Content uploaded by Khwezi Mabasa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Khwezi Mabasa on Mar 23, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Khwezi Mabasa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Khwezi Mabasa on Jun 18, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
12
RACIAL CAPITALISM
Marxism and decolonial politics
Khwezi Mabasa
Introduction
The student movement and academics shape South Africa’s contemporary dis-
course on decolonisation. This discussion focuses on epistemic debates, which
relate knowledge to divergent conceptions of citizenship or identity in the post-
Apartheid era (Dladla, 2011 ; Ndlovu, 2017 ). The major themes in this literature
connect knowledge to persisting neo- colonial social hierarchies embedded in cul-
ture, identity and language (Madlingozi, 2006 ; Mbembe, 2016 ). Proponents raise
salient questions regarding the reproduction of neo- colonial hegemony within the
university and broader social institutions (Dladla, 2011 ; Dlakavu, 2017 ). This advo-
cacy has shifted both academic praxis and public intellectual paradigms.
These writers, scholars and activists have made an important contribution to
South African radical politics. However, there is one glaring omission from this con-
temporary discourse: a systematic account of the decolonial political economy. This
oversight is attributed to the discursive ideational bias, which overlooks inherent
connections between epistemic debates and socio- economic power relations.
This chapter addresses this shortcoming in South Africa’s contemporary
decolonial debate using the theory of racial capitalism . It is organised around the
following three important questions. First, how does the theory of racial capit-
alism conceptualise the colonial and neo- colonial political economy? Second, what
insights should be drawn for examining the relationship between Marxism and
decolonial politics? Third, what are the foundational pillars of decolonial polit-
ical economy thought in the 21st century? These questions are explored using
primary and secondary literature on racial capitalism. I draw primarily from the
contributions of four Neo- Marxist writers: Bernard Magubane, Amilcar Cabral,
Oliver Cox and Eric Williams. This analysis will be supplemented by additional
African, Caribbean and American scholarship on this topic.
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2289780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 228 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
Racial capitalism 229
This chapter argues that modern colonialism and neo- colonialism is intertwined
with the evolution of global capitalism. Therefore, it is pivotal to examine decolonial
political activism and scholarship within a political economy framework. It shows
how the theory of racial capitalism explains links between socio- economic, cultural
and political injustices in colonisation. This approach does not reduce colonialism
and neo- colonialism to an ideational phenomenon. Racial capitalism highlights the
material basis of modern imperial capitalism without dismissing the social differen-
tiation (race, culture, gender and class) embedded in its genealogy.
The chapter further argues that both colonialism and neo- colonialism are
totalising power systems. These forms of domination operate across different
social institutions and areas of human existence. Therefore, it is essential to employ
transdisciplinarity when examining both colonial and neo- colonial power structures.
This argument implies that colonisation cannot be essentialised to a single form
of social differentiation or stratification. The chapter concludes that neo- liberal
developmentalism has sustained the dispossession, hierarchical social difference,
conflict and political domination prevalent in previous colonial epochs. It therefore
suggests some basic pillars for challenging neo- liberalism by using decolonial pol-
itical economy analysis.
The chapter commences with a brief theoretical discussion on the main tenets
of racial capitalism. This section outlines the fundamental pillars and assumptions
articulated in various accounts on the evolution of racial capitalism. It draws from
the intersection of scholarly and political activist literature in order to connect
theory with lived experience. This framing section provides an adequate theoretical
backdrop to facilitate the subsequent discussions on Neo- Marxism and decolon-
isation. It also deals with the characterisation of colonial and neo- colonial political
economy structures. This lays the basis for understanding how writers and activists
within this school of thought contribute to decolonial debates.
The second section in the chapter uses the above- mentioned analysis to highlight
specific insights from Neo- Marxist political economy and political sociology, which
shape decolonial theory and movements. Section three concludes the chapter with
some pillars for decolonial political economy in the 21st century. These are based
on the preceding analysis and discussions articulated throughout the chapter. The
observations will not be limited to academic or theoretical considerations: I will
also highlight the analytical implications for political agency and activism.
Methodological considerations and racial capitalism
Racial capitalism cannot be fully understood outside the historical debate on the
relationship between capitalism and different types of social differentiation. This
discussion is transdisciplinary and must not be confined to a single discipline of the
academy. Discourses on racial capitalism evoke the necessity of transdisciplinary
methodologies, which place emphasis on analysing social phenomenon ‘between,
across and beyond several disciplines’ (Du Plessis et al., 2011 : 20). Writers, scholars
and activists from different disciplines or political organisations have written
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2299780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 229 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
230 Khwezi Mabasa
extensively on capitalism and social differentiation (Cabral [ 1979 ] 2007 ; Hall 1980 ;
Magubane, 1979 ; Robinson, 2000 ,). Thus, transdisciplinarity is an essential analyt-
ical tool for comprehending racial capitalism and its evolution throughout various
epochs. The power structures underpinning racial capitalist social formations cut
across different social institutions: the state, society, market and family. Examining
how these social institutions function and intersect within a racial capitalist frame-
work requires intellectual flexibility. This explains why the key proponents of racial
capitalism have interdisciplinary backgrounds (Cox, 1959 ; Cabral, [ 1979 ] 2007;
Magubane, 1996 ).
A transdisciplinary approach explains the nuances between capitalist develop-
ment and other forms of social relations. Writers debating racial capitalism link
capitalism to race, class, gender and culture in varied colonial settings (Cabral
[1979], 2007 ; Davis, 1981 ; Hall, 1980 ; Magubane, 1979 ). These authors employ the
Marxist political economy method within a broader sociological context, which
transcends economic determinism. This approach is important for avoiding the
traditional primacy debates that often overlook the importance of historical con-
text. The main aim in racial capitalism discourses is to highlight the intersecting
relationship between capitalism and social differentiation in different historical
epochs. In other words, emphasis is placed on what Stuart Hall describes as ‘articu-
lation’ instead of primacy (Hall, 1980 : 323). According to Hall ( ibid. ), this term
refers to:
connection or link which is not necessarily given in all cases, as a law or fact
of life, but which requires particular conditions of existence to appear at all,
which has to be positively sustained by specific processes, which is not eternal
and has to constantly be renewed, which can under some circumstances dis-
appear or be overthrown, leading to the old linkages being dissolved and new
connections – re- articulations – being forged.
Hall, 1980 : 323
Hall’s ( 1980 : 323) articulation concept is important for avoiding the pitfalls of
‘oppression Olympics’, which often reduce colonialism and neo- colonialism to a
single form of social domination (Mabasa, 2019; Hancock, 2007 ). The following
discussion on social differentiation uses Hall’s ( 1980 ) methodological approach to
examine the race- culture- nexus in a colonial racial political economy context.
Racial capitalism and social differentiation
Racial capitalism discourses explore how race relations evolve in the development
of capitalism. This inquiry is not limited to the nation state; it also considers the
global colonial setting within which capitalism operates (Robinson, 2000 : 111). The
writers argue that racism is embedded in global capitalist development and is one of
the essential catalysts behind its expansion. Cedric Robinson expresses this founda-
tional point in the following words: ‘the historical development of world capitalism
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2309780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 230 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
Racial capitalism 231
was influenced in a most fundamental way by the particularistic forces of racism
and nationalism’ ( 2000 : 10).
These scholars trace racism in the development of European civilisation and the
transition from feudal to capitalist political economies (Magubane, 1996 ; Robinson,
2000 ; Kelly, 2017 ). They argue that modern capitalism incorporated racism and
other forms of social hierarchies that existed throughout the development of
European civilisation in different pre- capitalist epochs (Kelly, 2017 ). As Kelly ( 2017 )
explains: ‘The first European proletarians were racial subjects (Irish, Jews, Roma or
Gypsies, Slavs, etc.) and they were victims of dispossession (enclosure), colonialism,
and slavery within Europe’.
Kelly’s ( 2017 ) observation is emphasised by Magubane ( 1996 ), who states that the
Irish question is essential for understanding the intersecting relationship between
race, class and British colonial expansion (Magubane, 1996 : 141). He illustrates
how the British colonial state employed both race and class to legitimise its col-
onisation of Ireland. According to Magubane ( 1996 : 141), ‘the study of the Irish is
worth doing for its own sake by students of race and class. In addition, it helps to
place the study of racism in perspective’. The main point is to understand how race
and class domination intersect during different epochs rather than to attempt to
determine which social stratification is primary. This approach to the race and class
dialectic is essential for understanding how social differentiation operates in a colo-
nial world driven by the impulses of racial capitalism. It elucidates the social hier-
archies associated with the emergence and reproduction of this political economy.
These hierarchies exist between and within the classical social classes described in
classical Marxism: the bourgeoisie and proletariat (Marx & Engels, 1848 ; Lenin
[ 1906 ] 1980 ).
Various Neo- Marxist writers, who include proponents of racial capitalism, argue
that racialised colonial capitalism was constructed using cultural, ethnic and race
identity markers to create social hierarchy within various classes (Wolpe, 1972;
Cabral [1979] 2007 ; Magubane, 1979 ). They challenge the classical Marxian analyt-
ical tools that tend to overlook the ‘racial character’ and social hierarchy embedded
in capitalism (Kelly, 2017 ). Bernard Magubane emphasises this point in his discus-
sion on analysing race and class in South Africa. He urges students of Marxism
to resist an ‘abstract class analysis’ because it ‘liquidates the national question and
ignores the crucial differences in the exploitation of black and white workers which
are due specifically to racism’ (Magubane, 1996 : 4).
Magubane’s ( 1996 ) observations underpin the importance of social hierarchy
and social differentiation in racial capitalism analyses. This social differentiation is
not limited to race or racism, as it includes cultural domination (Cabral [1979],
2007 ; Magubane, 1979 ). Neo- Marxist accounts on colonisation highlight the rela-
tionship between cultural domination and colonial racial capitalism (Cabral [1979],
2007 ; Magubane, 1979 ). Magubane (1971: 419) states that ‘white domination was
not only economic but political and cultural as well. Any theory of change in the
patterns of behaviour of the Indigenous population must take into account this
total situation’. The preceding point compels us to adopt a holistic sociological
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2319780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 231 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
232 Khwezi Mabasa
framework when examining colonial and neo- colonial social formations. Race,
class and culture must be discussed as interconnected aspects of a colonial racial
capitalist social formation.
Magubane (1971: 423) presents a compelling argument that highlights the
shortcomings of social science studies that separate culture from colonial domin-
ation. He criticises these writings for ignoring the underlying socio- economic and
political factors underpinning cultural domination or assimilation. Colonial cul-
tural scholarship overlooked native agency that resisted acculturation, and wrong-
fully attributed this phenomenon to individual choice (Magubane, 1971: 243).
Therefore, it is integral to engage in ‘sociological analysis’, which ‘shows that when
two cultures, differing in their technological development, meet, adjustments, often
accompanied by violence, are inevitable. The society that is culturally and techno-
logically weaker does not simply yield to the stronger. They yield to one another,
each undergoing profound modification’.
Magubane’s perspective (1971, 1979 ) on cultural domination is embedded in
racial capitalism political economy analysis. He links acculturation to the necessity
of incorporating colonised Africans into the industrial colonial capitalist system.
The British imperial political economy required African wage labour, which was
scarce because of the successful African agrarian peasant economy (Magubane,
1979 ; Bundy, 1988 ). British authorities introduced repressive legislation such as
the Glen Grey Act to address the ‘resilience shown by African subsistence pro-
duction’ (Magubane, 1979 : 83). They destroyed the African peasant economy land
tenure system and compelled African males to take up waged labour (Maloka, 2014 ;
Terreblanche, 2012 ).
This violent socio- economic dispossession was followed by institutionalised
efforts that legitimised the ‘social norms of a capitalist civilisation’ (Magubane,
1979 : 56). Maloka ( 2014 ) concurs with Magubane’s account ( 1979 ) of cultural
domination and its relation to the racial capitalist political economy. He explains that
‘social norms of capitalist civilisation’ include the imposition of waged labour, indi-
vidualism, market- oriented economy, private property and Christianity (Maloka,
2014 : 37).
The preceding analysis highlights the mutually reinforcing relationship between
cultural domination and colonial racial capitalism in South Africa. This political
economy has been structured on the basis of both structural dominance and coerced
cultural assimilation (Magubane, 1979 : 55). Cabral’s ([1979] 2007) writings on cul-
tural imperialism within a racialised colonial capitalist world support Magubane’s
arguments. He conceptualises culture as an essential element in the colonial and
postcolonial power matrix in Portuguese colonies (Cabral, 1979 ] 2007: 170).
Culture reflects the inherent connection between a society’s political economy
structure and hegemonic social norms. According to Cabral ([ 1979 ]2007: 173),
‘like history, or because it is history, culture has its material base at the level of the
productive forces and the mode of production. Culture plunges its roots into the
humus of the material reality of the environment in which it develops’. Therefore,
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2329780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 232 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
Racial capitalism 233
we cannot sperate cultural domination or assimilation from the logic of the racial
capitalist political economy framework.
Another salient point raised in Cabral’s ([ 1979 ]2007) work is the role of culture
in class formation. He argues that class stratification in a racial political economy
context is strengthened by assimilation towards the hegemonic colonial cultural
paradigm. Sections of the colonised population who occupy privileged class
positions regard themselves ‘as culturally superior to the people’ to whom they
belong and ‘whose cultural values’ they ignore or despise (Cabral, [ 1979 ] 2007: 175).
However, Cabral ([ 1979 ]2007), like Magubane ( 1979 ), emphasises the counter-
hegemonic cultural resistance displayed in the political agency of the working class
and peasants. These social strata resist colonial cultural domination using varied
methods discussed later in this chapter (Manji, 2019).
The previous sections discussed the intersection of race, class, culture and colo-
nialism. This discussion highlighted how these forms of social differentiation inter-
link in the reproduction of colonial racial capitalism. In the following section I will
use the writings from Oliver Cox ( 1959 ) and Eric Williams ( 1944 ) to discuss some
important structural features in this political economy.
The political economy structure of racial capitalism
The primary structural character discussed in both authors’ examination of racial
capitalism is what Wallerstein (2000: 174) describes as a ‘world- systems ana-
lysis’. Cox ( 1959 ) and Williams’ ( 1944 ) primary starting point in racial capitalism
discourses is the international political economy. They are mainly concerned with
the origins and evolutionary stages of global capitalist development (Cox, 1959 ;
Williams, 1944 ). Both concur that racial capitalism cannot be adequately assessed
within the confines of a single nation state. Cox ( 1959 : 15) explains this point in the
following words: ‘capitalism tends to form a system or network of national and ter-
ritorial units bound together by commercial and exploitative relationships in such a
way that a capitalist nation is inconceivable outside this capitalist system’.
This view is also prevalent in Williams’ ( 1944 ) extensive discussion on British
capitalism and slavery. In this account he links British capitalism to what he describes
as the Empire’s ‘colonial possessions’ (Williams, 1944 : 4). The text illustrates that one
cannot overlook the centrality of slavery and colonial domination when exam-
ining global capitalism (Williams, 1944 : 126). Williams emphasises how ‘Negro
slavery and the slave trade ‘provided the ‘capital which financed the Industrial
Revolution’ ( 1944 : x). Racist social differentiation and hierarchy characterised the
global slave trade. However, according to Williams ( 1944 ), racism did not precede
or cause slavery. He argues that ‘slavery was not born out of racism: rather, racism
was the consequence of slavery. Unfree labour in the New World was brown, white,
black, and yellow’ ( 1944 : 7). The need for cheaper labour and enhanced product-
ivity motivated the inculcation of racism directed towards slaves of African descent.
Economic competition and restructuring in the global agrarian political economy
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2339780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 233 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
234 Khwezi Mabasa
from the 17th century onwards compelled British colonialists to expand the African
labour supply. This increased participation by African slave labour was justified in
the various colonies by baseless constructions of racial inferiority. In other words,
the political economy dynamics and structural changes in the mercantilist global
economy inspired the racism attached to slavery. As Williams explains:
Both Indian slavery and white servitude were to go down before the black
man’s superior endurance, docility, and capacity. The features of the man, his
hair, color, and dentifrice, his subhuman characteristics so widely pleaded,
were only the later rationalizations to justify a simple economic fact: the col-
onies needed labour and resorted to Negro because it was the cheapest and
best.
Williams, 1944 : 20
His analysis on the racial global political economy discusses social inequality on
different levels: local, national and international. The last form of inequality inspired
various theories on the international division of labour and uneven development
amongst nations (Amin, 1976 ; Cox, 1959 ; Rodney, 1972 ; Wallerstein, 2004 ). These
theories illustrate how modern racial global capitalism created unequal wealth levels
and human development between different states. This phenomenon is produced
by the inherent exploitative logic embedded in the structure of racial capitalism,
which operates in the colonial and neo- colonial context. Walter Rodney ( 1972 )
states that ‘modern underdevelopment’ is expressed through:
a particular relationship of exploitation: namely, the exploitation of one
country by another. All of the countries named as ‘underdeveloped’ in the
world are exploited by others; and the underdevelopment with which the
world is now pre- occupied is a product of capitalist, imperialist and coloni-
alist exploitation.
This statement highlights the importance of examining racial global capitalism
on three levels: (1) the relation between capital accumulation and labour; (2) the
historical relationship between capitalist and non- capitalist social formations; and
(3) the structure of global trade and production (Amin, 1976 : 18). The methodo-
logical approach outlined above will illustrate that global inequality, in both colo-
nial and neo- colonial contexts, is anchored on capitalist exploitation. As argued
earlier, this exploitative political economy is inherently connected to varied forms
of social differentiation: race, class and culture. Cox’s writings ( 1959 , 1962 , 1964 )
emphasise uneven development and its relation to imperialism using the three- level
analysis cited in preceding sentences. He argues that:
One obvious, though vital conclusion to be drawn from this relationship is
that capitalism does not and cannot mean the same thing to all nations and
territories included in the system. At one extreme it may mean for whole
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2349780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 234 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
Racial capitalism 235
peoples a higher standard of living, greater freedom, and more complete
existence than mankind has even before enjoyed; and the other it may mean,
for great masses of the people, grinding poverty, racial humiliation and the
lash.
Cox, 1964 : 11
These different experiences of capitalism expressed in Cox’s work are attributed
to structural inequalities in the racial global political economy. Countries in the
global economy are at ‘various stages of development’ and ‘have unequal power and
opportunities in the market. Thus, leadership of the system implies particular dom-
inance in most foreign markets’ (Cox, 1962 ). This characterisation is supported by
other world- systems theorists, who state that the international political economy
has a centre/ core, semi- periphery and periphery (Amin, 1976 ; Wallerstein, 2004 ).
Industrialised states with economies structured on the basis of high technology and
diversified sectors constitute the core. These countries are ranked highly in indices
measuring both economic and human development. The labour force in the core
has high skill levels, and the working conditions (wages, employment laws, etc.) are
less exploitative in these countries (Mart í nez- Vela, 2001; Teixeira & Smith, 2008 ;
Wallerstein, 2004 ).
Peripheral state political economies are mostly agrarian or mineral based and
have minimal industrial diversification. The level of technological advancement in
these political economies is not competitive when contrasted with the core states
(Franke, 2014 ). Skill levels in the periphery workforce are not high and the working
conditions (as described above) are highly exploitative. This exploitation is most evi-
dent in the agrarian and mineral labour regimes that drive these economies (Teixeira
& Smith, 2008 ). These countries perform badly in global comparative assessments on
economic and human development (Chase- Dunn & Grimes, 1995 ; Franke, 2014 ).
World- system theorists link exploitative periphery labour regimes to unequal
trade in the global political economy (Chase- Dunn & Grimes, 1995 ; Wallerstein,
2004 ). They also point out that asymmetrical trade relations— between the core and
periphery— stymie socio- economic development in the periphery (Chase- Dunn &
Grimes, 1995 ; Franke, 2014 ). Unequal trade prevents these societies from making
the necessary public investments to attain higher levels of socio- economic devel-
opment. According to Chase- Dunn and Grimes ( 1995 : 396), ‘an hour of labor in
the periphery costs capital only a fraction of its costs in the core, so that a com-
modity produced there is much cheaper than the same commodity produced in the
core’. This labour exploitation in the periphery sustains unequal trade relations by
ensuring a ‘net transfer of value from the periphery to the core’ (Chase- Dunn &
Grimes, 1995 : 396). The capitalist class in the core, which relies on state power to
permeate international markets, benefits from this ‘unequal exchange’ because it
secures access to low- cost commodities and labour supply (Van Hamme & Pion,
2012 : 67).
Countries in the semi- periphery structure display both core and periphery
characteristics. They are either transitioning from being in the periphery or
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2359780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 235 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
236 Khwezi Mabasa
attempting to restructure their political economy base so that they transcend
into the core (Franke, 2014 ; Wallerstein, 2004 ). These states have a mix of high-
technology driven and primary sectors within their political economy structures.
Most semi- periphery countries emerged as a result of implementing interventionist
policies, which were conducive to restructuring the economic base, for example
subsidies and tariff protections that support or protect infant industries until they
are internationally competitive (Chase- Dunn & Grimes, 1995 ; Franke, 2014 ).
The most prominent case studies are the East Asian developmental states such
as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. These societies’ successful gains in the areas of
technological advancement, economic development and human development are
documented elsewhere (Chang, 2003 ; Mkandawire, 2012); however, it is important
to note that these countries had exploitative and repressive labour regimes.
Furthermore, there are non- market political economy factors that drove the devel-
opment in these states (Amsden, 2001 ; Evans, 1995 ; Leftwich, 1995 ).
This core, semi- periphery and periphery relation in a racial global capitalist
system cannot be sustained without colonialism or neo- colonialism (Cox, 1962 ;
Amin, 1976 ). Cox ( 1962 ) provides a compelling reason for this conclusion in the
following words: ‘It is necessary to bear in mind that an inherent characteristic of
capitalism system is its boundless scope. Capitalist economies must either expand
abroad or stagnate’ (Cox, 1962 : 14). He goes on to assert that ‘imperialism seems to
be an abiding attribute of capitalism. It is not, as sometimes thought, a late 19th-
century development; rather, it has gone hand in hand with the rise of the capitalist
system as a necessary component’ (Cox, 1964 : 136).
These statements connect the expansionist logic in the racial capitalist system to
colonialism and neo- colonialism. As argued earlier, a varied set of motivations drive
the expansionism inherent in racial capitalism: the search for cheap labour (both
slave and free), raw materials and markets (Magubane, 1979 ; Williams, 1944 ). Marx
and Engels ( 1848 ) articulate this trend in the Communist Manifesto by stating that
‘the need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie
over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere,
establish connections everywhere’.
The Neo- Marxist theorists writing on racial capitalism (such as Cabral, Cox,
Magubane, Robinson and Williams) have taken this analysis further. They have
studied and examined the specific conditions that characterise the colonial dimen-
sion in capitalist accumulation. All these authors place emphasis on using the world
capitalist system as the primary point of reference. This methodological choice
differs from the classic Marxian tradition, which prioritised assessing capitalist accu-
mulation within the confines of the capital- labour- relation and nation state. Lenin
( 1917 ) and Luxemburg ( 1915 ) attempted to address this shortcoming in their sep-
arate works on imperialism. Rosa Luxemburg’s ( 1915 ) account differs from Lenin’s
analysis because she does not limit herself to the inner workings of capitalism. She
explores a deeper question: what happens when capitalist social formations and
non- capitalist interact? (Amin, 1976 ; Luxemburg, 1915 ). She argues that:
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2369780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 236 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
Racial capitalism 237
Accumulation is impossible in an exclusively capitalist environment.
Therefore, we find that capital has been driven since its very inception to
expand into non- capitalist strata and nations, ruin artisans and peasantry, pro-
letarianize the intermediate strata, the politics of colonialism, the politics of
‘opening- up’ and the export of capital. But the global drive to expand leads
to a collision between capital and pre- capitalist forms of society, resulting in
violence, war, revolution: in brief, catastrophes from start to finish, the vital
element of capitalism. Capital accumulation progresses and expands at the
expense of non- capitalist strata and countries, squeezing them out at an ever-
faster rate.
Luxemburg, 1915
Rosa Luxemburg ( 1915 ) stresses the points made earlier regarding examining cap-
italism on multiple levels. It insufficient to reduce this social formation to the core
contradiction between capital and labour, especially within a nation state. Political
economy students must transcend this analytical level through exploring the rela-
tionship between capitalist and non- capitalist social formations. This approach
highlights the centrality of colonialism in capitalist accumulation, which is intrin-
sically violent. Luxemburg (1915) criticises Marx for not fully examining this
question in his classical works. Scholars, activists and writers in the Neo- Marxist
tradition have attempted to address this gap (Cabral, 2007 ; Cox, 1959 ; Magubane,
1979 ; SACP, 1928 ). This discussion has produced varied and complex accounts
on the relationship between capitalism and imperialism (Mao, 1980 ; SACP, 1928 ;
Turok, 1980 ). These writers and organisations differ in the nuances of this capital-
imperialism- relation, but they concur that that colonisation is central to capital
accumulation.
The preceding sections, which explored social differentiation and structural
dimensions, provide several useful insights for examining racial capitalism. The first
relates to methodological approaches and assumptions. Racial capitalism requires
transdisciplinary methodological frameworks, which appreciate the connection
between different disciplines and areas of specialisation. These methodological
approaches compel political economy students to transcend discipline- specific
limitations and recognise organic political praxis as a credible knowledge source
(Du Plessis et al., 2011 : 20). The second insight is both methodological and ideo-
logical. The writers cited in previous sections reject primacy debates when exam-
ining the relationship between racial capitalism and social differentiation. Race, class
and culture are not viewed in isolation from each other and there is no attempt to
elevate one form of social differentiation. The third lesson emphasises examining
racial capitalism on multiple levels within a colonial and neo- colonial structural
political economy context. In other words, it essential to expand on the traditional
capital and labour discourse embedded in the classical Marxist tradition.
The fourth point to draw on is the centrality of imperialism in capital accumu-
lation. The world- systems and dependency approaches employed by advocates of
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2379780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 237 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
238 Khwezi Mabasa
racial capitalism locate capitalism within an overarching imperial global capitalist
context (Amin, 1976 ; Cox, 1959 ; Cabral 2007 ; Magubane, 1979 ; Williams, 1944 ).
This context is their starting point or primary source for unpacking the structural
underpinnings in the racial capitalist political economy. Lastly, and most important
for this analysis, is the recognition that both colonial and neo- colonialism are social
formations. A social formation is ‘a complex unity in which a certain mode of
production dominates the others which compose it’ (Poulantzas, 1968 : 15). This
‘complex unity’ operates within and across different social institutions at various
levels: local, national and international. Therefore, colonialism and neo- colonialism
cannot be reduced to a single form of domination or single institution. These are
totalising social formations that permeate politics, the economy, knowledge systems
and social stratification.
The five insights discussed above are unpacked further in the following
sections. The main aim is to connect these essential arguments and observations
with decolonial movements. The theory of racial capitalism developed by various
Neo- Marxists is useful for decolonial debates within and outside the academy.
Furthermore, it contributes to discussions on decolonial political agency by out-
lining some of the contemporary manifestations of coloniality.
Marxism, racial capitalism and decolonial movements
Several points can be drawn from Marxist political economy and sociology for
decolonial discourse or political agency. As argued earlier, contemporary debates
on decolonial transformation focus on epistemology, culture and ontology. These
human development areas are mostly discussed from an ideational perspective, with
minimal reference to the dynamic political economy contexts. The Neo- Marxist
contributions discussed in previous sections of the chapter address this gap. These
writers examine colonisation using a holistic analytical paradigm that illustrates
connections between socio- economic, epistemic, cultural and political domination.
This multidimensional approach to understanding both colonialism and neo-
colonialism as totalising power systems is important. It compels decolonial scholars
and activists to transcend disciplinary boundaries and the confines of the academy.
This is the first lesson, which requires substantial emphasis in this chapter: one
cannot not fully comprehend colonialism and neo- colonialism without adopting
a transdisciplinary methodological approach. This allows the student and activist
studying neo- colonialism to appreciate the nexus between its socio- economic,
cultural, political and epistemic power relations. Furthermore, transdisciplinarity
legitimises experiences and theoretical contributions from varied knowledge
sources (Du Plessis et al., 2011 : 20).
The second lesson is related to explaining the material base that sustains varied
forms of colonialism. Writers cited in this chapter illustrate the inherent link
between racial capitalism and modern colonialism dating back to the 15th cen-
tury (Cox, 1959 ; James 1963 ; Rodney, 1972 ). This political economy has struc-
tural features that are conducive to/ supportive of colonial subjugation. Modern
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2389780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 238 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
Racial capitalism 239
capitalism is reliant on continued access to raw materials, markets and precarious
labour. The expansionist logic has driven colonisation for centuries (Magubane,
1979 ; Cox, 1959 ; Cabral [ 1979 ), 2007). Colonial racial capitalism is a world system
that operates in different social institutions and at varied levels. It establishes exploit-
ative capital- labour- relations whilst simultaneously connecting capitalist and non-
capitalist political economies (Magubane, 1979 ; Rodney, 1972 ). The latter process,
as described by Luxemburg ( 1915 ), is an essential catalyst for colonial capital accu-
mulation. Her work is taken further in the writings of world- systems theorists
who highlight inequalities between societies in the global political economy. This
inequality is linked to colonialism and neo- colonialism, drawing attention to issues
such as unequal trade, conflict and political domination (Cox, 1964 ; Chase- Dunn
& Grimes, 1995 ; Wallerstein, 2004 ).
The structural characteristics explained above encourage decolonial movements
to examine and study racial capitalism. This interrogation should not be limited to
the traditional coercive colonial era. It is also important to study how racial cap-
italism has evolved and persisted in the contemporary neo- colonial epoch. Neo-
Marxist writers such as Harvey ( 2003 ) and Amin ( 2019 ) argue that the world is
experiencing a ‘new stage of imperialism’ (Amin, 2019 ). Both authors highlight
how this ‘new stage of imperialism’ still relies on dispossession and the endless
pursuit of capital (Harvey, 2003 ; Amin, 2019 ). However, markets, Multinational
Corporations (MNCs) and International Financial Institutions (IFIs) have replaced
states as the primary institutions facilitating colonial capitalist appropriation (Amin,
2019 ; Harvey, 2003 ). States are still important institutions, but the role of market-
based structures has gained significance in global economic systems.
Harvey ( 2003 : 145– 146) explains that privatisation, commodification, gentrifica-
tion and the ‘suppression’ of non- capitalist production methods exemplify dispos-
session in the current era. He cites several examples from countries in the periphery
and semi- periphery that have a history of colonial domination. According to Amin
( 2019 ), global ‘monopolies operate in the peripheries of the globalized system, this
monopoly rent becomes an imperialist rent. The capital accumulation process—
which defines capitalism in all of its successive historical forms— is consequently
governed by the maximization of monopolistic/ imperialist rent’. These two authors’
analyses provide some insights for understanding neo- colonial capitalist accumula-
tion. They provide a basis that can be used by decolonial movements to challenge
political economy interventions that sustain global racial capitalism.
The third significant point for consideration is social difference (race, class and
culture) and its role in neo- colonialism. As argued earlier, Cox ( 1959 ), Magubane
( 1979 ) and Cabral [1979] ( 2007 ) were not primarily concerned with primacy
debates. They mainly examined how social difference and stratification supports
colonial racial capitalist relations. These analyses show that race and culture are
social constructs, which are inherently intertwined with economic domination.
As Magubane ( 1979 : 3) explains: ‘the seemingly autonomous existence of racism
today does not lessen the fact that it was initiated by the needs of capitalist devel-
opment or that these needs remain the dominant factor in racist societies’. This
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2399780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 239 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
240 Khwezi Mabasa
point needs to be emphasised, because contemporary postmodern identity politics
overlooks the relationship between social difference and socio- economic power
relations. Race and culture are depoliticised and separated from the racialised colo-
nial political economy (Manji, 2019). This oversight creates parochial race or cul-
tural nationalisms, which reproduce colonial identities and political economies
(Mabasa, 2019; Mamdani, 2013 ; Manji, 2019). These nationalisms unintentionally
support the contemporary rise (across the globe) of narrow identity politics. The
universal humanism, which is an essential trait in decolonial political thought, is
overshowed by this parochialism.
Manji (2019: 50) explains this trend in the following words: ‘Being African has
become indistinguishable from the individualistic identity politics that is so preva-
lent today, to which the current fad for “intersectionality” falls victim’. Cabral’s
[1979] (2007) analysis on culture and identity is useful for addressing this challenge.
He links decolonial concepts of culture to transforming socio- economic and
political power relations (Cabral, [1979] 2007 : 171– 2). More importantly, Cabral
articulates a strategy for anti- imperial cultural resistance that is based on what he
describes as a ‘universal culture’ aimed at ‘perfect integration in the contemporary
world and its prospects for evolution’ (Cabral [1979], 2007 : 183). This statement
highlights that culture, in a decolonial context, seeks to create an alternative con-
ception of humanity (Cabral [1979], 2007 : 183). It does not revive parochial race
or culture- based identities. The emphasis is on the political and developmentally
transformative value of culture in society (Cabral [1979], 2007 : 173).
The fourth observation, which is overlooked by the Neo- Marxist scholars cited
throughout the chapter, is the significance of gender in colonial racial capitalism.
Cox ( 1959 ), Magubane ( 1979 ), Williams ( 1944 ) and Cabral [ 1979 ] 2007 devote
minimal attention to gender dimensions when debating racial capitalism. There is
some reflection on the colonised women’s reproductive labour and sexual abuse in
some accounts on slavery (James, 1963 ; Williams, 1944 ). But this is not substantial,
and the black male slave figure features more prominently in these analyses. This
oversight is significant, because colonial racial capitalism has relied on complex
labour exploitation since its inception. The unpaid labour from colonised/ enslaved
women has sustained the exploitative capital- labour- relation in racial capitalism for
centuries (Davis, 1981 ; Davies, 2008; Collins, 2000 ).
This point is emphasised in Marxist feminist political economy literature,
which highlights the gendered nature of labour exploitation in global racial cap-
italist relations (Davis, 1981 ; Cock, 2001). The trend persists in the neo- colonial
era and can be observed in the international division of labour (Brewer, 1999 : 38).
Brewer ( ibid. ) states that ‘women generally, and Third World women specifically,
have become essential to cheap labour in the global capitalist economy’. Her
comments support the structural analysis articulated by the world- system theorists.
She illustrates that women workers in the periphery and semi- periphery are more
economically marginalised than their counterparts in the core. Moreover, she adds
an additional element: racialised gender- based exploitation. Labour exploitation is
anchored not only on unequal trade and the neo- colonial international division of
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2409780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 240 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
Racial capitalism 241
labour: cultural, gender and race biases also determine working relationships and
conditions (Brewer, 1999 : 37).
Benya ( 2015 ) takes the discussion further in her account on the Marikana
massacre. She elucidates how women’s social reproduction beyond the shopfloor
is essential in reproducing cheap mine labour in post- Apartheid South Africa
(Benya, 2015 : 547– 8). This case study is particularly interesting because it exem-
plifies all attributes of a racial neo- colonial political economy structure. The super-
exploitation shows how different social differentiation identity markers reinforce
each other within South Africa’s contemporary social formation. The article does
not limit the analysis to gendered structural subjugation. It also highlights women-
led class agency and solidarity during the strike period (Benya, 2015 : 554). All four
lessons discussed in this section summarise the core Marxist insights for decolonial
debates and political activism. The concluding section will highlight the main pillars
for decolonial political economy thinking in the 21st century.
Decolonial political economy
Previous discussions in this chapter have shown how the theory of racial capitalism,
which draws on Neo- Marxian analytical tools, adds value to debates on decolonisa-
tion. This contribution is divided into the following salient areas: transdisciplinarity,
social differentiation. political economy structure, and lessons for decolonial
movements. In this section I will unpack some pillars for decolonial political
economy thinking in the 21st century. The intention is not to be prescriptive or
develop a manifesto that must be adopted by all decolonial scholars or activists. This
discussion will merely posit some basic premises for deliberation in the decolonial
political economy movement in and outside the academy. A significant point made
throughout the chapter relates to methodological assumptions and approaches in
decolonial political economy. It is essential to avoid the restrictions imposed through
hyper- specialisation or discipline- specific knowledge. Both colonialism and neo-
colonialism are multi- faceted power systems comprising different hierarchies and
power relations (Quijano, 2000). Thus, decolonial political economy advocates are
encouraged to draw from various schools of thought and knowledge sources. This
methodological approach will enrich their analyses on the socio- economic, polit-
ical and cultural dimensions associated with neo- colonial power relations.
Another central element in decolonial political economy is the emphasis on
the material basis of colonialism. The racial capitalist political economy structural
framework used throughout the chapter highlights this point. Classical and con-
temporary imperial relations cannot be fully comprehended outside the world
capitalist system. Therefore, decolonial political economy should primarily use the
world capitalist system as its primary reference point, yet this approach should not
be reduced to economic reductionism or determinism. Furthermore, it is important
to discuss capitalism beyond the traditional capital- labour- relation. Decolonial pol-
itical economy also considers the relationship between capitalist and non- capitalist
economic production systems in a neo- colonial setting. For example, how does
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2419780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 241 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
242 Khwezi Mabasa
contemporary imperial capitalism destroy or appropriate Indigenous modes of pro-
duction in the periphery and semi- periphery? There are other essential questions
that need to be addressed in examining what Amin ( 2019 ) and Harvey ( 2003 )
describe as the ‘new imperialism’.
Social differentiation based on race, class, gender and culture is important for
decolonial political economy. The relationship between different social differen-
tiation dimensions is not static. It evolves and transforms during various phases
of colonial racial capitalism. This chapter suggests that Hall’s notion of articula-
tion ( 1980 ) is most suitable for understanding how social differentiation persists
in the neo- colonial era. It rejects any attempt to conclude on the primacy of any
social differentiation element and encourages decolonial thinkers to appreciate how
these forms of social stratification reinforce each other. This point is essential to
avoid reductionism in decolonial debates, which essentialises colonialism or neo-
colonialism to a single form of domination. As argued earlier, social differentiation
has always been an essential part of racial capital accumulation. It is used to justify or
legitimise labour exploitation, economic resource appropriation, violence and pol-
itical domination. The point, however, is to understand how social differentiation
evolves and which social institutions are employed to sustain it. This task is essential
because neo- colonialism does not use explicit state- sanctioned violence in creating
social differentiation. It also relies on the market and other institutions on multiple
levels to create social difference.
The social differentiation discussed above shapes class formation in several ways. It
creates intra- class socio- economic and political hierarchies. This chapter emphasises
the importance of studying how global racial capitalism challenges classical class
formation conceptions. The world- systems approach, which highlights the inter-
national division of labour, illustrates structural differences within the international
labour force. Thus, students interested in studying decolonial political economy
cannot apply the traditional class model rigidly. According to Standing ( 2016 : 192):
there has been class fragmentation, so that the old nomenclature is no longer
fit for understanding the dynamics of class struggle. Another way of putting
this is that differences within bloc concepts, such as the bourgeoisie/ capitalist
class and working class, have grown to the point of splitting them.
This appreciation of structural stratification within colonial racial capitalism
is not peculiar to the 21st century. Magubane ( 1996 ), Cox ( 1959 ) and Williams
( 1944 ) have traced this stratification to the inception of different capitalist political
economies: merchant, mercantilism and industrial capitalism. Social differentiation
within labour classes— including slavery— has driven racial capitalism since the
15th century. It is thus important for decolonial political economy activists and
scholars to examine ‘fractions’ within the international working class (Poulantaz,
1968 : 77).
These fractions also permeate other class strata, such as the bourgeoise. The
complex and unequal global capitalist structure creates different types of capitalist
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2429780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 242 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
Racial capitalism 243
groups. They are all interested in sustaining the current global capitalist political
economy structure. But we should not overlook the nuanced differences in strategy
and economic interests amongst contemporary transnational capitalists (Harvey,
2003 ; Amin, 2019 ). These differentiated strategies and economic interests shape
structural transformation in the international political economy. Both classical and
Neo- Marxist writers provide insights that illustrate how the different fractions of
capital shape the world capitalist system (Cox, 1959 ; Lenin, 1917 (1980); Luxemburg,
1915 ; Poulantzas, 1968 ; Williams, 1944).
Decolonial political economy analyses that consider these differences are suitable
for uncovering the rationale underpinning the violence, appropriation and dispos-
session characterising the neo- colonial epoch. The methods and tactics used by the
various fractions of capital differ as they operate in different contexts. For example,
Professor Sam Moyo’s (2011) analysis on the global agrarian question highlights
the connections between neo- imperialism and land grabs in the periphery (Moyo,
2011: 73). He argues that ‘A major reaction of capital to the recent food price crisis
has been a new scramble for land in Africa, mainly to produce food and biofuels for
export, using the large estate production model’ (Moyo, 2011, 73). Harvey’s ( 2003 )
account on neo- imperialism depicts the role of fossil fuel capitalists in destabilising
the Middle East for access to and control of the global oil supply (Harvey, 2003 : 24–
5). He shows the varied economic and political strategies employed to achieve this
objective. Decolonial activists and scholars should be occupied in examining the
complex nature of transitional capital and how it operates across the world.
The preceding sections focus on the basic structural pillars required for decolonial
political economy analysis. In this section, I will discuss the equally important aspect
of political agency and how it relates to decolonial political economy. This agency
must be based on both structural factors and political subjectivity. The primary
reference point is the modern conception of labour and working- class agency.
Historical and contemporary global capital accumulation has relied on varied forms
of colonial labour: slavery, peasant, proletariat (albeit small) and unpaid labour from
women in the periphery. This historical fact encourages decolonial policy economy
advocates to transcend classical Marxian analytical approaches, which identify the
industrial proletariat as the central revolutionary political agent (Engels, 1894 ; Marx
and Engels, 1848 ). Mabasa (2019: 181) argues that classical Marxism has largely
underestimated ‘the historical revolutionary agency exercised by the slaves, peas-
antry and other working- class strata located in other regions of the world’.
The decolonial political economy approach needs to have a nuanced concep-
tion of working- class agency that appreciates structural complexities in the neo-
colonial global political economy. As stated in previous sections, these differences
are informed by both material conditions and social differentiation. Cabral’s ([1979]
(2007) extensive writings on the peasantry and revolutionary political agency pro-
vide a good starting point. His work illustrates that revolutionary political agency
is not limited to class- based structural location in the economic production system.
According to Cabral ([ 1979 ] 2007: 190– 1), it is also shaped through dedicating
one’s political agency to resisting imperial domination in all forms. This includes
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2439780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 243 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
244 Khwezi Mabasa
maintaining non- capitalist social reproduction and economic systems, which sus-
tain pre- colonial economic livelihoods ([1979], 2007 : 191– 2).
Neo- colonial developmentalism uses market jargon phrases, such as creating
modern political economies to appropriate or displace ‘alternative (indigenous)
forms of production and consumption’ (Harvey, 2003 : 154). Thus, a crucial dimen-
sion in modern working- class decolonial agency is challenging different types of
appropriation motivated by neo- imperial capitalist economic interests. It must
include ‘organisations’ that:
mobilise around key pro- poor demands, such as equal access to public goods,
and protest against the expansion of privatisation. The movements are not
governed by traditional vanguard organisational principles. However, their
struggles are embedded in challenging some of the fundamental neoliberal
policy prescripts associated with accumulation by dispossession.
Mabasa, 2019: 182– 3
Neo- liberalism complements the expansionist logic inherent in historical racial
capital accumulation. There is only one crucial difference: market- based institutions
play a leading role in sustaining labour exploitation and dispossession in the per-
iphery. This does not mean that the modern state is passive or benign in this pro-
cess; rather, it illustrates how market- based developmentalism is exemplified by the
international financial system, IFIs, MNCs and institutional investors, which support
neo- colonial power relations. In sum, decolonial political economy has to promote
heterodox development models that challenge neo- liberal developmentalism.
Conclusion
This chapter attempted to address an omission in South Africa’s contemporary
decolonial debates. It argued that discourses on colonialism and neo- colonialism
in recent years have overlooked political economy dimensions. This inevitably
produces limited decolonial political agency and analysis, which fail to connect
epistemic or cultural transformation with socio- economic justice. The chapter used
the racial capitalism political economy framework as a basis for addressing this
research and political gap in contemporary decolonial discussions. This contribu-
tion covered five essential thematic areas: transdisciplinarity, social differentiation,
political economy structure, lessons for decolonial movements and decolonial pol-
itical economy.
I used Neo- Marxist texts, primarily from Cox, Cabral, Magubane and Williams,
to illustrate that we cannot fully comprehend modern colonialism and neo-
colonialism without examining the world capitalist system. These authors elucidate
that modern colonialism and capitalism evolved simultaneously, thus it is impera-
tive to locate decolonial debates and activism within an anti- capitalist movement.
The chapter further argues that colonialism and neo- colonialism are multi-
faceted power structures, which can only be understood using transdisciplinary
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2449780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 244 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
Racial capitalism 245
methodological approaches. This multiplicity also compels us to approach social
differentiation (based on class, race, gender and culture) differently. Scholars and
activists must avoid essentialising colonialism by reducing it to a single form of
social differentiation. It is more analytically and politically useful to investigate the
evolving relationship between social differentiation and capitalism through varied
epochs.
The concluding argument details the structure of the neo- colonial political
economy using racial capitalism theory. It illustrates that the neo- colonial world
capitalist system has sustained the hierarchy and social differentiation observed in
previous colonial eras. The systemic labour exploitation, dispossession, violence and
appropriation continues. However, it is mediated by neo- liberal market- oriented
developmentalism. Therefore, decolonial movements must examine and challenge
the structures that sustain neo- liberalism.
References
Amin , S. 1976 . Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism.
Sussex : Monthly Review Press .
Amin , S. 2019 . The New Imperialist Structure. https:// bit.ly/ 2GHYn5G (accessed 10
January 2020).
Amsden , A. 2001 . The Rise of The Rest: Challenges to the West from Late- Industrializing Economies.
New York : Oxford University Press.
Benya , A. 2015 . ‘ The Invisible Hands: Women in Marikana’ , Review of African Political Economy ,
42 ( 146 ): 545 – 60 .
Brewer , R. M . 1999 . ‘ Theorizing Race, Class and Gender: The New Scholarship of Black
Feminist Intellectuals and Black Women’s Labor ’, Race, Gender and Class , 6 (2): 29– 47 .
Bundy , C. 1988 . The Rise and Fall of the South African Peasantry. London: James Currey
Publishers .
Cabral ,
A. [1979] 2007 . Unity and Struggle . Pretoria : UNISA Press .
Chang , H. 2003 . Globalization, Economic Development and the Role of the State . London : Zed
Books Ltd .
Chase- Dunn , C.K. and Grimes , P. 1995 . ‘ World- Systems Analysis’ , Annual Review of Sociology ,
21: 387– 417 .
Collins , P. ( 2000 ), ‘Gender, Black Feminism, and Black Political Economy’, Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science , 568 ( 1): 41– 53 .
Cox , O. C. 1959 . The Foundations of Capitalism . New York : Philosophical Library Inc .
Cox , O. C . 1962 . Capitalism an American Leadership . New York : Philosophical Library Inc.
Cox ,
O. C. 1964 . Capitalism as a System. New York : Monthly Review Press .
Davis , A.Y. 1981 . Women, Race and Class . New York : Random House .
Dladla , N. 2011 . Decolonising the University in South Africa: A Precondition for Justice.
www.academia.edu/ 1031311/ Decolonising_ The_ University_ In_ South_ Africa_ A_
Precondition_ for_ Liberation (accessed 15 January 2017).
Dlakavu , S. ( 2017 ), ‘#FeesMustFall: Black Women, Building a Movement and the Refusal
to be Erased. ’ In C. Chinguno (ed.), Rioting and Writing: Diaries of the Wits Fallists .
Johannesburg : Society Work and Development Institute (SWOP), University of
Witwatersrand .
Du Plessis , H. , Sehume , J. and Martin , L. 2011 . ‘ The Transdisciplinary Research Project-
Background Approaches and Methodology.’ In, H. Du Plessis , J. Sehume
and L. Martin
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2459780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 245 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
246 Khwezi Mabasa
(eds), The Concept and Application of Transdisciplinary in Intellectual Discourse and Research .
Johannesburg : MISTRA , pp. 17– 60 .
Engels , F. 1894 . ‘ The Peasant Question in France and Germany.’ In Selected Works, volume
3. www.marxists.org/ archive/ marx/ works/ 1894/ peasant- question/ index.htm (accessed
26 September 2016).
Evans , P. 1995 . Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformations . Princeton : Princeton
University Press .
Franke , M. 2014 . ‘When one country’s land gain is another country’s land loss. The social,
ecological and economic dimensions of sand extraction in the context of world- systems
analysis exemplified by Singapore’s sand imports’, Working Paper No. 36/ 2014.
Hall , S. 1980 . ‘ Race, Articulation and Societies Structured in Dominance’ . In UNESCO,
Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism. Paris : UNESCO , p p. 305 – 45 .
Hancock , A. 2007 . ‘ Intersectionality as a Normative and Empirical Paradigm’ , Politics &
Gender , 3 ( 2 ): 248 –
54 .
Harvey , D. 2003 . ‘The New Imperialism: Accumulation by Dispossession’ , Socialist Register ,
40 : 63 – 87 .
James , C.L.R. 1963 . The Black Jacobins . New York : Random House .
Kelly , R. 2017 . What Did Cedric Robinson mean by Racial Capitalism? https:// bit.ly/
2S54V3J (accessed 16 December 2019)
Leftwich , A. 1995 . ‘ Bringing Politics Back In: Towards a Model of a Developmental State’,
Journal of Developmental Studies , 31 ( 3 ): 400 – 24 .
Lenin , V. [1906] 1980 . ‘ The stages, trends and prospects of the revolution’. In Revolutionary
Thought in the 20th Century , ed. B. Turok . London : Zed Books, pp. 62 – 3 .
Lenin , V. [1917] 1980 . ‘
The April Theses’ . In Revolutionary Thought in the 20th Century , edited
by B Tu r o k. London : Zed Books , pp. 63 – 5.
Lenin . V. 1917 . Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. https:// bit.ly/ 36JbmPp (accessed
3 December 2019).
Luxemburg . R. 1915 . ‘ The Accumulation of Capital: An Anti- Critique.’ Imperialism .
https:// marxists.org/ archive/ luxemburg/ 1915/ anti- critique/ ch06.htm (accessed 10
January 2020)
Mabasa , K . 2019. ‘ Democratic Marxism and the National Question: Race and Class in Post-
Apartheid South Africa .’ In Sagtar , V. (Ed.), Racism After Apartheid: Challenges for Marxism
and Anti- Racism. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
Madlingozi , T. 2006 . ‘ Legal Academics and Progressive Politics in South Africa: Moving
Beyond the Ivory Tower’, Pulp Fictions , 2 : 5 – 24 .
Magubane
, B . 1971 . ‘ A Critical Look at Indices Used in the Study of Social Change in
Colonial Africa.’ Cur rent Anthropology, 12 ( 4/ 5 ): 419 – 45 .
Magubane , B.M. 1979 . The Political Economy of Race and Class in South Africa . New York:
Monthly Review Press ,.
Magubane , B.M. 1996 . The Making of a Racist State: British Imperialism and the Union of South
Africa, 1875– 1910 . Trenton, NJ : Africa World Press .
Maloka , E. 2014 . Friends of the Natives: The Inconvenient Past of South African Liberalism .
Durban : 3rd Millennium Publishing ,
Mamdani , M. ( 2013 ). Define and Rule: Native as Political Identity . Johannesburg: Wits University
Press .
Manji , F . 2019 . ‘Emancipation, Freedom or Taxonomy? What Does It Mean to be African? .’
In Sagtar , V . (Ed.), Racism After Apartheid: Challenges for Marxism and Anti- Racism.
Johannesburg:
Wits University Press
Mao Tse- tung. 1980 . ‘ The Chinese revolution and the Chinese Communist Party’ . In B.
Turok (ed.), Revolutionary Thought in the 20th Century. London : Zed Books , pp. 73 – 89 .
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2469780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 246 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
Racial capitalism 247
Martinez- Vela , C.A . 2001. World Systems Theory . Available at: https:// web.mit.edu/ esd.83/
www/ notebook/ WorldSystem.pdf
Marx , K. and Engels , F. 1848 . Manifesto of the Communist Party. https:// marxists.org/ archive/
marx/ works/ 1848/ communist- manifesto/ (accessed 26 July 2016).
Mbembe , A . 2016. ‘Decolonizing the University: New Directions ’, Higher Education , 15
( 1): 29– 45 .
Moyo , S. 2011. ‘Recent Land Grabs and Subordination of Peasantries.’ In Moyo , S. and
Patnaik , U (Eds). 2011. The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era: Primitive Accumulation
and the Peasantry . Cape Town: Pambazuka Press.
Mkandawire , T. 2012. ‘ Building the African state in the Age of Globalisation: The Role
of Social Compacts and Lessons for South Africa.’ https:// mistra.org.za/ wp- content/
uploads/
2019/ 10/ mkandawireinaugural0312.pdf (accessed 24 July 2019).
Ndlovu , H. 2017 . ‘The Journey through Wits #FeesMustFall 2015/ 16. ’ In C. Chinguno
(ed.), Rioting and Writing: Diaries of the Wits Fallists . Johannesburg : Society Work and
Development Institute (SWOP), University of Witwatersrand.
Poulantzas , N. 1968 . Political Power & Social Classes . London : Ver s o .
Quijano , Aníbal. 2000 . ‘ Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism and Latin America ’, Nepantla: Views
from South, 1 ( 3 ): 533 – 80 .
Robinson , C.J. 2000 . Black Marxism: The Making of a Radical Tradition . Chapel Hill,
NC : University of North Carolina Press .
Rodney , W. 1972 . How Europe Underdeveloped Africa . London : Bogle- L’Ouverture Publications .
South African Communist Party (SACP) . 1928 . ‘The South African question’. https://
marxists.org/
history/ international/ comintern/ sections/ sacp/ 1928/ comintern.htm
(accessed 15 September 2016).
Standing , G. 2016 . ‘ The Precariat, Class and Progressive Politics: A Response’ , Global Labour
Journal , 7 ( 2 ): 189 – 200 .
Teixeira , S.M. and Smith , K.E.I. 2008 . ‘ Core and Periphery Relations: A Case Study of the
Maya’, Journal of World- Systems Research , 5 ( 1 ): 22– 49.
Terreblanche , S. 2012 . Lost in Transformation: South Africa’s Search for a New Future Since 1986 .
Johannesburg : KMM Review Publishing .
Turok , B. 1980 . Revolutionary Thought in the 20th Century . London : Zed Books.
Van Hamme , G. and Pion , G. 2012 . ‘ The Relevance of the World- system Approach in the Era
of Globalization of Economic Flows and Networks’
, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human
Geography, 94 ( 1 ): 65 – 82.
Williams , E. 1944 . Capitalism and Slavery . Chapel Hill, NC : University of North Carolina Press .
Wallerstein , I. 2000 . ‘ Oliver Cox as World- Systems Analyst’ , Research in Race and Ethnic
Relations , 11: 173– 83 .
Wallerstein , I. 2004 . World- Systems Analysis: An Introduction . Durham and London : Duke
University Press.
Wolpe , H. 1972 . ‘ Capitalism and Cheap Labour- Power in South Africa: From Segregation to
Apartheid’ , Economy and Society , 1 ( 4 ): 425 – 56 .
9780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 2479780367708719pre-end_pi-376.indd 247 16-Apr-21 20:23:4216-Apr-21 20:23:42
