After reading Kelley’s explanation of Robinson’s idea of
“racial capitalism,” I was caught off guard and a bit daunted by his comparison
between medieval feudalism and current racial capitalism. Kelley argues that in
the current political climate of state-sanctioned violence and mass
incarceration, Robinson’s concept of modern racial capitalism is relevant and
even predictable in the context of the history of the West.
The United
States is in the midst of a widening economic gap between the rich and the poor,
and it’s only supposed to get worse in the coming four years because of the
proposed political policies favoring The 1% and disenfranchising The 99%.
Robinson argued that true leadership came from among the people rather than
above the people – that is to say that the Leader cannot be a King figure but a
People’s figure (this is especially interesting to consider given the amount of
executive orders coming from the Oval Office these days). Basically, Robinson
asserted that vertical organization does not work because it disenfranchises
someone inherently based on the intertwined histories of feudalism and
capitalism. Horizontal organization is what’s up, y’all.
Personally,
the most mind-blowing part of Kelley’s breakdown of Robinson’s idea was the
idea that capitalism is not an equalizer
(a.k.a. equal opportunity for advancement) but
a great divider coming out of a feudal tradition of racialized hierarchies
in the Middle Ages. Feudal economies thrived on the large-scale
disenfranchisement of peasants – serfs owed their livelihoods and safety to
rich landowners (sharecropping, anyone?). This is all to say that the United
States simply evolved out of the system of feudalism and created the
institution of slavery and then segregation based on the same model.
Therefore, modern capitalism in the
U.S. (favoring The 1%) is predictable and
should not surprise any of us. The culture we’re experiencing is grounded in a
tradition of domination rather than equal opportunity. Without re-thinking what
we consider to be “real leadership,” we might be destined to repeat the same pattern
of progress that Medieval Europe cycled through. I don’t want to make
assumptions, but I would argue that some of the Despots would say that it
didn’t turn out so well for them.
I appreciate your reflections Kelley's reflections on Robinson's writing. Here are some of my (minor) reflections.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism at its genesis, was very revolutionary thought and practice compared to feudal society. With capitalism you could own private property and profit off of what you owned, instead of it belonging to the land lords. Viola! Equality! But only if you were... educated, white, male, etc. So after generations (centuries) exclusive access to capital for one group, the "revolutionary" and "liberating" idea from the Enlightenment period has become oppressive. Shocker!
The myth of the status quo is that what is always has been and always will be. This simply has no historical basis, but tends to be our understanding of the current system. Socialism, has been the next revolutionary idea, but has yet to catch on. Do we foresee socialism becoming the dominant system in our lifetime? If so, what will be the catalyst?