Opinion: Racial Capitalism and Palestinians' Struggle
- Iraz Küçüker
- Oct 3, 2024
- 4 min read
In my attempts to contextualize the ongoing brutality towards the Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank both physically and on mediascape (especially since the attacks of the 7th of October) with the working definition of racialization, “a socio-political process that disciplines humanity into full humans, not-quite humans, and non-humans” (Weheliye 2014, 3), the question of why becoming fully human almost always comes at the expense of dehumanizing the other kept recurring. While the definition in itself suggests a constructivist approach to the human condition that is context-dependent and solidified via institutions, languages, discourses, technologies, and more (Weheliye 2014, 3), it does not necessarily pinpoint the driving forces through this conquest for humanization is always directly in the misfortune of another party. While for some, the existence of Israel as a sovereign state can be inferred as an existential necessity for Jewish people, who experienced the dehumanizing power of antisemitism themselves, to establish themselves as fully humans, it also meant turning a blind eye to how this process came with constant attempts to de-value the existence of Palestinian lives in the region through radicalization and fixating on cultural, religious, racial differences.
In his article from 1999, Edward Said mentions how a bilateral state can be the only solution to this conflict involving two sides with near-irreconcilable objectives, requiring an understanding of equal citizenship that prevails over ethnic and religious criteria (Said 1999). Almost a quarter of a century later, achieving a bilateral state solution based on equal citizenship seems further away than ever, leaving its place to the bloodshed of civilians, ethnic stereotypes, and generations of hate. How come the latter but not the former prevails as a way to deal with this conflict? What is the motivation behind opting for the most inhumane course of action if the goal is to be evaluated as fully human? Is it due to an innate antipathy between people? To tackle these questions, the critical theory of Oliver C. Cox of race relations and its entanglement with capitalism serves as an insightful framework through its discussion of how the historical origins of racism reside in the rise of capitalism (Klarlund 1994). The remainder of this essay will include a summary of Cox’s theory and argue that it proves valuable in understanding the decades-long occupation of Palestine and how it is sustained.
In his work, Cox argued that the root of racial exploitation and prejudice was the rise of capitalism and nationalism, not an inherent instinct of antipathy between competing groups (Klarlund 1994, 85-86). For Cox, race prejudices had been inhibited through cultural assimilation up until a point where economic exploitation became a pervasive part of the European states' strategic agenda with the discovery of America and reached its full maturity in the late nineteenth century. However, once the potential exploitation of a sub-group started to promise a higher capitalistic economic gain, racialization became an important tool to hinder the assimilation of the minority, rendering them more exploitable by the dominant group (Klarlund 1994, 88). One could argue the expectation to assimilate in order not to be socially, politically, and culturally discriminated is proof that racial prejudices predate capitalism, as Robinson would also discuss in his account of how the European civilization was firmly rooted in racialism and antagonistic differences from very early on and that this helped the proliferation of capitalism as an economic system (Robinson 1983, 9-10). In this regard, Cox differentiates social intolerance from racial prejudice and argues that the class system in pre-capitalist times did not hold a racial stigma. Liberation through cultural assimilation provided grounds for equal citizenship. Racialization, on the other hand, is symptomatic of a more expansive issue, the class struggle (Klarlund 1994, 86-87). This positioning can be criticized by the likes of Charles Mills as being class reductionist, ignoring the historicity, phenomenology, and centrality of race (Allahar 2015, 436). Nevertheless, Cox's theory of race relations remains an insightful analytical framework for understanding the rationale behind the significance attributed to differences in parts that construct our identities including race, one of the most visible markers, and continuous efforts to sustain a strong hierarchy.
Finally, returning to the case at hand, the Israeli-Palestinian war, although it leads to consequences that go way beyond economic concerns, Cox’s insights could explain why the dehumanization of Palestinians, their reduction to potential terrorists and human shields who pose a threat to Israel's right to self-determination not only by the colonizers themselves, but also by the United States who possesses significant economic and geopolitical stakes concerning Israel and thereupon the EU, the latter of which had its share of antisemitism throughout its history, have been very adamant and blocked the way of achieving a common ground to resolve the conflict without resorting to an apartheid regime and attempts to validate the mass murder of civilians: Exploitation stems from division, discrimination, and dehumanization, and it needs to be maintained to guarantee capital gains. However, just like capitalism itself, the impact of racialization it bears and how it reflects on populations can get out of control and mean more than economics, as is also exemplified in this case.
Bibliography
Allahar, Anton L. 2014. “Marxist or not? Oliver Cromwell Cox on capitalism
and class versus “race”.” Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 39, no:3: 420-444.
Klarlund, Susan E. 1994. “The origins of Racism: The Critical Theory of Oliver Cox.” Mid American Review of sociology 18, ½: 85-92.
Robinson, Cedrick J. 2000. Black Marxism. The Making of the Black Radical Tradition, 9-28. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina press.
Said, Edward. 1999. “The One State Solution.” The New York Times Magazine, January 10, 1999.
Weheliye, Alexander Ghedi. 2014. Habeas viscus : racializing assemblages, biopolitics, and black feminist theories of the human. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822376491
Comments