Economic Democracy against Racial Capitalism: Seeding Freedom

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Society Pub Date : 2023-04-25 DOI:10.1177/00323292231164247

S. Pinto

引用次数: 1

Abstract

In conversation with Ferreras’s proposal for economic bicameralism, the current article makes the case for a more direct confrontation between conceptions of economic democracy and the realities of racial capitalism. In particular, it considers how efforts to expand power and voice for workers must contend with the racial hierarchy that marks the socioeconomic division of labor and the related use of racial distinctions to thwart labor solidarity. Focusing on the American context, the argument draws inspiration from the work and vision of two key figures in the unfinished struggle for Black liberation, W. E. B. Du Bois and Fannie Lou Hamer. After recapping core elements of Ferreras’s proposal, the article briefly examines the historical evolution of racial capitalism, starting with its roots in slavery and conquest. It then considers how movements agitating for greater worker power have intervened within this landscape. Against this backdrop, it draws lessons for how economic bicameralism might fit within a broader set of struggles that challenge racial capitalism as it exists today.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

反对种族资本主义的经济民主:播种自由

在与费雷拉斯关于经济两院制的建议的对话中，本文提出了经济民主概念与种族资本主义现实之间更直接对抗的案例。特别是，它考虑了扩大工人权力和发言权的努力必须如何与标志着社会经济分工的种族等级制度以及相关的利用种族差异来阻碍工人团结的做法相抗衡。聚焦于美国的背景，这一论点从两位未完成的黑人解放斗争的关键人物w·e·b·杜波依斯和芬妮·卢·哈默的工作和愿景中获得灵感。在回顾费雷拉斯建议的核心要素之后，本文简要地考察了种族资本主义的历史演变，从其根源于奴隶制和征服开始。然后，它考虑了争取更大工人权力的运动是如何介入这一格局的。在这种背景下，它为经济两院制如何适应挑战今天存在的种族资本主义的更广泛的斗争提供了经验教训。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.

期刊最新文献

Bringing Household Finance Back In: House Prices and the Missing Macroeconomics of Comparative Political Economy Who Pays for Environmental Policy? Business Power and the Design of State-Level Climate Policies* Supervising Local Cadres in China: The Quest for Authoritarian Accountability Rethinking Antitrust for the Cloud Era Antitrust and Equal Liberty