The African National Congress’ (ANC) decision to reject the use of the term ‘White Monopoly Capital’ has sparked widespread reaction, with even some in the ruling party unhappy over the renaming of the term. Discussing the decision, which was made at the National Policy Conference in Johannesburg, ANC policy guru Joel Netshitenzhe confirmed that nine out of the 11 commissions agreed that labelling the ‘phenomenon of capital’ as ‘white monopoly capital’ is incorrect. Netshitenzhe, however, added that the ANC cannot deny the dominance of white dominance in the economy. Since the decision was tabled, South Africans from all corners have shared their thoughts on the matter.
While a large majority of Twitter commentators said they did not agree with the decision, the majority made their voices heard, with 50 per cent saying that the decision was correct.
Facebook commentators did not hold anything back, voicing their frustration at the socio-economic climate South Africans continue to face, many arguing that corruption and not ‘white monopoly capital’ is the most challenging issue the country faces.
“Yes, the problem is big businesses, whether black or white run, not willing to invest in the country. They are currently sitting with billions in reserves,” Riyaan Abrahams.
Others argued that the media is to blame for the link between the use of the term and the Gupta-linked public relations company, Bell Pottinger.
“Problem is, leading journalists across the board, even on Voice of the Cape Radio – VOC said white monopoly was a Bell-Potwhat [Pottinger] creation. As such, members within the organization felt the need to distance themselves from the term. Now, it has done so, the same media is saying that it always existed. Nevertheless, branches will discuss all policy proposals. In December, it will be back. Rest assured. As it stands, these are just policy suggestions,” Fazlin Bint Ismail Fransman.”
Meanwhile, others criticized the ANC’s decision; many arguing that ‘white capital’ has always existed and continues to exist in post-Apartheid South Africa.
“99% of big capital in SA is ‘White Capital’ so why not name it that?” Zaid Dante stated.
Then there were those who questioned the influx of foreign workers into South Africa, seemingly ignoring the influx of ‘white’ Europeans into many of the upmarket suburbs around the country.
“They so focused on White people, while foreigners are tip toeing and raping this country financially. [For example] the Chinese, Pakistani’s, and Somali’s. We must stop this. Work a plan forward. Yes, what the white man did was wrong, but you can’t paint the whole bunch with the same brush. How many foreigners have taken South African jobs? This is because we are focused on wrong issues -1994 is [the] past .This generation knows nothing about the struggle. We don’t implement rules that foreign owned businesses and even spaza’s must employ South Africans. Wake up before we become slaves to a different nationality- It’s time we stop crying and become Captains of Industry,” Irfaan Royker noted.
Despite widespread discussion on the use of the term ‘White monopoly capital’, it seems the scales have only barely tipped in support of the decision, with many continuing to agree that ‘white monopoly capital’ does in fact exist.