0% found this document useful (0 votes)
246 views14 pagesNancy Fraser - Racist Capitalism
Cannibal Capitalism - chapter 2
Uploaded by
Carlos SandovalCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
246 views14 pagesNancy Fraser - Racist Capitalism
Cannibal Capitalism - chapter 2
Uploaded by
Carlos SandovalCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 14
sara houndary se ove gad domination, elo
aes erat td emoery. Bo, equal” por
th er now appa inane iba toes nn
see dase cae) against cept Should hey some
‘Sanden theosres nthe ems psp i he
‘Ss enl cnealycogeat ort n the
Shen aeaaipatry potntal would consist in thir apa
eSicmn new cofgurasons nome” of ono bot
sofa oncom syns and ly
ermaping he sacar ene eestor con
eral sos wold then erst the nor tsk
mania nthe wen A eae
‘ar apes fms tee and woe! fh Book. lo she
capt that flo. {take 4 lnr lok at each ofthe fur
wal atoder thave one ere Itt srl
ise wk trea efsion and pall ong,
SI em ofcanialation oper eae the rach
ieee dams of eps exeopriaconespliation
“BS sch ldth lst ung for popeltons on
sh input chapter the gendered ynanis oF
eosonfoducionsupl, which amp the system 24
aca ar cape sh the co-redarry Sami of
setnamanty sesh, whch et ove planet hoe
waotats maw (apc had he dete 9 devour pubic
tier and ache dmoray, wich bl nto the
venga ion been ono ad Paty (hat
wtitlast ov chaps explore what prascl ffsense
J gates to eta capitalam a xn how tha iw
ae arandentantings of svn (cape 6) and ofthe
COvED pandemic Elon)
Glutton for Punishment: Why
Capitalism ts Structurally Racist
‘Capiralimn has always been dseply entangled with racial
‘opptesion. Tac proposition clesely holds forthe slave-based
plantation capitalism of the sevententh through nineteenth
centuries, Bu eis equally true of the Jim Crow industrial
ined capitalism of the twentieth century. Nor can anyone
reasonably doube that racial oppression persists inthe dein
dlustilizing, subprime, mass-incarceration capitalism of the
‘ocean ea. Despite the clear diferences between chem, nome
‘of these forms of *eelly existing” capitalism was wonsacial
In all of ie incarnations to date, capitalist sociery has been
‘entangled with racial oppression,
‘What isthe nature ofthis entanglement? Is it contingent or
seructoral? Did the link between capitalism and racism arise
by chanoe, and could matters have in principle been otherwise?
(Or wat capitalism primed from the get-go ta divide popula
tions by race? And what about today? Isracism hardwired into
contemporary capitalism? Or is a nontacial capitalism finally
possible now, inthe rweny-fist century?
"These questions are by #0 means new: To the contrary, hey
forma the heart of a profound but underappreciated stream of
critical theoriing, know as Black Marxism, This tradition,
hich flourished from the 19305 through the 1980s, inludes
such towering figures as C. LR. James, W-E.B. Du Bois, Fei
Willams, Olver Cromwell Cox, Staatt Hall, Water Rodney,
Angela Davis, Manning Marable, Barbara Fics, Robin D-. Kelley, and Cornel West Although thei approaches diverged
in specitcs, cach of these thinkers grappled deeply withthe
‘apitalismieacism nexus, At last through the 1986s, their
Feflections were atthe forefeont of what masy now call ci
cal race choory*
Subsequently, however, che question of capitalism's entan-
tlement with race dropped off the citical- theoretical agenda.
With che waning of New Left radicalism and the eollapse of
really existing Communism, capitalism ceased to be viewed
5 topic of serious interrogation in many quarters, while
‘Massa was increasingly teected as d6passe. As a result,
‘questions of ace and racism were effetvely ceded to think
‘ere working in the liberal and poststructuralist paradigms
Although those chinkers made some impeesive contributions
‘tomainstteam and critical race theory, they did noe atm
clarify the relation beeween capitalism and racial oppression.
“Today, however, a nev generation of crtcal race theorists
's reinvigorating chat problematic. Compesing thinkers like
Michael Dawson, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Cedric Johnson,
Barbars Ransby, and Keeanga-Yamahrea Taylos, this gem
eration is reconsidering the relation between capitalism and
racism anew, in light of wwenry-frst-century developments?
“The reasons are not hard to diseen, The concurrent rise of
4 new generation of militant ant-acse activists, on the one
hand, and of an aggressively ethno-nacionalist and aleight,
hitesupeemacist populism, on che ches, has dramatically
raised the stakes of critical race theory. Under these candi-
tions, many novr feel che need fora better understand of
wha they ace fighting. Many now appreciate, too, thatthe
broader context for both those developments is a deepen
ing crisis of contemporary capitalist society, a crisis that i
simultaneously exacerbating and rendering more visible its
‘characteristic forme of racial oppression. Finally, capitalism”
ie no longer a taboo etm, and Marxism is enjoying a eevival
In this situation, the central questions of Black Marxism have
28
again become pressing: Is capitalism necessarily racist? Can
racial pression be overcome within eapealist society?
Here Iwill aim to advance this problematic by deawing
con the enlarged view of capitalism developed in the prev
‘ous chapter. The approach I propose scrambles the usual
sharp oppositions between structure and history, necessiy
and chance, whic obscure the full complexity ofthe relation
between capitalism and sacism, Contrary to the proponents
‘of contingency, who hold that racism isnot necessary to capi
talism, I maintain that there does exist a structral basis for
she system's persistent entangemen With racial oppreston
‘hat basis resides 35 we have sen, inthe system's eliance on
‘ovo analytically distinct but practically entwined processes
‘of capital accumalation, exploitation and expropriation. Ieis
the separation ofthese ewo “exes,” and their assignment to
‘wo diferent populations, that underpins racial oppression in
capitalist sociey
‘Againse proponents of necessity, who insist that noneacial
capitalism s imposible, however, shall argue that capitalism's
exploitationtexpropration nexus i not set in stone. Rather,
it changes historically over the course of capitalist develop
sent, which can be viewed as a sequence of qualitatively
diferent regimes of tacalized accumulation, In each phase,
a historically specifi configuration of the rwo exes under.
pins a distinctive landscape of rcilization, When we follow
the sequence down to the present, we encounter something
new: a form of capitalism that blurs the historic separation
‘of exploitation from expropriation. No longer asigning them
totwo sharply demarcated populations, this form appears to
be dissolving the structural basis for racial oppression that
Inhered in capitalist society forfour hundred yeas. Yer racial
oppression persists, I shall claim, informs that are neither
surely necessary nor merely contingent. The rest sa new set
‘of pul for Black Marxist theory and anti-rat activi in
the eweny frst century In this chapter, I develop this argument in three steps ist,
1 defend the thesis that eapitalism harbors a seructral basis
{or racial oppression given tha it relies on expropriation 35
necessary condition for exploitation. Thea, I historicze that
steututeby sketching the sifting configurations of those 10
‘exes in the principal phases of capitalism’ history. Finally, 1
‘consider the prospects for overcoming racial oppression in a
new form of eapitait society that stil rests on exploitation
and expropriation but doesnot assga them to two sharply
demarcated populations. Throughout, I diclose the system's
Inherent tendency to railize populations in order to beter
cannibalize them—and therefore, why we should understand
capitalism a a gltton for thee punishment
Exchange, Exploitation, Expropriation
1s capitalism necessarily racist? Everything depends on what
exactly is meant by “captalism”—and on the perspective
from which we conesve it Three such perspectives are woreh
exploring, A frst approach, taught in economics course,
assumed in busines, and enshrined ip common sense, views
capitalism theough the len of market exchange. A second,
familar to socials trade unionists, another protagonists of
labor sues, locates the crux of capitalism ata deeper level,
in the exploitation of wage labor in commodity production,
A thied perspective, developed by critics of imperialism, pus.
the spotight instead on captal’s expropriation of conquered
peoples. Her, I suggest that by combining the second and
third perspectives we gain acess ro what is missed by each of
the three approaches considered alone: a steuctural basis in
capitalist sociery fo racial oppresion.
‘Consider, ist, the perspective of exchange. From this per
spective capealism appears as an economic system simplicier
Organized maximize growth and efficiency, itis centered on
he institution of the market, where self-interested, arms-ength
teansactors exchange equivalents. Seen this wa, capitalism
‘an only be indifferent go color. Absent interference and lef to
follow its own economizing logic, the system would dissolve
any preexisting racial hierarchies and avoid generating any
‘new ones, From the standpoint of exchange, the link between
racism and capitalism is wholly continget.
‘Mach could be said about this view, bur what is important
for my present purposes ie this: it de-links capitalism from
racism by definitional fat. By defining capitalism narrowly,
as an inherently colorblind, wilry-maximizing logic, the
exchange-centered view relegate any railing impulses to
forces external tothe marker, which distor che lates oper.
ation. The culprit is therefore, not (what it understands as)
‘capitalism, but the larger soieey that susrounds it. Racism
comes from history, politics, and culture, all of which are
viewed as exernal to capitalism and as only contingent con
reed to it-The effects to formalize capitalism, reducing itto
1 meansfend economizing logic nd srpping away its histori
caland political contents In this way, the market-centered view
obscures the racial point elaborated in chapter rand central
my argument here: for structural reasons, capitalist economies
requie“non-economic™ preconditions and inputs, including
some that generate racial oppression, By ailing to reckon with
that dependence, this view obfuscate the system's dsintive
‘mechanisms of accumulation, domination, and eannibalization
‘Some of those mechanisms are disclosed by contrast, by our
second perspective. Broader less formal, and far less rosy his
view was originated by Karl Mare who reconceved capitalism
as sytem of exploitation. Famously, he penetrated beneath
the standard perspective of market exchange othe more fu
damental evel of commodity production. There he claimed to
discover the secret of accumulation in capital's exploitation of
wage laborers Foe Marx, as we saw in the previous chapter,
capitatism’s workers are neither sets nor slaves, but legally
n fees inviduals free, thats to emer the labor market and sll
their “labor powee” In realy ofcourse, they have ite actual
‘hice inthe mater deprived of any dieeraccesstothe means
of production they can only secure the means of subsistence by
contracting co work for a capitalist in exchange for wages. Nor
doce the transaction redound to thee benef. What from the
fest perspective isan exchange of equivalents isin Marv’ view
4 sleight of hand. Recompensed only forthe average socially
sncesary coat oftheir own reproduction, capitalism's workers
have no claim on the surplus vale tir labor geverates, which
scores instead vo the capitalist And thats precisely the paint.
“The crux of the system, for Marx, is exploitation, viewed 3 @
elation berween two classes: on the one hand the capialiss
‘vio om the society's means of production and appropriates
Surplus; onthe other the fee but properyess producers who
tou ell thee labor power picemeal in oder olive. Capita:
ism, in Mars’ views 80 ere economy, but a socal system.
‘of class domination, centered onthe exploitation offre labor
by capital in commodity production,
Manes perspective hat many virtues, atleast one of which
is incontestable. By viewing capitalism through the lens of
exploitation, if makes visible what che exchange perspective
“obscured: che stroctral basis in capisalist society for the cass
‘domination of (doubly) free workers. Yet this focus fils ©
disclose any comparable structaral basis for racial opps
sion. On this point, a est, the exploitation perspective sits
tuncomiforaby close to that of exchange. While demonstrating
that capital is accumulated of the back of free waged labos it
sheds lise if any fight on how sce figures inthe sysem and
‘why i plays such an outsize role in capitalism’ history Failing
to ares that issue, ican only convey the impression that
the system's entanglement with ail oppression is contingent
‘Howeve, that conclusion is too hasty. The tcauble that
in focusing so ihtly on the proces by which capil exploits
rage labor, Marx filed co giv systematic consideration (0
2
some equally Fundamental processes that ate bound up with
‘exploitation. have in mind two such processes that could,
when probed, reveal deep-seated links to ricial oppression
“The fist i the crucial cole played in eapital accumulation by
unfree, depen, and unwaged labor—by which Tmean labor
that is expropriated, 2s opposed to exploited, subject ro domi-
nation unmediated by a wage contact. The second concerss
the roe of politcal orders in confeeing the statu of fre indi
viduals and citizens on “worker,” while constituting others
a lesser beings—for example, a5 chactel slaves, indentured
servants, colonized subjects, “native” members of "domestic
dependent narions,” debe peon, “llega” and flons.«
Both these matters—ependent labo and political subjection
com into view, however, when we take up third pecepecsive
‘on capitalism: the seandpoint of expropriation. Developed by
theorists of imperialism, chis way of chinking about capitalism,
ss noted inthe previous chapter, broadens the frame beyond
‘the metropole” to encompass the conquest and loosing of
peoples in “the periphery Adopting a global perspective ts
practitioners disclose a hidden barbaric underside of opitaist,
‘modecnity: beneath surface niceties of consent and contrac ie
brute violence and overt theft. The effet i to cast anew light
‘on exchange and exploitation, which now appear asthe tip of
larger, more sinister iceberg.
“The expropriation perspective is revelatory tobe sure. What
‘snot so clear howeves ie whether imperial expansions sruc-
tually integral to capitalism, and ifso, how the expropriation
of dependent, subjugated peoples relates othe exploitation of
(doubly) fee workers, Nor do we get a systematic acount of
‘what, if anything, this shied "ex" expropriation —has to do
with racial oppeesion
‘My claim is chat expropriation is indeed integral to capital-
ist society—and toes entanglement with racism In nutshell
‘61 shal explain, the subjection of those whom capital expro-
priates isa hidden condition of possibility for the freedom
3 ‘of those whom ic exploits. Absent an account ofthe fst, we
‘anot fly understand the Second. Nor can we plimpse the
structural basis of capitalism's historic entanglement with
racial oppression
To unpack cis clam, il use the expanded conception of
apitalism introduced in chapter x, which combines elements
‘of the as two perspectives canvas here, Penetrating beneath
the familiar level of exchange, ir combines Marx's “hidden
abode” of exploitation with th even more obfuscared moment
of expropriation. By theorizing the relation berween those two
ves Ishall identify a srvenaal bass of capitals’ persistent
entanglement with racial oppression.
Expropriation as accumulation:
‘The Economic Argument
Ler me begin by expanding upon my denon of exprope
ation a actu element of capitalism, AS we sin
the pcos chaps expropriation s accumulation by eter
iments hat thn esplotacon. Dpesing with fe
Contac elation through which capital poche “bor
Dower" inexchang: or apes expropction works y conic
Boman capac anes eats and oct
them int the crits of capital expansion, The condacation
tay be Hatant and vc, tin New Worl slavery i
tmay beveled by bak of commer, in he preatry
Ios and deb freclsure ofthe poset er. The expo
sted subjects may be tral or ndgenus communities nthe
Capali peiphe-—or menben of sje or Subordinated
groups in he capitalise core, Once exropte thee pou
tay end up a exploited proletarian if tye cyan i
tot at papers alum dele, shascrppery“nacen” of
Sats, sje of ongoing exroption cutie the wage
contact. The onkaed sts maybe labor and animals
ro
tools, oF mineral or energy deposite—but also human beings,
‘eit sexual and reproductive capacities, their children and
bodily organs. What is essential, however i that che comman-
deered capacities get incorporated into the value-expanding
‘rovess cha defines capital, Simple thefts not enough Unlike
fhe sort of pillaging that long predated the rise of capitalism,
‘expropriation inthe sense I intend here is confiscation-cwom
‘onueription intoraccumalation,
Expropriation inthis sense covers a malkicude of sins, most
of which correlate strongly with racial oppression. The aso.
ation is clear in prarices widely associated with capes
«ati history (though sil ongoing), suchas erttoial conquest,
land annexation, enslavement, coerced labor, child abduction,
and systematic rape. But expropriation also assinnes more
“modern” forms-—suchas prison labor transnational sex tal
ficking, corporate land grabs, and foreclosures on predatory
debe, which ae also linked with racial oppression and as we
shall se, with contemporary imperialism
However, the connection isnot just historical and contin-
sent, On the contrary, there ae structural reasons for capital's
‘ongoing recourse to racialized expropriation, By definition, a
system devoted tothe iniless expansion and pvate appropri.
ation of suephis value gives the owners af capital a deep-seated
incerest in confiscating labor and means of production from
subject populations. Expropriation raises thie profits by low
ting costs of production in two ways: on the one hand, by
supplyiagchesp inputs, such a energy and raw mates and
‘on the othes, by proving low-cost means of subsistence, such
1s food and textiles, which perm them to pay lower wages,
‘Thus, by confiscating resources and capsciies from unteee
or dependent subject, capitalists can more proftaby exploit
(doubly) free workers. Thus, the two exes are intertwined,
Behind Manchester stands Mississippi +
Advantageous even in “normal” times, expropriation
becomes especially appealing in periods of economic ese,
as when it serves as critical if temporary, x for restoring decin-
ing proiabilty. Te same is true for political rises, which can
sometimes be defused or averted by transferring wealth conf
ated from populations that appear not to threaten capital 10
those that do~another distinction that often correlates with
Tn general, then, expropriation isa structural feature of
capitalism —and a disavowed enabling condition fr expoita-
tion, Fa from representing separate and parallel processes,
the two exes ae systemically imbricated—deeply interwined
aspects ofa single capitalise world system. And the division
between them covelateseoughly but unmistakably with what
Du Bois called “the color line.” Al tod, the expropriation of
racialized “others” constitutes a necessary background condi
tion fr the exploitation of “worker.”
‘Letme clarify this idea by contrasting with Marx's account
‘of “primitive” of “original” accumulation,’ from which it
lfersin two respects, Fis, “primitive accumslation” denotes
the blood-soaked process by which capital was initially stock
piled at the system’ beginnings." Expeopsiation, in contrast,
designates an ongoing confscatory process estenil fo su
taining accumulation ina crisis-prone system. Second, Marx
imtrodvces primitive accumulation to explain the historical
genesis ofthe clas division berwoen properyless workers and
‘capitalist owners of the means of production. Expropriation
‘explains that ar well bu it alo brings nto view another social
division, equally steutuca and consequential, but not system
atically theorized by Marx: the socal division berwoen the
(doubly) free workers (whom capital exploits in wage labor)
tnd the unfree or dependent subjets (whom it cannibalizes
by other means)
‘This second division is centeal tothe present inquiry. My
thesis is that che racialiing dynamics of capitals society are
crystallized in che structurally grounded “mark” that distin
shes free subjects of exploitation feom dependent subjects
6
‘ofexpropriation. But co make this ase requires siftn focus
from “the economic” to “the political” For itis only by
thematizing the political orders of capitalist society that we
‘an gras the constieation ofthat dstinction—and with tthe
fabrication of “race:
Expropriation as Subjection:
‘The Political Argument
‘The distinction berween expropriation and exploitation is
simultaneously economic and political. Viewed economically,
these terms name mechaitsms of capital accumulation, analy
ically distinc yet interowined ways of expanding valu. Viewed
politially, they have to do with modes of domination —
especially with status hierarchies that distinguish right.
beating individuals and citizens from subject peoples, unfree
chattel, and dependent members of subordinated groups. In
capitalise society, 98 Marx insisted, exploited workers have the
legal status offre individual, authorized to sll their labor
power in ecurn for wages. Once separated from the means
of production and proletarianized,chey are protected, atleast
in theory, from (farthes) expropriation. In this respec, thie
status differs sharply from those whose labor, property, andor
persons are stil subject ro confiscation on the part of capital
Far fom enjoying political protection, che later populations
are rendered defenseless, fair game for expropestion—again
and again. Thus, they are constituted as inherently viable
Deprived of the means to set limits to what others ean do to
them, their condition is one of exposure—to the most punish
ing fons ofcannibaization.
In general, chen, the distinction berween expropriation and
exploitation is a function not only of accumulation but also
of domination, Ie is politcal agences—above all states—that,
afford or deny protection in capitalist society. And itis largely
3” states, 10, that codify and enforce the status hierarchies that
distinguish citizen fron subjects, nationals from aliens, and
fenttled workers from dependent scroungers. Constructing
exploitable and expropriable subjects, while distinguishing the
‘ne from the other, state practices of political subjectivation
Supply an indisgensable precondition for capital's “sel
expansion?
Nevertheless, states do not act alone in vis regard. Geo
politcal arrangements are implicated as well What enables
political subjectvation atthe national level san international
Eystem that “recognies” states and authories the border con-
twols thac distinguish lawful residents fom ilegal aliens.” We
‘eed only think of eutrent conflicts surrowading migrants and
fefugees to sce how easily these geopoliicaly enabled hierar
Chics of politcal staus become racially coded.
The same is trae of another set of status hierarchies,
rooted in capitalism's imperialist geoeraphy, which divides
the world into “core” and “periphers” Historically, the core
thas appeated to be the emblematic heartland of exploitation,
while the periphery was cast as the ionic site of expropri
tioa, That division was explicitly acialized from the get-go,
as were the status hierarchies associated with it metropolitan
‘zens versus colonial subject, fe individuals versus slaves,
“Europeans” versus “natives,” “whites” versus “black.” These
hierareies, t00, serve co distinguish populations and regions
suitable for exploitation from those destined instead for expr
ration,
“Tosec hows letus look mote closely at pica ubjetvation
especially atthe processes that mark off (doubly) fre, exploit
able citizen-workers from dependent, expropriable subject.
Both these satuss were politically constituted, butin diferent
‘ways. Inthe capitalist cote, dispossessed artisans, farmers and
tenants became explitabe citzen-workees through historic
processes of clas compromise, which channeled ther sugges
for emancipation oat paths convergent with the interests of
3
capital, within the liberal legal frameworks of national state.
By contrast, those who became eve>expropriable subjects,
‘whether in periphery o coe, found 20 such accommedation,
as their uprisings were moce often crushed by force of ams. If
‘the domination ofthe fst was shrouded in consent and legal
fay that ofthe second rested unabashedly on naked repression
‘Often, moreover, the two statuses were mutually const
ed effectively co-defining one another Ia the United Seats,
the status of che ctizen-worker aequired much ofthe aura
of freedom that legtimates exploitation by contrast to rhe
dependent, degraded consvion of chatel slaves and indi
‘enous people, whose persons and lands could be repeatedly
confiscated with impunity In codify the subject tats of
the second, the US state simultaneously constructed the nor
mative stats ofthe fst
Asnoted above, howeves the politcal fabrication of depend:
ent subjects within capitalism has always exceeded state
borders. Fr systemic easons, rooted in the intertwined logics
of geopolitical rivalry and economic expansionisr, powerful
states moved to sonstitue exproprable subjects further afield,
in peripheral zones of the capitalist world system. Plundering
the furthest reaches of the globe, European colonial pawers,
followed by a Us imperial sat, rured billions of people into
such subjecte—chorn of political protection, ipe and ready for
confiscation. The numberof expropriabe subjects those states
created far exceeds the namber of itizen-warkers they “eman
ipated” for exploitation. Nor did the proces cease with the
liberation of subject peoples from colonial cule. On the con
teary, masses of new expropriable subjects are created daly,
‘even novs by che joim operations of postcolonial states, heir
cex-colonial masters, and the trans-state powers that grease the
machinery of accumulation—including the global financial
intrusions that promote dispossesson by debe.
‘The common thread here, once again, is political exposure:
the incapacity eo set limits and invoke protections. Exposure
39 i, n fat, che deepest meaning of expropriability, the thing
that sets it apart from exploiabiiy. And itis exproprability,
the condition of being defenseless and liable co violation, that
constitutes the core of racial oppression. Thus, what distin
Buishes fee subjects of exploitation from dependent subjects
‘of expropriation is the mark of “ace” a a sgn of volabily
(My claim, to this poin, i that capitalism harbors a sruc-
tural basis for eacial oppression, That basis s obscured when
‘we view the system roo narrowly, whether fom the standpoint
fof market exchange or from that ofthe exploitation of free
‘waged labor. The culprit appears, however, when the frame is
broadened to include the third ex of expropriation, understood
as a necessary condition for exploitation, distinct from but
fntwined withthe lates. By adopting an enlarged perspective
‘on capitalism that encompasses politics” as wells "econom
ies" we gain access tothe system's noncontingent reliance on
4 stratum of unfree or subjugated people, racially marked as
inherently vilable, There, in capitalism's constitutive sepasa-
tion of exploitation from expropriation, lies the structural
basis for its persistent entanglement with facial oppression.
Historical Regimes of Racalized Accumulation
Nevertheless, the stracture I have described is susceptible 0
variation, Far from being given once and forall at capital
Jam's beginnings, it has undergone several major shifts in the
‘couse of capitalise development. In some phases, exploitation
land expropriation were clearly separated from one another,
With exploitation centered inthe European core and reserved
for the (white male) “labor aristocracy," while expropriation
was sited ciel in the periphery and imposed on people of
‘colo In other phates, by contrast, those separations blusred.
Such shifts have periodically reshaped the dynamics of racial
‘oppression in capitalist society, which cannor be understood in
°
sbnraction from them. In fect, the relation beeween capital:
fam and racism is nt only structural but also historical
To clarify thie double condition, I sketch an account of
capitalism's history a8 a sequence of regimes of racialized
accumulation. Here, inthe second step of my argument, 1
foreground the historically speci relations between expeopti-
stion and exploitation within each principal phase of eapialis
development. For each regime, I specify the geography and
demography of the ewo exes the extent to which they are
separated from one another, sited in different regions, and
assigned to dstince populations. For each regime, to0, I note
the relative weight of the two exes and the distinctive ways in
‘which they are inerconnected, Finally, identify the forms of
political subjectivation that characterize every phase
begin with the commercial or mercantile capitalism ofthe
siateenth dhrough the eighteenth centuries. This was the era
that Marx had in mind when he coined the phrase “primitive
sccumulation.” With that phrase he was signaling that che
principal driver of accumulation in this phase of capitalism
‘was not exploitation, bu expropriation. Confiscation was the
name ofthe game, manifested both nthe land enclosuses of the
core and inthe conguest, plunder, and “commercial hunting
‘of blick skins” throughout the periphery" both of which
long preceded the rise of modern indusey. Prior co large-scale
exploitation of factory workers came massive expropriation
‘of bodies, labor, land, and mineral wealth in Europe ané—
cspevally—in Africa and the "New World” Expropriation
literally dwarfed exploitation in commercial capitalsa—and
‘hat had major implications fr status hierarchy.
CCereainly this regime generated precursors ofthe racalizig
subjetvations that bocame so consequential in later phases
“Europeans” versus “naivs,” fee individuals versus chat,
“whites” versus “blacks.” But these distinctions were far less
sharp in an era when virally all non-propertied people bad
‘the status of subjects, no that of rights- bearing ciizens In this
” period, virtually all lacked political protection from expro
priation, and the majority condition was not freedom but
ependency. Asa resuly that later status did noc carey the
special saga it eqyised in subsequent phases of capitalism,
sehen raorty-ethnicity male workers inthe core won liberal
Tights through political struggle. Ie was only late withthe
‘democratization of metropolitan states and the rst of large
scale factory-based exploitation of doubly free wage labor,
that the contrast between “ee nd subject races” sharpened,
iving sec the full-blown white supremacist staras order we
Sssociaté with modera capitalism."
“Thats precisely what happened when mercantile capitalism
gave way in the ninesenth cenury £0 libera-colomalcapital-
ism. In this new rege, the two exes became more balanced
tnd interconnected. Certainly, che confiscation of land and
labor continued apace, a8 Europeas states consolidated colo
rial al overseas, while the United Sats dispossessed natives
Sc home and perpewsated its “ingeaal colony,” fst through
the extension of racialized slavery and then, after abolition,
by eransforming fredmen into debt peons through the share
cropping systom. Now, hovtever, ongoing expropriation in
the periphery exneioed with highly profitable exploitation in
the core. Whar was new was the rise of large-scale factory
bced manufacturing, which forged the proletariat imagined
by Marx, upending traditional life forms and sparking wide
spread class confit. Eventually, struggles t0 democratize
metropolitan stares delivered a sftem-conforming version of
Cizemship o exploited workers. At the same time, howevet,
‘brutal represion of ant-colonial struggles ensured cont
ing subjection in the periphery, Thus, the contrast berween
‘dependency and freedom was sharpened and increasingly
racilized, mapped onto ewo categorically diferent eases" of
human beings In this way the fee “white” exploitable ciizen-
worker emerged 25 the flipside ofits own abjected enabling
Condition: the dependent racialized exproprible subject. And
smadern racism found a durable anchor in the deep srucrure
of capitalist society.
‘Rcaliztion was further strengthened bythe apparent sep
sation of expropriation and exploitation in the libeal-colonial
regime. In this phase, the two exes appeared to be sited in
different regions and assigned to diferent populations—one
‘enslaved or colonized, the cher (doubly) ee. infact bavwever,
the division was ever so lear ut, 88 some extractive industries
‘employed colonial subjects in wage labor, and only a minority
‘exploited workers in che capitalise core succeeded in esca
Jing ongoing expropriation cgetbec Despite their appearance
fas separate, moreover, the ewo exes were systemically imbii
ated: it was the expropriation of populations inthe periphery
fincuding in the periphery within the core) that supplied the
cheap food, vextiles, mineral ore, and energy without which
the exploitation of metropolizan industrial workers would not
have been profitable. In the liberal-colonalpevio, therefore,
the two exes were distiner but mutually calibrated engines of
‘ecumulation within a single world capitalist system.
Tn the following era, the nexss of expropriation and exploi-
ration mutated again, Began in the interwar period, and
consolidated following the Second World War the new regime
of state-managed capitalism softened the eparation of the #0
ees withow abolishing i In this era, expropriation no longer
precluded exploitation bur combined directly withe—asin the
segmented labor markets of the capitalist core. In those con
texts, capital exacted a confscatory premium from racalzed
workers, paying them less than “whites"—and less than the
‘socially necessary costs ofthis sepeoduction, Here, accord
ingly, expropsiation was articulated directly with exploitation,
entering into the internal constitution of wage labor in the
form of dulized pay sales.
“rican Amesians were a casein point Displaced by age-
calaral mechanization and locking to northern cies; many
joined the industrial proletariat, but chiefly as second-class
8 workees, consigned to the dirtiest, most menial jobs. In
this era, their exploitation was overlaid by expropriation,
as capital failed to pay the full costs oftheir reproduction,
‘What undergirded that arrangement was theie continuing,
Political subjection under Jim Crow: Throughout the ea of
sate-muanaged capitalism, Black Americans were deprived
of political protection, as segregation, disfranchisement, and
countess other institutionalized humiliations continued to
‘deny them fll citizenship. Even when employed in northern
facories or western shipyards, they were sil constituted as
more of less exproptiable, not as fully free beaters of rights
‘They were thus expropriated and exploited simultaneously."
Even as it mudded the line between the owo exes, the state-
‘capitalist regime heightened the sats differential associated
With chem. Newly created welfare azaer in the capitalist core
Jeng aditonal symbolic and material value tothe satus ofthe
citizen-worker, 25 they expanded protections and benefits for
those who could elim them lnsituting labor rights, corporat
ist bargaining, and socal insurance, they not only sabilized
accumulation 0 capita’ bene hut ako politically incorpo
ated hose "workers" who were “merely” exploited. The effect,
however, was ro intensify the invidious comparison with those
excluded from that designation, further stigmatizing raial=
ized “others” Conspicuously anomalous and experienced as
jus, he late’ caninuingvalverbily to wolation became
the arg of sustained militant pectest in the 1960s, as civil
rights and Black Power activists tok tothe streets.
Inthe offshore periphery, meanwhile, struggles for decol-
‘nization exploded, giving rise in due course to a diferent
amalgamation of the rwo exes. Independence promised to aie
ce stares of excologials from dependent subjects to rights
bearing citizens. Inthe event, some working-
