Assignment #3
1) Explain Melamed’s article on racial capitalism. Be sure to address: 1 pages
a. Why does she use the term “racial capitalism?”
b. Why does Melamed think all capitalism is necessarily racial capitalism?
2. Look at the conflicting view between the “Black Lives Matter and Failure to Build a
Movement” and “Why the Sanders Revolution Won’t Work” What is the source of the debate?
Which position, if any are you more sympathetic to, and why? 1 page
3. What is your analysis about how race/racism is related to the current economic system? ½
melamed_racial_capitalism.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Racial Capitalism
Author(s): Jodi Melamed
Source: Critical Ethnic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring 2015), pp. 76-85
Published by: University of Minnesota Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/jcritethnstud.1.1.0076
Accessed: 04-10-2016 05:05 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/jcritethnstud.1.1.0076?seq=1&cid=pdfreference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
University of Minnesota Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Critical Ethnic Studies
This content downloaded from 138.23.234.130 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 05:05:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Racial Capitalism
JODI MELAMED
T
his contribution to the inaugural volume of the Critical Ethnic Studies
seeks to strengthen the activist hermeneutic “racial capitalism” to respond to three conditions with which critical ethnic studies must reckon
in the present. The first is that so-called primitive accumulation—where
capital is accrued through transparently violent means (war, land-grabbing,
dispossession, neo/colonialism)—has become everywhere interlinked and
continuous with accumulation through expanded reproduction, which we
used to think of as requiring only “the silent compulsion of economic relations.”1 With the top 10 percent taking 50 percent of total U.S. income in
2012, and the top 1 percent taking a striking 95 percent of all post-Recession
income gains, it has become increasingly plain that accumulation for financial asset owning classes requires violence toward others and seeks to expro
priate for capital the entire field of social provision (land, work, education,
health).2 The second condition is the degree to which ideologies of individualism, liberalism, and democracy, shaped by and shaping market economies and capitalist rationality from their mutual inception, monopolize
the terms of sociality, despite their increasing hollowness in the face of neoliberalism’s predations. The third condition is the emergence of new horizons of activism that challenge the interpretative limits of ethnic studies in
that they exceed the antimonies of political/economic activism, bust up old
terms and geographies of solidarity, and are often Indigenous-led, requiring
a rethinking of activist scholarship in light of the importance of Indigenous
activism and critical theory.
Our dominant critical understanding of the term racial capitalism stays
close to the usage of its originator, Cedric Robinson, in his seminal Black
Marxism: The Making of a Black Radical Tradition.3 Robinson develops
the term to correct the developmentalism and racism that led Marx and
Engels to believe mistakenly that European bourgeois society would rationalize social relations. Instead, Robinson explains, the obverse occurred:
P 76 O
This content downloaded from 138.23.234.130 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 05:05:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CES1.indd 76
02/04/2015 8:18:26 AM
P Racial Capitalism • 77 O
“The development, organization, and expansion of capitalist society pursued essentially racial directions, so too did social ideology. As a material
force . . . racialism would inevitably permeate the social structures emergent from capitalism. I have used the term ‘racial capitalism’ to refer . . .
to the subsequent structure as a historical agency.”4 Thus the term “racial
capitalism” requires its users to recognize that capitalism is racial capitalism. Capital can only be capital when it is accumulating, and it can only
accumulate by producing and moving through relations of severe inequality
among human groups—capitalists with the means of production/workers
without the means of subsistence, creditors/debtors, conquerors of land made
property/the dispossessed and removed. These antinomies of accumulation
require loss, disposability, and the unequal differentiation of human value,
and racism enshrines the inequalities that capitalism requires. Most obviously, it does this by displacing the uneven life chances that are inescapably
part of capitalist social relations onto fictions of differing human capacities,
historically race. We often associate racial capitalism with the central features
of white supremacist capitalist development, including slavery, colonialism,
genocide, incarceration regimes, migrant exploitation, and contemporary
racial warfare. Yet we also increasingly recognize that contemporary racial
capitalism deploys liberal and multicultural terms of inclusion to value and
devalue forms of humanity differentially to fit the needs of reigning statecapital orders.
A thread of emergent critical understanding, proceeding from the recognition that procedures of racialization and capitalism are ultimately never
separable from each other, seeks to comprehend the complex recursivity
between material and epistemic forms of racialized violence, which are
executed in and by core capitalist states with seemingly infinite creativity
(beyond phenotype and in assemblages). Importantly, this approach understands the state and concomitant rights and freedoms to be fully saturated
by racialized violence. Chandan Reddy, for example, demonstrates how
the U.S. state in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has exercised its
monopoly on legitimate violence both in response to “race”—the nationstate’s operational code for that irrationality and threat that freedom must
exterminate—and as racial cruelty.5 The term “racial cruelty” signifies the
extreme or surplus violence alongside and within state practices of supposedly rational violence (military, security, and legal), through which the state
establishes itself as at once the protector of freedom and an effective, because
excessive, counterviolence to the violence of race. Thus political emancipation is fatally coupled to both ordinary and excessively cruel racialized state
This content downloaded from 138.23.234.130 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 05:05:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CES1.indd 77
02/04/2015 8:18:26 AM
P 78 • JODI MELAMED O
violence. We can combine Reddy’s insights with David Harvey’s description
of a “state-finance nexus” to posit a “state-finance-racial violence nexus.”6
Harvey’s term refers to the “central nervous system of accumulation,” where
structures of governance whose relays cannot be separated out as either
“political” or “economic” syncopate state management of the circulation
of capital and circulate capital in a manner that conditions state functions,
which become increasingly monetized, privatized, and commodified.7 The
“state-finance-racial violence nexus” names the inseparable confluence of
political/economic governance with racial violence, which enables ongoing
accumulation through dispossession by calling forth the specter of race (as
threat) to legitimate state counterviolence in the interest of financial asset
owning classes that would otherwise appear to violate social rationality,
from the police-killing of immigrants and African American youth (in the
name of safety for the white and prosperous), to the letting die of the racialized poor, to the social deaths transited through the precedent of Indigenous dispossession for profit.8
Accumulation under capitalism is necessarily expropriation of labor, land,
and resources. But it is also something else: we need a more apposite language and a better way to think about capital as a system of expropriating
violence on collective life itself.9 To this end, one way to strengthen racial
capitalism as an activist hermeneutic is to use it to name and analyze the
production of social separateness—the disjoining or deactiving of relations
between human beings (and humans and nature)—needed for capitalist expropriation to work. Ruth Wilson Gilmore suggests a similar understanding of racial capitalism as a technology of antirelationality (a technology for
reducing collective life to the relations that sustain neoliberal democratic
capitalism) in her seminal definition of racism. Following Gilmore, “Racism
is the state-sanctioned and/or extra-legal production and exploitation of
group-differentiated vulnerabilities to premature death, in distinct yet densely
interconnected political geographies.”10 This last part of Gilmore’s definition
is seldom quoted, yet crucially it identifies a dialectic in which forms of
humanity are separated (made “distinct”) so that they may be “interconnected” in terms that feed capital. Gilmore elsewhere names this process
“partition” and identifies it as the base algorithm for capitalism, which only
exists and develops according to its capacity “to control who can relate and
under what terms.”11
Although at first glance, dense interconnections seem antithetical to amputated social relations, it is capitalism’s particular feat to accomplish differentiation as dense networks and nodes of social separateness.12 Processes
This content downloaded from 138.23.234.130 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 05:05:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CES1.indd 78
02/04/2015 8:18:26 AM
P Racial Capitalism • 79 O
of differentiation and dominant comparative logics create “certainties” of
discreteness, distinctness, and discontinuity—of discrete identities, distinct
territorializations and sovereignties, and discontinuities between the political and the economic, the internal and the external, and the valued and the
devalued.13 In the drawing of the line that constitutes discrete entities and
distinguishes between the valued and the devalued, people and situations are
made incommensurable to one another as a disavowed condition of pos
sibility for world-systems of profit and governance. Currently, ideologies of
democracy, nationalism, and multiculturalism are key to racial capitalist
processes of spatial and social differentiation that truncate relationality for
capital accumulation. The first and second differentiate people into individ
uals and citizens whose collective existence is reduced officially to a narrow
domain of the political beset by an economic sovereignty that increasingly
restructures the domain of “democratic participation” according to neoliberal logics of privatization, transactability, and profit. The third minoritizes,
homogenizes, and constitutes groups as separate through single (or serial)
axes of recognition (or oppression), repels accountability to ongoing settler colonialism, and uses identitarianism to obscure shifting differentials
of power and unstable social relations. All three impose a forgetting of
interconnections, of viable relations, and of performances of collectivity
that might nurture greater social wholeness, but are deactivitated for capital
accumulation and state management.
Yet the need of racial capitalism to invalidate terms of relationality—to
separate forms of humanity so that they may be connected in terms that
feed capital—might reveal its weakness as much as its strength; for the acts
of racialized violence that would partition people from other senses and
practices of social being (noncapitalist, nonstate) are as futile as they are
constant. Since its inception, one of the critical tasks of ethnic studies has
been to reckon with lived practices and living alternatives to U.S. norms
that are collective and that have a “definitional power” over what makes
life meaningful.14 An apposite example is Black Marxism itself: in addition
to theorizing capitalism as racial capitalism, Robinson’s larger concern is to
make legible the past, present, and future existence of the Black radical tradition. This begins as the response of African people to being ripped out of
webs of Indigenous social relations and denied life-sustaining connectedness in the societies that enslaved and transported them. For Robinson, the
Black radical tradition emerges out of the imperative for people of African
origins and descent to “re-create their lives” and reassemble social bonds:
“From a shared philosophy developed in the African past and transmitted
This content downloaded from 138.23.234.130 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 05:05:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CES1.indd 79
02/04/2015 8:18:26 AM
P 80 • JODI MELAMED O
as culture . . . a revolutionary [Black radical] consciousness was realized and
the ideology of struggle formed.”15 At the center of the Black radical tra
dition is “the shared sense of obligation to preserve the collective being,
the ontological totality.”16 In the hundreds of acts of resistance Robinson
recounts, from seventeenth-century maroon communities in the Americas
to twentieth-century national liberation struggles, collective resistance takes
the form of (re)constituting collectives. Defying racial capitalist modes of
differentiation that would undermine conditions for peoplehood, the Black
radical tradition is antiracist, anticapitalist, and collective-making because
it is a name for struggles that arrange social forces for Black survival over
and against capital accumulation.
To think about how racial capitalist procedures constantly truncate
forms of appearance of the social to disestablish possible relations between
people that are not conducive for capital, it is instructive to return to the
text of Marx (which we must supplement with the understanding that
the capitalism that was his purview was always already racial capitalism).
The chapters on “So-Called Primitive Accumulation” in Capital yield a particularly rich analysis of the violence of transformative processes that extract
people and things from previously sustaining social relations and insert
them into the capital-relation (Kapitalverhaltnis) that makes accumulation
possible. One example is in Marx’s rendition of the “nursery tale” bourgeoisie political economists use to explain the origin of capitalist wealth. The
tale involves two kinds of people who lived long, long ago: “one the diligent,
intelligent and above all frugal elites,” who accumulate wealth so their progeny can become capitalists; “the other, lazy rascals” who “spend their sus
tenance, and more in riotous living,” so that the masses of people, who are
their heirs, are left with “nothing to sell except their own skins.”17 This story
of capitalism’s original diversity (versions of which are still told everyday)
substitutes for the “notorious fact” that, in acquiring the wealth of European modernity, “conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, in short, force,
play the greatest part,” not “effort” or “right.”18 The division of humanity
into “worthy” and “unworthy” forms is the trace of the violence that forces
apart established social bonds and enforces new conditions for expropriative accumulation.
A second example is Marx’s analysis of “bloody legislation” producing
the criminalized status of the “vagabond” in England from the fifteenth to
the seventeenth century.19 During this period of transition from feudalism
to capitalism, an emerging capitalist class of aristocrats and bankers deployed
every kind of force available (burning villages, imposing taxes) to drive the
This content downloaded from 138.23.234.130 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 05:05:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CES1.indd 80
02/04/2015 8:18:26 AM
P Racial Capitalism • 81 O
agricultural population off the land and to usurp the commons. This dispossessed agricultural population—the majority of people—through the
breaking up of the bonds that connected them to their lands, each other,
and structures of governance (now in transition), were “dragged from their
accustomed way of life” and forcibly made to occupy the role of a protoproletariat, which “could not possibly be absorbed into the nascent manufactures as fast as it was thrown upon the world.”20 Workless members of
the emerging working class were “chastised for their enforced transformation into beggars and paupers” and treated as “‘voluntary’ criminals,” as if
“it was entirely within their powers to go on working under the old conditions which in fact no longer existed.”21 First, the racial capitalist work of the
“bloody” legislation against vagabonds makes it impermissible to recognize
people without work as having (lost) the claim to land and their former
social being. Second, it disqualifies them as relational beings in the present
because the capital relation that now dominantly binds them to the social
also separates them out as useless, immoral, and disposable. Out of the sever
ing of relations necessary for capital accumulations, the vagabond emerges
as a racialized status whose members can be blamed for their own past
expropriability and present precarity. Marx vividly summarizes the protoracializing work that vagabondage laws do to mark the body of wageless
people as different and criminal, forcing “idlers” to work with whips and
chains, branding the forehead or ears with the letter “S” for slave, and “executing” runaways or those who remain idle “without mercy as felons.”22
Perhaps the best example of manufacturing densely connected social
separateness, which is racial capitalism’s hallmark, is Marx’s discussion of
the twinned and symbiotic development of colonialism and the credit system (fledgling finance capitalism). Marx describes this development as a
dual system of whitewashing, where the capital gained through expropriation in one system—colonialism or credit-baiting—enters into the other
system, appearing neutral, clean, and earned through right. Thus “the treasures captured outside Europe by undisguised looting, enslavement, and
murder flowed back to the mother-country and were turned into capital
there,” while “a great deal of [investment] capital, which appears today in
the United States without any birth certificate, was yesterday in England,
the capitalized blood of children.”23 Capital partitions, divides, and separates groups between political geographies and is the dominant relation to
flow between and bind them. What is stripped out are other (and other
possible) relations to land, resources, activity, community, and other possible social wholes that have been broken up for capital. Where capital
This content downloaded from 138.23.234.130 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 05:05:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CES1.indd 81
02/04/2015 8:18:26 AM
P 82 • JODI MELAMED O
accrual exists, the diminishment of social well-being through partition,
dispossession, and appropriation has already happened, thus Marx writes
“capital comes into the world dripping from head to toe, from every pore,
with blood.”24
When we read racial capitalism into Marx’s analysis of so-called primitive accumulation and discern his preoccupation with processes that forcibly partition humanity for the expropriation accumulation requires, we can
also see consistent efforts throughout his writings to conceive the opposite:
how to know and nurture social being in total (which is more than human)
through material activity (living). In his early work, “species-being” and
“nature [as humankind’s] inorganic body” are the key tropes Marx uses …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Recent Comments