Mwene Mutapa Empire (Zimbabwe-Mozambique-Botswana-South Africa-Zambia) which, by 10th century, had already used to trade with China. For this he wrote:

“the palace is big, magnificent. A the entrance there are huge gates watched by the guards of the emperor…”

The European historians providing credible reports to their Kings back in Europe wrote commonly that:

“Monomotapa, the King, always wore long silk dresses weaved in the country. They wear on the side a brush hook with an ivory handle. Common people wear hessian. And important ones wear floral indienne embroidered with gold”

The list of evidence of African beauty and civilisation in the 10th, 11th and until the 14th century before the Europeans came to destroy it goes on and on. And all these are what the Europeans found in Africa. In 1487, Portuguese entered in the empire of Kongo which was at that time under the rule of Nzinga a Nkuwu, who, through the legendary African hospitality allowed a visit by the Portuguese – he did not see it coming that he is opening a cage for the devil to fly to the skies.

The Portuguese really showed who they were under the rule of Nzinga Mbemba – the successor and son of Nzinga Nkuwu – who later wa forced to embrace Christianity and changed his name to Alfonzo; and thanks to their fire arms – which Africans di not have. They brutally changed the course of African history

As we go forward to de-colonise Africa, we must also learn that the African riches were taken away by violence to Europe – to develop Europe into a first class world while African children are starving. Africa is, today, still dominated by the very same people who destroyed its cities and crushed its empires. The colonial musters in collaboration with African puppets who are installed in our government by the colonial musters – to ensure that the continuation of more than 5000 years of Africa’s demise, still continue to this day.

We must decolonize the mind first by re-writing history: “AFRICA WAS DOING JUST FINE BEFORE THE EUROPEANS CAME TO DESTROY IT” and re-educate the African child about Africa. Or we will continue to worship Gods that were introduced to us by guns; to colonise and enslave us forever.



>>>Photo taken from Ghana unknown source.



In South Africa, the Chinese are doing business with the Chinese, Indians with Indians, Pakistanis with Pakistanis, Jews with the Jews, and Europeans with Europeans. But Black people are buying from everybody and not amongst themselves. And this makes black people just a market of the rest.

And If you find black people doing business amongst themselves in South Africa you’ll find that the government is being a major partner in trying to boast this desperate race. It is impossible that black people can do business with other races unless black people are just the buyers – the market.

For all my life, as a columnist and a journalist, I was told tens of times never to become a racist. And I have listened tens of times never to be racism in my thinking, my writings or dialogues. Well, I have always avoided racist philosophy and thoughts in my soul.

But ever since always avoiding racist ideas and behaviors in my business practices, as a black man I have always refused to live under racism as I know how it is to be racially discriminated. Then I realised that while a black man is not racism everyone is a racist in this country towards a black man. And writing about it sounds racist.

When the Europeans decided to some to Africa in the 13th century their intentions were not to cuddle with a black man and wish him well in his industry, but was to destroy his life; cities, identity and steal his wealth and land. For over 500 years, the white man invaded and destroyed cities in Africa and enslaved Africans in Europe where they have contributed profoundly for the development of Europe – economically and politically. The enslavement of Africans has been so violent that millions have perished along the way in Transatlantic Slave Trade route back in the 17th century. The conjuring of cities in African let to many Kings and Queens murdered in cold blood by colonial troops.

And these have always been denied by Europeans, that they have destroyed what the black man has build for ages in Africa and enslaved its people in to Europe for European development. For these they even refused to repay or pay reparation for 500 years of slavery. The colonialisation programme of Africa by Europeans is a proof that the Whiteman did not come to Africa to kiss Africans and say “we love you”. But they came to “take and kill” if necessary. And yes, they took the wealth and killed those who resisted.

The Arabs too are as guilty as Europeans in the enslavement of Africans. They did these since 11th century before the white came to brutally destroy cities and kill Africans in cold blood. The Arabs introduced Islam to most parts of North Africa and this was not a easy task. They forced their religion by killing and enslaving Africans. Until today there are traces of blacks being kept as slaves in Irag, Iran, Yemen and Afghanistan including Pakistan – where Africans are still kept in camps as slaves today. The UN was tasked in 2013, after an incidence in India of slaughtering of 43 black university students in just one day. They where ordered to to probe and investigate black slavery and racism against blacks in Indian communities and universities. But until today we are still waiting for the report for these incidences. The report was shelved as a “black man is less important”.

Today, we see the Chinese Communist Party decided to invest heavily in to African states. The Chinese decided to come to Africa today in the name of “Investment in Infrastructure Development in Africa”. But we all know what does this mean, “Investment…” It means to “take and kill” – this is the system first introduced by Europeans through re-colonialisation of Africa.

As “Investors in mining” they will dig the soil, expose the underground toxins or contaminants to the surface, and if communities protests the secret agents forces or the state police would block the protests, shoot at protesters and eventually kill leaders of the protests just like they have killed people in Marikana Rustenburg and other mining communities – for refusing to obey and live with pollutants. Billions of dollars would be counted in foreign exchanges and shipped abroad while the African workers would be paid in few rands and die of lung illnesses as a result of heavy pollutions and cancer.

The Pakistanis entrepreneurs who have invaded our communities and established retail and spaza shops are the new threat to local enterprises. We see Pakistanis everywhere; they have established their businesses in which they make huge profits form sales of face and unhealthy food, they do these for themselves and their families back in Pakistan.

Where you find these shops the Pakistanis are the shop owners and the black people living nearby in shacks and squatter camps are just market for these stores. The stores are found in townships and rural establishments where the black poorest class lives. A Pakistan store owner would rent a building locally, put one or two black Africans as interpreters and hang in the shop daily.

But this arrangement is not necessarily a job creation arrangement. It is just a day-to-day opportunity to provide a temporary occupation for the Africans. There are often never a contract entered into between the Pakistan shop owner and the Africans. It is just like a daily agreement where you work today and get paid in the afternoon and you still have to come back the next day.

The Indians and Chinese too use this method of providing occupation opportunities for the Africans. They do not necessarily interact with Africans on a permanent business to business relationships or employer and employee relationship, it is an informal arrangement where the African is racially discriminated by the Pakistanis, Indians and the Chinese while they enjoy making money from African working class.

The Chinese, Pakistanis and Indians have planned the whole arrangements of coming to Africa to make a black population a market for their products. They have well planned programme; that when they come to African territory they treat black people as a market and not as business partners. They do not do deals with the black people, except at the government level. They do business amongst themselves and treat a black man as sub-ordinate in the whole arrangements.

When a Chinese need a stock for his own store he or she would probably call his or her Chinese counterparts to bring and supply his or her with the stock. This applies also to the Pakistanis and Indians; they do not do business with the black man but amongst themselves. A black man is a market, finish and klaar!

White people and the Jews have exploited Africans for many years in mining, agriculture and manufacturing. Blacks have always provided cheap labour for these industries for many years. The top layer in the management and ownership of these corporations in mining, agriculture and manufacturing always ended with the white people or the Jews. Blacks made it only at the bottom, as the general workers to the mid-supervisory levels, earning between R2800 and R10 000 depending on sex, tribe and education level.

“Black man you are on your own” – Steve Biko.





The reports that state parastatals in South Africa are not doing well are everywhere in the media and state information agencies. But regardless of their consistently poor performances, bosses of many of our parastatals continue to receive shockingly high salaries.

For example, SABC COO Hlaudi Motsoeneng made headlines when his qualifications were under investigation and his salary was increased from R2.8 million to a whopping R3.7 million.

It seems like something not worrying in South Africa where almost 25% is unemployed and poverty is at 24%. In these parastatals, there is a perception that certain CEOs’ salaries are seen to be excessive because they no longer appear to be driven by recognisable business principles.

But this is not surprising because South Africa is a Kleptocratic state. In South Africa today, a top government job is a ticket to enrichment, and without any fear you can get rich before you even complete a year as a top public official. The trick is this: get a government job, mess up deliberately and then resign. You’ll get rewarded dearly for the mess you have created.

Kleptocracy, is a term applied to a government seen as having a particularly severe and systemic problem with officials or a ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats) taking advantage of corruption to extend their personal wealth and political power. Typically this system involves the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service.

Kleptocracies are generally associated with dictatorships, oligarchies, military juntas, or other forms of autocratic and nepotist governments in which external oversight is impossible or does not exist. This lack of oversight can be caused or exacerbated by the ability of the kleptocratic officials to control both the supply of public funds and the means disbursal for those funds. Kleptocratic rulers often treat their country’s treasury as a source of personal wealth, spending funds on luxury goods and extravagances as they see fit. Many kleptocratic rulers secretly transfer public funds into hidden personal numbered bank accounts in foreign countries to provide for themselves if removed from power.

Kleptocracy is most common in developing countries whose economies are based on the export of natural resources. Such export incomes constitute a form of economic rent and are easier to siphon off without causing the income to decrease.

Now let us look at the salaries of top CEOs of poorly performing parastatals in South Africa as at 2015:

  1. Transnet CEO – Brian Molefe, R6.6 million; (2011 – 2015).

2. National Empowerment Fund – Philisiwe Mothethwa, R5.8 million; (2011 – still)

3. Airports Company Of South Africa – Bongani Mseko, R5.1 million; (2013 – still)

  1. PetroSA – Nosizwe Nokwe-Macamo, R4.2 million; (2012 – 2015)
  1. SABC – Hlaudi Motsoeneng, R3.7 million; (2011 – still)
  1. Telkom – Sipho Maseko, R11.8 million; (2013 – still)
  1. Public Investment Corporation – Doctor Daniel Matjila, R10.4 million; (2014 – still)

8. Industrial Development Trust – Geoffrey Qhena, R9.3 million; (2005 – still)

9. Prasa – Lucky Montana, R7.6 million; (2010 – 2015)

  1. DBSA – Patrick Dlamini, R7.3 million; (2012 – still)

What can a poor man say? These men and women are hand picked, by the president and his allies. They are picked because they belong to the same league; the political and ruling elite. These are just several parastatal bosses among South Africa’s top-earning executives. While the operations of some of their Government-linked companies are failing, the head honchos are laughing all the way to the bank.

What can we do as the poor? In South Africa, corporate governance is no longer about serving the public but about self-serving schemes – to make money. This in itself is self-destruction if we cannot stop the ANC government with its neo-liberalism. A problem is that corporate governance in several parastatals has broken down to the point where the public no longer has confidence in the processes by which decisions are made about CEO remunerations.

The board committees in these parastatals have not interest in the working class and their needs, they have only a board room where they meet – the ruling elite. In these board rooms, it is a party and the poor are not invited. Appointments and salaries of the parastatals’ CEOs are determines by the board of directors who are responsible for the remuneration decisions, appointments and terminations – appointments are made for political rather than professional reasons, and greatly skewed remuneration comes at high cost to the economy. Who is affected? The poor who are not even invited in these meetings.

We need a socially planned economy in which CEOs would be democratically decided by the working class in their respective work places. We need socially planned economy in which the workers in that work places can decide democratically the salaries of the CEOs with the right to recall if the CEO is not executing the tasks given to him by the workers.

“Each according to his need, each according to his abilities” – Karl Marx.


White privilege 1

Now, I am one of many people who have brought white privilege to the attention of many. Many people did not notice what white privilege is or how it affects them daily.  And some of us we all know that every branch of government has played its part to withstand this privilege. People seem to think that the government is our biggest ally in a fight against white privilege, but we know better. As a result, i’ve decided to show exactly the role that the government plays to create and withstand white privilege since 13th century until to this day – in Europe and South Africa.

In the Americas many centuries ago, slavery was introduced by law – to capture and enslave Africans for the development of Europe. However,  slavery didn’t just give white people power over blacks, it gave white people a head start to establish income for future generations. Some of the richest people in the world inherited their income from ancestors who were slave owners.

Many laws were introduced to strengthen this system. For generations, black people couldn’t read, they were prohibited from carrying books or reading the bible, so they couldn’t obtain an education. Laws were created to prohibit blacks from attending the same schools to learn how to read. As a result, various generations of black people were illiterate, thus prolonging the inferior experience of the black race.

Blacks were forced to go to church to listen to the preachers but they where not allowed to read or interpret the bible. The white preachers read and interpreted the bible for the blacks, on their own and for their own; twisting many verses to suit their own – it was a relationship of a slave and muster. But what is slavery and where did it occur in Europe? This question can take us a very long time if we have to discuss state by state that have introduced slavery. But let us look at short history of slavery in America:

Slavery in America

Slavery in America began when the first African slaves were brought to the North American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco. Slavery was practiced throughout the American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries, and African-American slaves helped build the economic foundations of the new nation. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 solidified the central importance of slavery to the South’s economy. By the mid-19th century, America’s westward expansion, along with a growing abolition movement in the North, would provoke a great debate over slavery that would tear the nation apart in the bloody American Civil War (1861-65). Though the Union victory freed the nation’s 4 million slaves, the legacy of slavery continued to influence American history, from the tumultuous years of Reconstruction (1865-77) to the civil rights movement that emerged in the 1960s, a century after emancipation.

white privilege 3

In the early 17th century, European settlers in North America turned to African slaves as a cheaper, more plentiful labor source than indentured servants (who were mostly poorer Europeans). After 1619, when a Dutch ship brought 20 Africans ashore at the British colony of Jamestown, Virginia, slavery spread throughout the American colonies. Though it is impossible to give accurate figures, some historians have estimated that 6 to 7 million slaves were imported to the New World during the 18th century alone, depriving the African continent of some of its healthiest and ablest men and women.

Slave rebellion:

A slave rebellion is an armed uprising by slaves. Slave rebellions have occurred in nearly all societies that practiced slavery and are amongst the most feared events for slaveholders. The most successful slave rebellion in history was the 18th-century Haitian Revolution, led by Toussaint L’Ouverture against their French colonial rulers, which founded the extant country. Other famous historic slave rebellions have been led by the Roman slave Spartacus, as well as the thrall (Scandinavian slave) Tunni, who rebelled against the Swedish monarch Ongentheow, a rebellion that needed Danish assistance to be quelled.

Numerous African slave rebellions and insurrections took place in North America during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. There is documentary evidence of more than 250 uprisings or attempted uprisings involving 10 or more slaves. Three of the best known in the United States during the 19th century are the revolts by Gabriel Prosser in the Richmond, Virgina area in 1800, Denmark Vesey in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1822, and Nat Turner in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831.

These uprisings and insurrections led to many governments abolishing slavery in the 20th century. But this was only abolished on paper or by law. Slavery existed even until this day in different forms and made.

Nearly a decade after slavery was abolished in America, the South found it difficult to accept black people as equal. As a result, they denied former slaves their constitutional rights. As a result, black people were not permitted to access opportunities to an education that could further their income. This also led to a lack of opportunities to obtain jobs that could feed their families, and as well as a lack representation in the government to change these circumstances. The law ended in the mid-20th century, but the effects left remnants that still affect black people today.

Slavery and white privilege:

Lately, there has been much discussion of white privilege. This term describes the social privileges that are only given to those who are white, or those who look white.

White privilege can appear in many different ways. It can be the white guy who gets away with rape in comparison to the black guy who gets 20 years for having marijuana. It can be seen in history books in which the main focus is on white historical figures who have contributed to western societies.

It can also be seen in the way different races are portrayed. White stereotypes aren’t as negative and detrimental as black stereotypes. A black person is seen as angry and bad, so the consequences of our actions can be exaggerated to make a statement. It can appear very subtle, yet have a huge effect on the people who aren’t so privileged.

White people, everywhere, have inherited property and capital derived from decades of slavery of Africans and other races. While white people enjoy this privilege they are as well protected by laws introduced by the governments to continue to enjoy this privilege.

Drugs in black neighborhoods:

In America we often hear about the war on terror and the war on drugs. We all know that the “War On Terror” was in fact the war on Muslims because the U.S wanted to have its grip on oil in the Middle East while Israel and Britain wanted to make Middle East a violent region in the world permanently for their own imperial agendas. The “War on Drugs” was a means to imprison blacks and hippies. The world thought that it was a method to prevent drug addictions, but in truth, it became a means to issue harsher sentences on black men for possession crimes.

white supremacy 2

Proof of this came in many different ways. For example, crack possession, a commonly-used drug in urban areas, issued longer sentences than cocaine, a drug used by rich white people. Blacks were incarcerated five times more than whites for possession of marijuana. The stop-and-frisk law was only enforced in neighborhoods filled with Latino and black men. The list goes on. As a result, children were left without fathers and family were broken. The War on Drugs created an image as if blacks were more likely to use drugs.

Crack Epidemic

In 1996, Gary Webb, a Californian journalist discovered that the CIA was an accomplice to the Nicaragua drug cartel. They were helping the cartel bring drugs into poor L.A. neighborhoods to help finance war. They used one of the most notable drug dealers, Freeway Rick, to distribute this product to other gangs throughout the country. As a result, the crack epidemic began.

The crack epidemic took a huge toll on black people in the urban areas. Crack was extremely cheap, and more people became addicted to it. As a result, the inner city became a dangerous place. Addiction was killing black families by the thousands. Children were being born with disabilities. Black youth were turning against each other in order to make money off of this evil force. They were also being thrown in jail for decades. If we had a chance at changing our circumstances, this was pushing us further and further away from having a stable community to do so. As a result, the epidemic harmed our community long term.

It was only 30 years ago that we lost a lot of our people during that era. It has left a residue of gang violence and poverty in the neighborhoods affected by this epidemic. Now we have changed our agenda to fight racism onto an agenda to save our people from violence against each other.

White supremacy is protected:

In General, the governments in Europe, Asia and Africa, either black, Asian or white, are making sure that black and Asian working people live under white supremacy designed centuries ago. In South Africa, we knew what has happened during Codesa negotiations. We well know the sins committed by the liberation party, the ANC, and how they agreed to keep white supremacy and privilege alive and protected through laws introduced in parliament – worse still, by black government for black oppression. The black man is still fighting for his land under the black government after more than 150 years of fighting the white government for land and economic freedom. The new oppressor is now black, he is no longer white and the struggle is very complicated as the enemy is someone with a skin colour like yours.

Whoonga or nyaope drugs in our townships

Whoonga, also known as nyaope, is a street drug that has come into widespread use in South Africa since 1999, it began in the impoverished townships of Durban, and it is claimed to be appearing in other places in South Africa as well. The drug contains antiretroviral drugs, particularly Efavirenz of the type prescribed to treat HIV, and police have remarked that dealers are known to add all sorts of stuff to a drug to bulk it out including gun powder.

But where nyaope started? It takes us back to the eras of when former President Thabo Mbeki refused to allow ARV to be freely distributed to HIV infected patient all over the country. May be Thabo Mbeki has something to tell us about why the pharmaceutical companies wanted South Africa to distribute ARV’s rather than to look at the cure for HIV.

This has got something to do with the history of bringing drugs in the black townships to destroy black families; advance white supremacy and privilege.

Access to nyaope

The cost of the drug is reported to be about R20 per straw (as of January 2016). Nyaope addicts need several doses a day, however, and users are typically too poor to afford the drug out of their legal income. Addicts therefore turn to crime to raise the money for their supply. This makes them convicts and then leads them to prison. That is why we have too many young black people in jails than we have adults. Most of them are not hard core criminals, but house burglars, cellphone thieves and bag snatchers at the taxi ranks and train stations.

There are also reports that claim nyaope addicts attempt to become HIV-positive, since anti-retrovirals are distributed to HIV patients free of charge by the Department of Health.

According to a report in The Sowetan 23 April 2015, the organisation Whoonga Free, founded to battle addiction to the drug, collapsed for lack of funding in March 2011. Who would want to fund this good initiative if it meant to kill business for the supply of whoonga in a black neighbourhood?

Like a black child in America nyaope is supplied by the international white supremacists to make sure that South African children have no future, and white privilege is guaranteed.

The article below was written and published ( some months ago. Find it and learn the fact below that proves that our own government protected and defended white privilege at the expenses of black people:

“During the 1990/1 Codesa negotiations, which the US and other imperialist powers have forged for the ANC, as by a its “desire for economic stability” entered into a pact with Afrikaner nationalists and big business, that the ANC led by Nelson Mandela should compromise and sell black population into the devil’s nest. The ANC, hiding behind the fall of the Soviet Union, weak Cuban economy, the deviation of China’s economic policy, its financial backers made it clear that they will regret ever selling the black population when they would be unseat from parliament by a socialist revolution, soon or later, where the wrongs of the ANC and its neo-liberal policies have trapped a black race into debt, inequality, unemployment, underemployment and poverty. Now lets look at these 12 sins:

  1. The repayment of the US$25 billion apartheid-era foreign debt. This denied Mandela money to pay for basic needs of apartheid’s victims.
  2. Giving the South African Reserve Bank formal independence. This resulted in the insulation of the central bank’s officials from democratic accountability. It led to high interest rates and the deregulation of exchange controls.
  3. Borrowing $850 million from the International Monetary Fund in December 1993, with tough conditions persisting for years. These included rapid scrapping of import surcharges that had protected local industries, state spending cuts, lower public sector salaries and a decrease in wages across the board.
  4. Reappointing apartheid’s finance minister Derek Keys and Reserve Bank governor Chris Stals, who retained neoliberal policies.
  5. Joining the World Trade Organisation on adverse terms, as a “transitional”, not developing economy. This led to the destruction of many clothing, textiles, appliances and other labour-intensive firms.
  6. Lowering primary corporate taxes from 48% to 29% and maintaining countless white people’s and corporate privileges.
  7. Privatising parts of the state, such as Telkom, the state-owned telecommunications company.
  8. Relaxing exchange controls. This led to sustained outflows to rich people’s overseas accounts and a persistent current account deficit even during periods of trade surplus, and raising interest rates to unprecedented levels.
  9. Adopting the neoliberal macroeconomic policy Gear. This policy not only failed on its own terms, it also caused developmental austerity.
  10. Giving property rights dominance in the constitution, thereby limiting its usefulness for redress.
  11. Approving the “demutualisation” of the two mega-insurers Old Mutual and Sanlam. It was the privatisation of historic mutual wealth for current share owners.
  12. Permitting most of South Africa’s ten biggest companies to move their headquarters and primary listings abroad in the late 1990s. The results are permanent balance of payments deficits and corporate disloyalty to society.

When the ANC entered government in 1994 the white Afrikaaner nationalists, National Party, had already stolen/looted from the banks money worth of R65 billion. There is a proof of this and this proof was presented to the ANC which it chose to ignore. This amount should have been recovered during the TRC campaign, but it is today used by the white race to preserve white supremacy and capitalism. The ANC is aware of the amount in US dollars of over 500 billion owed by foreign banks to the apartheid government, but the ANC chose to ignore this even when the proof was presented to it in black and white. This money was supposed to be used to service victims of apartheid and provide services to the black populace.”

Modern day slavery and white privilege

Slavery is not an issue confined to history or an issue that only exists in certain countries – it is something that is still happening today. It is a global problem and the SA is no exception.

However, white privilege is still guaranteed in modern day systems, economically and politically. Modern slavery is when one person possesses or controls another person in such a way as to significantly deprive that person of their individual liberty, with the intention of exploiting that person through their use, profit, transfer or disposal.

We might have figures of how many people are found to be “slaves” in SA looking at human trafficking cases. But these are just the victims we know about. Slavery’s hidden nature means actual numbers are likely to be just propaganda – to change how we should view things.

Who owns the means of production in South Africa and who receives social grants? Who owns the land, industries, and banks and controls the state? This would not only tell you about the relationship between white and black people, but would also teach you about white supremacy and privilege and black oppression and disadvantages that comes with being black in South Africa and the world.

The propaganda is that slaves only exist where people are victims found in certain country, who come from many different countries. Poverty, limited opportunities at home, lack of education, unstable social and political conditions, economic imbalances and war are some of the key drivers that contribute to “trafficking of victims”. Yes, human trafficking is alive.

But what’s more victims can often face more than one type of abuse and slavery, for example if they are sold to another trafficker and then forced into another form of exploitation. Racism plays a major role in this regard. In South Africa, since 18th century black people were forced to leave their homes to work in the mines and farms owned by white people. They were kept in the hostels and farm houses for months and years and never allowed to leave or go home.

This today still exists. Look at how black people’s dwellings are arranged near the cities, mines and farms. They are arranged so as they remain closer to their work and gets paid close to nothing so as they could not move far from their work. That is why today we have so many black people leaving the homelands or rural areas to go an stay in townships or cities – closer to where they could find work and live closer to their work. This is not freedom – it is slavery in another form.

Unless we change the laws (in South African context, change the property clauses in the constitution) white privilege will exists in the future as it is originally planned to remain with us forever. And what is heart breaking is that white privilege will be protected and advanced by us through free-market capitalism and neoliberal policies.



It is one thing to describe women’s oppression in societies, but quite another to be able to grasp why are women oppressed. It has always been difficult to explain; “Why are women oppressed?” This is if women themselves do not see anything wrong in a relationship between a woman and a man; as a relationship between accumulator and the exploited.

The basic material reality of what people do to survive ultimately determines the nature of any social structure. But super-exploitation on the job is not the only aspect of women’s material reality. There are at least three basic material realities in capitalist society that shape women’s lives, in a complicated and changing pattern: (1) Reproduction and child rearing, (2) Work in the home, and (3) Work for wages.

Their other work somehow has to be adapted to their role as mother or potential mothers– systems of reproduction and child rearing have to be taken into account whenever any society makes use of women’s labor in other areas.

The division of labour between men and women is not in itself an unequal or oppressive arrangement and only seems inevitable due to the difference in biology. However, we should question at what point and why this division became a relationship of dominance – and oppression.

Why men dominate and why women are oppressed? Some 10,000 years ago in society, it was men’s role as hunter which led to his expertise in simple weapons of aggression and capture. In addition, example within nomadic pastoral tribes some 2000 years ago, men’s work involved breeding the animals with a lessening role of gatherer for women and an increasing pressure on women to breed and be controlled along with the animals by men.

Man the hunter was then able to hunt animals in his territory, but then capture women and young men from both of other agricultural tribes and nomads, when they are found in his territory. He was thus able to take the first steps in accumulation of property, surplus and power – through enslaving both women and young men. Men would capture women, animals and young boys in his territory and enslave them. Some were used for trade, some as baits and others as exchange for truce between warring tribes.

Then men would give women labour to only lesser roles; to bear and to feed babies- the ability to care for babies, change their nappies, nurse them when they are sick, cooking, oversee their development and education etc. These things, men are just as capable or performing.

In society where women were free, it was women who were agriculturists; not only, making vessels for gathering surplus food but also cultivating crops by means of early tools, such as digging sticks and hoes. At this stage, hunting for meat was a peripheral activity, which only men could afford to experiment in, women being involved in the day-to-day feeding of herself, her milk- producing capacities and her young children.

But, of course, societies developed differently in different parts of the globe, depending on vegetation, climate, and animal species. Grasslands were more suited to nomadic life, fertile plains and river valleys to settled agriculture.

In the 17th, 18th and 19th century, we saw new developments in the rise of capitalism in Europe and colonialism around the world. The accumulation of surplus and private property, by pillage and force, not only made one section richer and more powerful than another, but was notable in that this powerful section was almost entirely men. Women, as more than 10,000 years in subordination have no chance in the system designed to propel men as superior human beings.

It would seem that men did not become more rich and powerful because of their superior strength, but because they were not tied by the hour-to-hour work of providing for the foetus and young children, and were indeed supported by women. This places the beginnings of oppression of women by men, and the oppression of one group of men (slaves), by another, in the same historical epoch. The predatory mode of appropriation transforms autonomous human producers into conditions, of production for others. However, this does not see women’s oppression arising because of class oppression, and therefore can encompass examples which separate the two.

The analysis of Engels, on the other hand, in–The Origin of the, Family, Private Property and the State,–did not see the oppression of women as a separate form of oppression with its own history and causes. His analysis, based on anthropological evidence now largely discredited, situates women’s oppression only as class oppression which arose because of the accumulation of surplus and private property.

It would seem that Engels was blinkered by the Eurocentric and male dominated view which was inevitable at the time. The societies which built on man the hunter, conquest and war, for example, the Jews, the Aryans, the Arabs and the Chinese, by their very nature expanded and overran other styles of society and pushed forward what is called the ‘patriarchal system’. For example, Europe was not invaded by Africans, but Africa was invaded by predatory Europeans in 13th and 14th century. And therefor Africans adopted what Europeans were practicing – patriarchy.

But was that the beginning of women’s oppression when Europeans invaded Africa? No, there were women oppressed by the men in Africa before Europeans arrived. We can look at why were there powerful women during the beginning of time in African history? The very same women had women serving them as slaves.

The early forms of human organisation, however, must have left women with much power, especially within the domestic sphere. But there are many examples from early history of powerful women, African Queens, warriors, female gods in Africa. This is an example that there were powerful women before women’s oppression began in Africa – and may be, minimal.

The challenges depend on theoretical development, which in turn is possible only by speaking to the realities of people’s lives and learning from historical and current struggles of the women’s movement in today struggles. But this theoretical development is hindered by incorrect ideas about the nature of women’s oppression under capitalism and the connection between women’s oppression and capitalism.

Since few Marxist-Leninists have devoted much study to this question, there is a tendency to accept casually, certain traditional attitudes and responses as the “Marxist-Leninist” approach to women. This approach tends to narrow the question of women’s oppression to issues related to the workplace: equal pay, anti-discrimination fights, affirmative action, etc.

This in turn implies that change in this area (theoretical development) is the key to liberating women. It goes along with the view that the family is part of the “superstructure” and will automatically change when the material base–capitalist production–changes.

For example, when women earn equal pay, they will have equality in the family. This means that the key struggles for women are those against discrimination and for affirmative action. Another implication of this view is that there is no material basis for sexism in a socialist society, since sexism stems from capitalism’s need for superprofits. This means that once capitalism is eliminated, the struggle to end sexism is a purely ideological one, without a continuing material basis.

In relation to men, this view implies that men oppose women’s liberation, when they do, because of two factors:

  • Their rivalry over jobs,
  • The influence of bourgeois ideology.

The main real contradiction between women and men is their division at work, which can be overcome by greater class consciousness and awareness of the need for working class unity. Men do not benefit from sexism and the struggle against it requires no sacrifices and changes on their part, except an ideological effort to stop looking down on women.

Because ending this discrimination is in men’s interest as workers, and because its material basis will disappear under socialism, there is no need for a women’s liberation movement as such. There are good reasons why many communists want to see super-exploitation as the basic cause of women’s oppression. It is important to show that sexism has a material basis and isn’t just part of the “superstructure.” In a capitalist society we must understand how all issues are linked to the basic contradiction between capitalists and workers. So it seems logical to look for this material basis in the worker-capitalist relationship of women to their bosses.

If “super-exploitation” is not the key to understanding women’s oppression, what is? It is important to see women’s oppression as a total structure in which economic, historical and psychological factors all reinforce each other. The economic relationships create a context and set limits in which all the others operate. Traditions have been handed down for thousands of years. Early experiences in infancy and childhood shape the very core of our personalities according to certain conceptions of what it means to be female or male. The kinds of work expected from men and women differ greatly in a sexual division of labor affecting every area of life.

The basis of women’s oppression lies in her vulnerability during pregnancy and childbirth. During some of this period she is unable to work, except for the work of childbearing itself, and during much of it, she is able to work at partial strength only and feels both mentally and physically weaker. This varies from woman to woman, and pregnancy to pregnancy, but is nevertheless universal to some degree. In a class society, this creates a major contradiction between classes.

The capitalist class requires the next generation of workers and therefore needs women to perform this reproductive role, the so-called reproduction of labour power. However, at the same time, the very existence of the capitalist class depends on being able to extract profit out of working class men and women as workers. In the case of working class women, these two needs are incompatible, at times giving rise to a major contradiction. This vulnerability and this contradiction is resolved by different societies in different ways. Under capitalism, it is a contradiction on which the whole variety of women’s oppression has been built, with the connivance of working class men at some stages, and with the establishment of male dominance and male benefit.

Women trying to understand the basis of their oppression usually know, from their own experience, that domestic labour plays a central role, especially within a family with children. In much of the Third World, women toil ceaselessly on domestic and subsistence work, such as carrying water, growing food, preparing food, making clothes. Although, in this country, domestic labour is much less gruelling and time-consuming than this it is still an area of drudgery from which most men are almost entirely free.

Alas, we can liberate women by putting women at the core functions of women’s liberation. Without greater class consciousness and awareness of the need for working class unity super-exploitation will always be at the centre of women’s exploitation.






Many people often ask; “what this capitalism that people are always talking about is”. As usual let us set the tables and chairs right and seat down to teach each other what is capitalism, its effects on their lives and the participation of the state in the development of capitalism. But first, in simple terms let us define the term “capitalism”:

“Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour and competitive markets” -Wikipedia.

There has been a long tradition in some parts of sociology, political science and economics that says that the laws and policy of a society reflect the interests of the owners of the society’s productive assets—slave owners in slave society, landowners in agrarian societies, and the owners of business enterprises and money capital in capitalist societies.

Now let me take our people through from the early ages of Lords and Goliaths. Gerard Winstanley argues that governments were established to protect the interests of landlords back in the 17th century. Winstanley’s theory formed the basis of what would later become known as the instrumental view of the state—the theory that the police, military, courts, prisons, and justice system are instruments of the owners of productive property to defend their interests.

In the 18th century, Adam Smith, the first classical economist, argued that civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.


In the 19th century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto that the executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for organizing the common affairs of the business community. In capitalist society there are 3 questions that one needs to ask:

1. What group has the most of what people want?
2. What group is over-represented relative to its numbers in key positions in the state and in important decision-making processes?
3. What group successfully initiates, modifies or blocks public policy alternatives on equitable social distributions?

Yes. The answer is rich class or commonly called the “corporate elite”. The corporate elite; A group of major investors and high-level executives. They are the wealthiest people in society; in unequal, exploitative and skewed productive economies for the interest of the few (1%) against the interest of many (99%).

They enjoy an abundance of all the good things the societies have to offer: comfort, security, entertainment, sybaritic pleasures, freedom from toil and drudgery, the finest food, palatial residences, the best educational opportunities, and so on. They benefit most from the way in which the society is organized. This is almost clear. It stands to reason that in a capitalist society the class that benefits is the capitalist class; the rich and corporate elite.

In this the system which was originally European ensures that there is a middle class in tiny number to balance the system. The middle class seat between the rich and the poor. They will often link with both sides. When the poor revolt against the system it is the middle class that would want to the poor to negotiate with capitalist or the rich class. The middle class may, as a fact, be part of the organizing of the poor masses to overthrow the system. But even if they may want to overthrow the system they do not want to do so in the form of violence. This is simply because where there is violence property (houses, roads, electricity and telecommunication supply) would be destroyed, and this is something that the poor do not enjoy but the middle class enjoys.

The system, in order to protects itself, it brings in the equation the middle class; the middle class-which is created by the elite and the government through huge salary earned from employment in the state or in private sector. The capitalist agents (often what they call “economic analysts” may argue that private capital plays a major role in bringing about prosperity to the nation. And most importantly, it ensures the sustainability of that prosperity and flow of capital. In their analysis it is something that the government alone cannot do. In this system they say the bottom line is that private sector is necessary to sustain prosperity.

The corporate elite is also over-represented in key positions in the state and important public policy decision-making processes. For example, most members of the ANC let South African government and many states in Africa and Europe are millionaires, whose millions have come from their connections to business enterprises domestically and globally.

Most of the people appointed to cabinet positions come from high-level positions in the corporate world (in business). This group is collaborating with each other to sustain this forms of exploitation; the banks, the capitalist state and the judiciary, the military, the police, the agencies and all-in-all the religious groups collaborate to sustain the system on inequality, exploitation and oppression against the many.

The poor or the electorate, live in the slums, in shacks, in dilapidated hostels, under bridges, in low cost houses, in rural settlements, in underdeveloped areas and many are homeless. This group, which totally relies on the labour of this poor section of the society – the proletariat, they have the system that they use to protect their hegemony. They call it democracy. How can democracy be a system where the minority are enjoying the loot while the majority toil? Isn’t it that “The majority rule” should apply?

The section of the society that lives far below what the majority is living is huge; are often the majority (99%) in the world and in any state as compared to the few capitalist rich class (1%) controlling all the means of productions.

This depends on which section of the society you find yourself in that could define how you view and understand the system. The capitalist class would defend the system while the proletariat will want the system destroyed and gone.

This exercise may be harder as first the proletariat has to be made to see the system through political education. The revolutionaries, who often see the system as it is developed for many years, have to engage in campaigns to educate the poor masses about the system. Until the masses are aware of the system they will live in the system generations after another.

And since the capitalist class controls and own the media they often counter-attack any attempt by the revolutionaries to educate the masses and build a revolution. They will distort the information, lie and most of it all assassinate revolutionaries who attempt to educate the masses.

Racism, sexism, xenophobia and violence are all siblings. The parents are capitalism and imperialism. To deal with racism, sexism, xenophobia and crime you first have to deal with capitalism and imperialism. How? First, learn how they develop, next join the struggle to disorganize its development and then wage a revolution to dismantle its core functions.



Dog 3

The relationship of a hunter and his dogs has always been an unfair relationship. A hunter leads his dogs into the bush to hunt impalas. He provides instructions as to where to find the impalas and decides how many to catch. The dogs have only one thing to do and that is “catch the impala when you see one”. But after the dogs have chased and killed the impalas the hunter takes the impalas away from the dogs. He goes home with the catch and locks the dogs into their cages. He prepares his meat of fresh impala. Out of the meal the hunter takes the whole fresh meat. And the dogs? Well, after a long tiring chase of the impalas the dogs would get the bones and intestines of the impala.

The above is an analogy in capitalist democracy. The poor masses/workers are taken to the hunting trip as dogs under the guidance of the political parties with hidden agendas. After they have chased and held the impalas the poor masses/workers have to eat only the bones and intestines (they have to be kept in their shacks where they would die of fires and drink water with the animals in rivers). The hunter would only give them street lights so as they can die with dignity.

The history of South Africa and its peoples, like that of all peoples’ struggles, do not begin or end with contacts with other nations, states and peoples. More precisely, the tendency to begin the history of South African peoples at the point of conflict with the white people and their influences in Africa, if we base history in this way, it is both mis-historical and racist.

The history of any society is based on how its people fashion a living for themselves, how they contend with the forces of nature and consequently how the relations between people develop. The South African struggle is a long story and it is not complete without the total ownership of the land by the aboriginal people of South Africa. The land where the economy is build on and the land where everyone live on, if this land is still owned by colonialists then the aboriginal people of South Africa will have nothing, be nothing and the struggle to take the land will continue. If the colonial question were absent from the South African history, the idea that the land belongs to all of the people would be correct. The idea of equal rights and representation in the Freedom Charter, as well as the ANC’s concept of multi-racialism, is problematic.

The people of South Africa, especially in Gauteng and many parts of the country where the ANC lost power in local government, went to voting stations this year with changed hearts and minds; to change the ANC from power because it gave them intestines and bones after they went on a hunt and defeated the apartheid National Party. The people needed to take the land back from colonialists; they needed change. But what kind of change?

Some might have thought that DA is different from the ANC and they decided to replace ANC with DA. But in fact, they are the same. They will both take the poor masses/workers to the hunting trip and when they come back with the catch they will give the poor masses/workers the intestines and bones and chain them back into the cages. We all know that Cosatu in the ANC alliance is misleading the poor workers; it serves capital at workers expenses. Remember the relationship between the capitalist and workers is a relationship between the exploiter and the exploited. If you are on the side of the exploiter then you are an exploiter – capitalist.

SACP too in the alliance is confusing the communities simply because people want to get rid of the oppressive system and they find themselves in the system through SACP. People are leaderless, that’s why we see hundreds and hundreds of protests everywhere. The SACP should have been the one organizing and leading the masses in to a revolution that could destroy this oppressive system and bring change; a socialist change.

In working out our understanding of how these works we must pay careful attention to the processes taking place in the mass organisations. These will change over time, reflecting the ebb and flow of the mass movement. Over long periods of relative class peace in the ANC-COSATU-SACP alliance the labour movement (COSATU) recently came under the pressure of alien classes; the poor black masses, the black middle class and white capitalists. The poor black masses demand socialist change while the black middle class (bourgeoisies) demand mixed-economy moved to the right. And the white capitalists demand free market economy with very little or any intervention by the state. This mass formation (ANC-COSATU-SACP alliance) and unions have acquired a thick bureaucratic crust that influences policy in government. NUMSA was fired from COSATU for advocating for socialist change and demanding that COSATU leave the ANC.

But without the active participation of the workers, the ANC-COSATU-SACP internal life becomes stagnant. The whole system would fall increasingly under the influence of the bourgeoisies. For two decades the ANC government introduced many policies to try to make the economy work. They were carrying out counter-reforms after another: deregulation, privatization and budget cuts. But these resulted in three main challenges:

  1. Loss of millions of jobs between 1998 and 2001 which affected many poor black families. This is because of privatization programme of some of key state companies.
  2. The culture of materialism or consumerism. Many black families and communities struggle with ever increasing demands for “objects”, luxury lifestyles and drugs abuses, and this often results in broken families. The communities have to produce two things: One – Izikhothane culture, and two – Nyaope and alcohol edicts.
  3. Lack of opportunities and high unemployment rate. There would be no new job opportunities open as the capitalists would try to minimize labour costs by either casualising labour or relying on peopleless technologies.

To try and avoid the above factors the ANC still adopted constructive engagement with the capitalists as a pressure device. And this is not working. In the current upsurge, thousands have left the ANC to seek political solace under DA and EFF leadership. Thinking they might present better alternatives.

In history the ANC continued to receive massive support from the people between 1994 and 2001 in elections, although this has fluctuated from 2001 and 2016 due to various political developments in the country. Its enduring popularity among the masses can probably be attributed to one factor. First, the ANC represents, in spite of changes in outlook and approach, a century long struggle, or the entire period of the contemporary struggle against white domination. History and longevity are not lost on the masses, regardless of other factors.

But then what if ANC looses power totally to the DA, and may be in the next 10 years? The worst would come. First DA will dismantle labour unions and destroy Cosatu – a federation of workers. Second, DA will totally repeat what ANC did with PAC. It will destroy totally Pan-Africanist ideology and its organisations from the public domain – by using capitalist media to advance imperialist agendas.

And third, apartheid is guaranteed in its new form if DA takes power totally. DA will cancel #Feesmustfall and “free education” slogans. It will end NSFAS to give way for private loan providers to provide black students with loans pay for their studies. These private loan providers are white and mostly Europeans. And every black child will be forced, by family circumstances, to take these loans and be indebted to a whiteman anew. Like his father, grandfather and his great grandfather, a black child will grow with a debt ticket to a whiteman because of this. And a black child will have to work to pay his debt from the first day until he dies. His child and child after that will have to be a whiteman’s slave from the day they are born until they die. A black man would have to work for a wage paid every month by a white man, whom he owes.

DA and ANC are capitalist agents working for the musters to lie to the masses about everything. They need to legitimize their stay in power in the form of elections. They need the masses to endorse their robbery by voting and think it is a proper way to voice their grievances. In fact, they represent capital. They are not revolutionary, but reformists. They will never allow the destruction of capitalism (that feed them) but they will allow trimming and painting of its body – through reforms in parliament.

Even if ANC and DA go into collision government they are one thing – capitalist agents. So they serve one purpose – capitalist programmes. EFF, as well is not a genuine alternative to the two. Besides having programmes that are slightly better it is still not revolutionary enough. It believes in negotiating with capital, the mistake that ANC did in 1980s and still doing today. EFF appears on the left of the slide and DA/ANC on the right. EFF might go into collision with DA, sooner or later. How do left mix with right? By reconciling and coming at the centre. This is where the ANC started after 1994.

But we must never forget that the difference between right- and left-reformism is only relative. The essence of reformism – whether of the right or left variety – is the idea that it is not necessary to overthrow the capitalist system, that it is possible gradually to improve the conditions of the workers and oppressed within the framework of capitalism. But the experience of Greece, Venezuela, and everywhere else this has been attempted shows that this is not possible. Either you take the necessary measures to destroy the dictatorship of Capital, or Capital will destroy you.

That is what we mean when we say that betrayal is inherent in reformism. It is not a question of deliberate betrayal but of the simple fact that if you accept the capitalist system, then you must accept the laws of that system. In the present day situation that means you must carry out a policy of budget cuts and austerity that we see in Europe today. While many poor voters are giving critical support to the left reformists (EFF) they must not foment any illusions, or accept any responsibility for their actions if they choose to marry capital in DA.

The EFF must learn that the sharp shift to the right in the mass organisations in the past period led many left groups to develop centre-left conclusions, writing off the mass organisations altogether. If they believe they could build an alternative to the left of the old organisations then they are for the surprise later. However, all the attempts of the sects to declare new revolutionary parties have ended in miserable failure. The centre-lefts fail because they ignore the real movement of the masses and their organisations. But centre-leftism also leads inevitably to opportunism. In trying to get the ear of the masses, they end up by watering down the programme in order to try and get a wider audience giving space for the capitalists to infiltrate.

This opportunism, which usually attempts to disguise itself by appeals to “transitional demands”, always ends in a blind alley. If the masses want a reformist programme they already have plenty of reformist leaders to turn to. The transitional programme is not a series of individual reformist demands that you cherry pick to “fit in” in a reformist milieu. It is a complete and worked out programme for international socialist revolution, for workers’ power.

Our priority at this stage is to position to that layer in society where we can build mass workers party on a socialist programme now, not in the future. That is generally the youth, which is open to revolutionary ideas. By winning the youth and training them in the ideas of socialism we are laying the basis for successful work in the mass organisations when the conditions present themselves.

Vote or no vote, organise the revolution!