The interview is about an anthology book on black studies that he’s a part of. It also includes W.E.B. Du Bois, James Baldwin, Angela Davis, Octavia Butler, Bell Hooks, Barbara Smith, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Huey Newton, and Bobby Seale. The ebook is available for free from Haymarket Books.
I.O.: You put this book together with two of the most prominent Black Marxists in the country, and most, if not all, of the featured writers are anti-capitalists. How did this collaboration come about?
C.K.: I’ve long admired Keeanga and Robin’s work as well as their uncompromising political analysis and understanding that Black liberation simply isn’t possible under capitalism. I think the anthology makes this argument quite well, and I hope it challenges readers to see that racism is not white supremacy’s only ingredient. White supremacy persists in part because of its relationship with capitalism, heteropatriarchy, ableism, and so on.
I.O.: What are you reading these days?
C.K.: No More Police: A Case for Abolition by Mariame Kaba and Andrea J. Ritchie. Abolition. Feminism. Now. by Angela Y. Davis, Gina Dent, Erica R. Meiners, and Beth E. Richie.
Edit: I’ve put this in c/news because I originally found this out via an article on The Hill and I was going to post that, but then I thought I’ll just post the original interview instead. It has a lot more information.
You must log in or register to comment.
Nah sounds like a radlib. Reading western “Marxist” intellectuals doesn’t mean shit.
The nooo dont read marxist theory its sooo like whitey mcmayoid is literally a liberal plot to undermine communist thought, you should not treat marx and other philosophers as gospel, but like use it to build a movement that is based on your current conditions and that includes religion, history and economic relations of your country. So Congolese Communism will be inherently different and tailored to congolese people than English Communism.
Saying stuff like “Black liberation simply isn’t possible under capitalism” takes him pretty firmly out of radlib territory
No it doesn’t. Criticism of capitalism is completely consistent with liberalism. Call me when he embraces a positive alternative.
No it’s not. Liberals, if they criticise capitalism, always clarify they mean crony capitalism or predatory capitalism or something else like that. And follow that up by talking of some good, idealised capitalism that is actually necessary.
That’s really not true at all. Most radlibs will list serious complaints about capitalism, but then say some shit like “but it’s the best system out of all the options”
Radlib is a term whose meaning depends on the person using it.
To a DSA baby DemSoc, a radlib is someone like Elizabeth Warren, someone that coopts anti-capitalist criticisms into milquetoast, explicitly pro-capitalist reforms.
To various kinds of commie, all forms of capitalist reformism or incrementalism might be criticized as radlib, so e.g. they might criticize Bolivia’s MAS as radlib (hopefully quietly and behind closed doors).
I think we don’t know much about CK. It’s at least a good thing for “black liberation is incompatible with capitalism” to be a more popular sentiment.
To me, the CPC is “radlib”
Mom said it’s my turn to be the websites one leftist
Criticism of capitalism, yes. Entirely disregarding it and saying that liberation is incompatible with capitalism, no.
Disagree. What do you think a radlib sounds like? That’s exactly what they would say. Without embracing a positive alternative to capitalism you can say whatever you want it doesn’t matter.
You’re missing the part where the radlibs make sure to shit on AES so that people don’t get the impression that they’re a mean bad tankie
