G.Y.: You argued earlier that capitalist society has always been entangled with racial oppression. Attacking racist ideological assumptions, while necessary, will not be sufficient to effectively eliminate racism, assuming that it will ever be eliminated. To engage in something far more radical, in what specific ways must capitalism, because it is always already linked to racism, be restructured? If racism must go, then what does this means for capitalism? N.F.: Well, about the hardest question you could possibly ask me! And I provide that’s just can’t a fully satisfying answer. But let me suggest a way of thinking about it that draws on the conception of capitalism been sketching here. Assuming this conception, which I’ve encompasses expropriation as well as exploitation, politics as well as economics, I would like to address your question in its most classical and pointed form: is it possible to abolish racial oppression without abolishing capitalism? The short answer is: in theory, yes; in practice, given history, almost certainly no. Let me explain. capitalism’s A major consideration has to do with the ontology of many critical race theorists, I “race.” Like hold that does not exist apart from racialization, which is to say, apart from the political “race” mechanisms of subjectivation that sort populations into different categories, suited to different functional roles and social locations. If that is right, then just that differential marking is “race” of subjects, in the one case for exploitation, in the other for expropriation. Absent capitalism’s that political marking, it the same token, however, exist in one must wouldn’t exist. By “race” form or another wherever social arrangements constitute expropriation and exploitation as distinct and separate processes assigned to distinct and separate populations. In those situations, is constituted as expropriable will be racialized, constructed as dependent and whoever
G.Y.: You argued earlier that capitalist society has always been entangled with racial oppression. Attacking racist ideological assumptions, while necessary, will not be sufficient to effectively eliminate racism, assuming that it will ever be eliminated. To engage in something far more radical, in what specific ways must capitalism, because it is always already linked to racism, be restructured? If racism must go, then what does this means for capitalism? N.F.: Well, that’s just about the hardest question you could possibly ask me! And I can’t provide a fully satisfying answer. But let me suggest a way of thinking about it that draws on the conception of capitalism I’ve been sketching here. Assuming this conception, which encompasses expropriation as well as exploitation, politics as well as economics, I would like to address your question in its most classical and pointed form: is it possible to abolish racial oppression without abolishing capitalism? The short answer is: in theory, yes; in practice, given capitalism’s history, almost certainly no. Let me explain. A major consideration has to do with the ontology of “race.” Like many critical race theorists, I hold that “race” does not exist apart from racialization, which is to say, apart from the political mechanisms of subjectivation that sort populations into different categories, suited to different functional roles and social locations. If that is right, then “race” just is that differential marking of capitalism’s subjects, in the one case for exploitation, in the other for expropriation. Absent that political marking, it wouldn’t exist. By the same token, however, “race” must exist in one form or another wherever social arrangements constitute expropriation and exploitation as distinct and separate processes assigned to distinct and separate populations. In those situations, whoever is constituted as expropriable will be racialized, constructed as dependent and