What's the point in even recommending something to me if you're not going to give me enough to find whatever it is that you want me to read. You haven't even said what 'Go, Ralph, singhal, etc…' write about or indicated their relevance to the discussion. How am I supposed to know what I'm looking for?

How far do you think I'll get if I type 'Go', 'Ralph', or 'Singhal' into Google. Let me tell you, because it's the first thing I did before asking for more details – nothing if relevance to this conversation.

Are you reluctant to tell me more because you assume that I won't read what you ask me to read because you're not going to bother to watch or read what I recommend to you? And Marxists are the ones living in an echo chamber!

I'm re-phrasing things, yes. This is necessary. We haven't been able to move past the basic premise because you don't understand the central claim in the three or four ways that it's already been expressed. I'm not trying to be more correct. I'm trying to be understood. I'm open to the possiblity that I'm wrong. But for you to challenge what I've said you have to (and demonstrate) that you've understood it.

Edit: for reference, the lecture is titled 'race the floating signifier', as indicated in quotation marks in my previous comment. There was a typo in the second use, outside quotation marks, which read, 'following signifier', which is now corrected. The lecture is here: https://youtu.be/PodKki9g2Pw

[–] Firemyth@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If I thought for a moment you'd actually consider a non-communist approach I'd elaborate- as it is- no, I'm not willing to go dig stuff up for you. Your comment history speaks for itself.

You have the subject of discussion- the authors are on the subject at hand and have papers repudiating the ideas of racial capitalism

Regardless of this absurd tangent- you are still putting words in the original arguments mouth because you are assuming based on his user name (or you know he's one of you because you hang out in previously mentioned echochambers) that he's read and are aware of the same things you are talking about.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is among the most bizarre interactions I've ever had.

Read this

Read what?

I'm not telling you blows a raspberry

How will I ever get out of my echo chamber?

[–] Firemyth@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Yeah. Again. Your history speaks for itself

Just to shut you up on this particular farce

It's Julian Go - Three Tensions in the Theory of Racial Capitalism

Michael Ralph and Maya Singhal - Racial Capitalism

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Thank you.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

They first one is a good article. I have my critique, but it is good. I don't think it contradicts what I've been saying, though. It concludes:

… none of this is to suggest the literature or the racial capitalism concept should be renounced. There are tensions but these are productive tensions. This counsels that we should embrace rather than overthrow the racial capitalism concept. … [T]he problematic it opens up is far too important to ignore.

As for the second, I can't say much until I've dug up more than the abstract but I'll say that while Robinson's work is a good place to start, I'm arguing in the vein of a different tradition, which centers Fanon not Robinson.

Anyway, thanks for the sources. I'm always open to reading more about the concept of racial capitalism.