What Is Anti-Racism, And Why It Means Anti-Capitalism
Arun Kundani, Verso, 2023
This“ book is a polemic against liberal anti-racism that focuses on individual attitudes rather than institutions.”
This is a fascinating well researched and well written book. It raises several important issues. The three of the most important are 1) Structural/Institutional Racism is what is most fundamental. Racist attitudes are a reflection of racist realities. Anti-Racist strategies that focus on the ideas of individuals instead of material reality are doomed to failure and my even be detrimental. 2) Neoliberalism, in spite of its protestations of racial equality, actually reinforces institutional racism.3) In order to be effective, anti-racism must become anti-capitalist !
These insights have been expressed before, but the author explains them thoroughly and usefully. His book is a polemic against liberal anti-racism that focuses on individual attitudes rather than institutions.
Misconstruing Marxism
“the author claims that even revolutionary Marxism leaves people in the Global South waiting on the actions of European workers”
As do many authors, he criticizes the Marxist tradition on anti-racism. The author claims that:
“a more radical anti-racism ..first sprouted among peoples dominated by European colonialism.” (5)
This idea misconstrues the long history of anti-racism among Marxists from Marx and Engels onward. Marx noted in Capital that the rise of capitalism was based on slavery of Africans the genocide against the native people of the Americas. The revolutionary wing of socialism, especially the Bolsheviks, saw the fight against structural racism as central to working class revolution. See Lenin’s What Is To Be Done from 1902.
Kundani also mischaracterizes Marxism in general as Eurocentric. He is of course correct that the record of reformist Social Democrats on colonialism was horrendous. However, the author claims that even revolutionary Marxism leaves people in the Global South waiting on the actions of European workers (54). Marx’s writings and especially the record of Marxism is much more complex than this. This dismissal is belied even in this book when the author discusses the Comintern’s theses on the colonial question.
Comintern Debate on Anti-Colonialism
“later evaluations have often downplayed the importance of Lenin’s contribution and elevated Roy’s”
His analysis of Lenin’s and Roy’s contribution to the Comintern debate on colonialism is very interesting. Lenin called for a united front of revolutionary workers with bourgeois liberation movements against imperialism. Lenin however argued for differentiation between the two. He said it was important not to “clothe those movements in communist colors.” By this, he meant that only the working class can lead a socialist revolution. He did however see the overthrow of colonialism as an important step in the direction that Marxists needed to go. This harkened back to Lenin’s argument for the right of nations to self-determination.
Roy was more pessimistic about bourgeois national liberation movement and more optimistic about the potential of revolutionary movements in the colonized world. He wanted the Comintern to support revolutionary movements, not just any bourgeois national independence movements. He was more optimistic that revolutionary movements would break out that could lead to socialism rather than just capitalist independence. Superficially, Roy’s position seemed closer to Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution. Lenin’s position superficially seemed more accepting of a stages theory, first bourgeois independence and then later socialist revolution.
In fact, Lenin was trying to preserve the independence of the working-class movement and the working-class basis of Marxism. The colonial countries had relatively small working classes and had to be protected from amalgamation with other movements. Roy’s “permanent revolution” strategy was based on a belief in the revolutionary potential of the peasant movements as well as a more optimistic assessment of the size of the industrial proletariat in India. In this, his strategy moved away from the centrality of the working class.
The Comintern compromise was to have Marxists form united fronts with revolutionary movements. There were good elements in both positions that led to the Comintern position. However, later evaluations have often downplayed the importance of Lenin’s contribution and elevated Roy’s. This goes along with Third-Worldism and rejection of the foundation of working-class revolutionary agency. The author seems to favor Roy’s position and therefore leans toward Third-Worldism. He reinforces this impression when praising Nkrumah’s statement that “the conflict between rich and poor had been transferred “from the national to the international stage.”(95)
What Class is the Agency of Socialist Revolution?
“The author argues that effective anti-racism must become anti-capitalist. However, his definition of anti-capitalism is different than traditional Marxism. It does not rely on the working class but looks for other agents such as peasants…”
Obviously, Marxism can be and has been enriched by other strands of politics including anti-colonial radicalism. However, to imply that the latter is the necessary basis of its anti-racism is wrong. The problem with this analysis is that it lends support to the idea that something beyond socialist revolution is needed to overcome racism. In fact, socialist revolution based on the working-class eliminating capitalism is the only way to end structural racism. Working class revolution can only succeed if anti-racism is central to the revolutionary movement. A working class still divided on race lines can never succeed in overthrowing capitalism. Helpfully the author raises the need to overcome racism within the working class throughout the book.
The author argues that effective anti-racism must become anti-capitalist. However, his definition of anti-capitalism is different than traditional Marxism. It does not rely on the working class but looks for other agents such as peasants and the urban poor generally. This shows clearly in his appreciation of Franz Fanon’s peasant orientation. (83)
The author’s discussion of the development of the Comintern position on anti-colonial struggle shows this.
He further tries to separate W.E.B. Du Bois and C.L.R. James from the overall Marxist tradition. In fact, when they wrote key works on anti-racist struggles, The Black Jacobins and Black Reconstruction they actually saw themselves as applying Marxism.
The author has an interesting discussion of Martin Luther King Jr. He notes that King is seen as a proponent of the liberal view of anti-racism. However, he argues that:
“The beating heart of his politics was more the radical anti-racism of the 1940s than the U.S. Liberal tradition with which he is usually associated.” (117)
He also discusses other radical anti-racists from the 1960s.
Racial Capitalism
He points out that the origin of “racial capitalism” is in the analysis of South Africa, where Black workers could be paid less than whites because they relied on precapitalist economies in the homelands. This useful analysis of South Africa has been extended to all of capitalism. (127). Whether this extension is accurate has been debated widely among leftists. Revolutionary Marxists of course accept the idea that racism and capitalism are so structurally intertwined that they must be eliminated together. The discussion of South Africa helpfully leads to further consideration of Settler Colonial theory in general.
Kundani discusses Black Marxism by Cedric Robinson. Robinson rejected the Marxist view that institutional racism rose with capitalism. Robinson claimed that Western/European culture was hierarchical and racist before the rise of capitalism.
Neoliberalism and Racism
“The author stresses that this racism flows from the actions and structures of capitalism. It flows from the “moderate”, established institutions, not first of all from “extremists” such as Nazis.”
The author has an interesting discussion on Neoliberalism and racism. The proponents of marketization felt that it would only work with the proper cultural attitudes. The collectivist cultures of the East were seen as obstacles to fully free market capitalism. This required a strong campaign including force:
“ ..the logic of the War on Terror in a nutshell: violence is deemed necessary , not primarily to prevent terrorism, but to bring about a cultural change among Muslims around the world.” (21)
“Anti-Muslim racism is therefore indispensable to the War on Terror” (22)
This in turn led to a revision of the supposed libertarianism of Neoliberalism. Libertarianism would imply allowing open immigration. However, to maintain a cultural basis for neoliberal policies, people from collectivist cultures had to be kept out of the country! (177) Immigration controls were essential to enforcement of neo-liberal policies according to its strongest proponents. This in turn reinforced the racism of Neoliberalism.
The author stresses that this racism flows from the actions and structures of capitalism. It flows from the “moderate”, established institutions, not first of all from “extremists” such as Nazis (24)
“The more that the market failed to win universal consent and had to be imposed by force on unwilling populations, the more neoliberals relied on racist ideas of culture to manage their anxieties, organize their proposals and legitimate their aggression.” (182)
This is key to the author’s assertion that Neoliberalism reinforces rather than undermines racism. Those on the Left that accept the theory that Neoliberalism undermines racism are inclined to support Class Reductionism — -the strategy that does not focus on special oppression of people of color. Instead, it tries to create class unity by only focusing on issues that affect all workers.
Kundani’s attack on liberal idealist anti-racism is savage and well-warranted. That theory focuses on individual attitudes and sees the solution as education. Instead, the author calls for material transformation and finally abolishing the capitalist system which is inherently racist. He says that unfortunately the liberal individualist analysis of racism is dominant among progressives in the U.S. (40).
Imperialism and Racism
“I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia…stronger race, a higher grade race..has come in and taken their place.” Winston Churchill
In discussing imperialism as an important factor in international racism, the author notes that cultural relativism sometimes supported racism:
“the colonial government did not wish to erase native cultures; instead, it sought to mobilize them for its own ends. It defined what India’s cultural traditions were, set the boundaries of when they applied, and decided who could authentically represent them. “define and rule.””(48)
This was paralleled by the economic strategy. Capitalists did not seek to immediately eradicate all native economic forms. Instead, it sought to use them for its own accumulation. Capitalists primarily seek money, not capitalism.
Of course, this cultural relativism was accompanied by the actual deep attitudes of the colonists:
“I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia…stronger race, a higher grade race..has come in and taken their place.” Winston Churchill (51)
Western Development Strategies
Kundani’s analysis of Western development strategies under Neoliberalism is very interesting:
“U.S. policy makers abandoned the earlier goal of fostering bourgeois civil society in Third World States. Instead, in line with neoliberal thinking, their new aim was to prevent mass struggles outside the West from making redistributive demands at the international level.” (186)
“By the end of the 1970s, US development policy was wholly focused on using market mechanisms to break the social expectations of Third World peasants and workers.” (196)
This was accomplished in part by the World Bank and IMF imposing structural adjustment programs.
Neoliberalism has resulted in an international division of labor that reinforces racism:
“ ..a new imperialism has operated through a global racial division of labor and unequal exchanges in global supply chains.”(195)
The author also argues that Neoliberalism accelerates the growth of a “surplus population” even in the Northern countries. This in turn requires more repression and racism to justify that repression.
The author finishes the book with a quote from A. Sivanandan from the Institute for Race Relations:
“The Fight against racism is, therefore, a fight against the state which sanctions and authorizes it — -even if by default — — in the institutions and structures of society and in the behavior of public officials.” (249)
Kundani follows this up with a summary of his overall analysis:
“The racial attitudes of individuals — whether they be deportation officers, police officers, or capitalists — matter very little compared to the structures of law and policy and broader economic and institutional practices. “(249)
This focus on opposition to capitalism and the capitalist state rather than individual attitudes is most welcome!
This book is insightful and well worth reading in spite of its excessive critique of the Marxist tradition and ambiguity on the agency of social transformation.
