‘Capitalism is back!’, Fraser (2022, p.1) proclaims in the opening statement of Cannibal Capitalism: How Our System is Devouring Democracy, Care, and the Planet – and What We Can Do about It. To be clear, Fraser is not suggesting that ‘capitalism’ disappeared. Rather, she is observing that ‘capitalism’ had been largely disappeared as an object of broad public critique for some time, passé in the academy, too, the purview of wistful modernists and cranks. In the U.S. and a variety of Western societies, some of this disappearance can be attributed to right-wing media and propaganda campaigns, while the establishment Left or Labour did its fair share of edging concerns with the good society out of view in favor of a goods society propped up by a ‘progressive neoliberalism’ that combined ‘ideals of emancipation with lethal financialization’ (Fraser, 2017, p.44). In recent years, unlikely commentators, ranging from the Pope and media personalities to ethno-Marxists, reactionary populists, eco-socialists, anti-consumerist Christians, and young, progressive activists, have all levied increasingly pitched public criticism of capitalism or, by proxy, by critiquing its effects, even if from different positions and in the interests of different futures or imaginary pasts. The list of the aggrieved could be extended even further. Many people, with very different interests, clearly don’t like capitalism. Increasingly, many seem little interested in democracy, too, perhaps an achievement of the market fundamentalists’ efforts in synonymizing ‘democracy’ and the ‘free market’ – of economics devouring politics, of the consumer/worker cannibalizing the citizen. 

Yet, with all the anti-capitalist noise, can we say with similar confidence, ‘Socialism is back!’? Not so much. Where to begin then, and what gives? What is left if we can’t imagine confidently exclaiming, ‘Socialism is back!’?

One would do well to begin with Fraser (2022). And, where or with whom does Fraser begin? In the framework and title for her book, she clearly takes a hint from Rosa Luxemburg. Luxemburg (1961), it is commonly known, argued that capitalism required non-economic resources and institutions in its formative stages and ‘proceed[ed] by assimilating the very condition which alone can ensure its own existence’ (p. 416). Like a snake or serpent, the Ouroboros, eating its tail, capitalism’s appetite will eventually lead it to feed on vital organs when it doesn’t already do so by necessity. The liver, like, say, the municipality’s water treatment facility, is not a pretty organ; try living well, much less for long, if it’s damaged.  Hence Cannibal Capitalism. Yet, more centrally, Fraser (2022) begins with Marx (1976), and Capital, a bold and seemingly unfashionable move in some quarters, this reader would assume. Be that as it may, capitalism certainly has not gone anywhere, and Marx’s central observations in Capital remain stubbornly accurate. The fundamental economic components of capitalism’s machinery that Marx analyzed in Capital endure: private property, doubly free labor, the assumption of self-expanding value, and the primacy of markets in determining inputs/resources for production and how the surplus will be hoarded or invested – all occupy a central place in our economic relationships, policies and laws, while shaping the experience of everyday life (Fraser, 2022, pp. 3-5). Inequality, like production itself, persists seemingly intractably, even if its geography, rationalization, and management have changed or intensified (Bauman, 1998; Wacquant, 2009). What’s more and more centrally, production, or the ‘hidden abode’, as Marx (2011[1906]) scrupulously detailed, still provides the background condition for wealth creation, as seen in a society’s ‘”immense accumulation of commodities’” (p.41).[i] Immense accumulation of wealth for some, and immense disaccumulation for many others – so much remains common between our time and that of Marx’s Capital. Fraser (2022) knows that so much is different, too, or at least needs to be interpreted differently if we are to develop a fuller understanding of, and create a formidable and credible alternative to, capitalism today. 

Further developing a thesis that she initially sketched in New Left Review (Fraser, 2014), Fraser’s (2022) core question can be cast in the following ways. If production remains the background condition for the creation of wealth, upon what background conditions does capitalism more generally rely? What necessarily operates behind the hidden abode, in other words? On what non-economic or indirectly economic realms and domains of action does capitalism necessarily gorge itself to make the immense accumulation (and waste) of things possible? Capitalism, on this view, did not begin – nor does it sustain itself – with the productive process and economy, but with a variety of relationships, resources, and institutions peripheral to, or behind, production and exchange. One could go even further back with Marx here. The young Marx argued that alienation is, at its root, division – division of the worker from what s/he produces, division of the worker from his/her activity, division of worker from species-being, and division of the worker from others (Marx, 1992 [1844]). Fraser (2022) widens the frame and argues that capitalism in its totality is an ‘institutionalized societal order’ that relies upon structural divisions constructed between the ‘economy’ and its non-economic conditions of possibility (p.19). Division, top to bottom and laterally, makes capitalism possible as a societal order. Division is its unity. Fraser (2022) consequently identifies four critical realms, parsed for analytical clarity but, as she demonstrates throughout, overlap and interact in reality:  accumulation at the boundary of exploitation<->expropriation; social reproduction <-> production; nature/non-human systems<-> capitalism; the state<-> capitalism. The interactions or ‘boundary struggles’ between the economic foreground and non-economic background conditions, in Fraser’s (2022) view, contain great potential, for ill or good. Though marked by the contradictions that provoke them, boundary struggles provide sites of opposition and augur the possibility of transformation. Seemingly taking another hint from Luxemburg, while jettisoning the latter’s fidelity to scientific socialism, Fraser (2022) argues that crisis is endemic to capitalism, not necessarily the ‘economy’, but because of the struggles and strain – the crises – that it creates at the boundaries between the economy and its non-economic background conditions of possibility on which it preys.

Fraser (2022) characterizes these structural divisions between the economy and non-economic realms and their boundaries as follows: the production of workers through the interplay of processes of exploitation and expropriation, the latter relying on structural racism as something part and parcel of capitalism; production and social reproduction, a disproportionately gendered boundary that interacts concurrently with every other realm; capitalism and nature/non-human systems; and capitalism and the state, the background political condition of possibility for capitalist market relationships. It is this interactive complex of structured divisions between capitalism’s foreground (distinctly economic relationships) and its reliance on and ceaseless diminishment of the background conditions of possibility (the non-economic realms) that informs Fraser’s (2022) characterization of capitalism as an ‘institutionalized societal order’ and not merely an ‘economic system or form of reified ethical life’ (p.19). The ‘economy’ cannot exist without the other realms. Let’s cursorily consider these structural divisions.

From where does capitalism get workers? Through primitive accumulation as Marx explained. Untethered from feudal relationships, workers were and remain free, in a double sense: ‘in terms of legal status – not enslaved, enserfed, entailed, or otherwise bound to a given place or master’ and ‘”free” from access to the means of subsistence and means of production…’ (Fraser, 2022, p. 4). People have to work, for someone else, to eat, pay the rent, etc., once they are stripped of the tools and resources, including time, to produce their food and reproduce their daily existence. Such is the basis of exploitation. Fraser does not disagree with this account as much as argue that Marx’s view needs to be extended for it cannot account for the ongoing role of racism in capitalism and the fact that the ‘ideology of race’ emerged alongside or with capitalism (Fields, 1990). Here, Fraser’s guiding question can be understood to be, What is the background condition for exploitation?

As Fraser (2022) explains, the process of exploitation interacts with and is made possible by expropriation, a structural dynamic that worked and continues to operate on the idea of ‘race’ on a global scale and intra-nationally, as the different racial modernities of the U.S., Brazil, and South Africa demonstrate (Goldberg, 1993; Goldberg, 2002; Goldberg, 2008; Winant, 2001). ‘Free’ workers – the exploited – have rights and protections, and comparatively greater privilege, because others and their environment, at home and abroad, are exposed, violable, unprotected – open to cannibalization. ‘Race’ works to rationalize why some can be exposed and violated, and why others can do as much, even if or because they themselves are exploited. Yet, as Fraser (2022) and others have observed, gendered relationships also underpin the interplay between exploitation and expropriation as can be seen in the disproportionate effects of debt for women on the international stage due to the microloan industry and then, on the domestic front, the outsized roles played by female service and care workers coming from the global South and East as ‘rights-bearing’ women (increasingly an oxymoron in the U.S.) get pushed ever more intensively into punishing wage-labor relationships. As the line between exploitation and expropriation gets narrower and blurred, thanks in good measure to financialized capitalism, threatening to expose ‘rights-bearing’ workers, too, Fraser eyes a volatile boundary struggle for which the Western Left has not yet provided an appealing response. Such can be seen in the U.S. in particular, but also in other Western democracies (e.g., Italy, France, Germany), in the rise of fascist groups that capitalize on white (largely male) working class anxieties, as if the global poor approaching their nations’ doorsteps or shingling their roofs, digging their ditches, paving their roads, servicing their restaurant tables, and cleaning the citadels of finance capitalism aren’t plagued by existential anxiety, too. Something compelled the expropriated to jump from the frying pan that is their home country into the fire that is their receiving country. The Left, as Fraser (2022) notes, needs to create cross-ethnic or -ancestral alliances that, interestingly, could further expose the secret relationship between exploitation and expropriation that financialized capitalism has started to reveal on its own.[ii] The exploited and expropriated increasingly work and live much more closely together, and rely that much more on each other in the course of daily life, sometimes to their mutual disbelief or perceived chagrin. Grounds exist at this boundary, in Fraser’s view, for the ‘joint abolition’ of exploitation and expropriation (p.52). Neither will be challenged unless both are simultaneously opposed.

While Fraser devotes much more attention to the capitalism-nature boundary, I have dwelled somewhat long on the exploitation-expropriation nexus as the background condition for accumulation not because this boundary holds any greater primacy over the other boundaries in feeding capitalist interests, but because of the socio-political immediacy and volatility of this boundary, particularly in the national context from which I write. Wide and historically deep institutional and cross-realm relationships exist to offer license for societal-wide violence and other anti-political activity at this boundary. Thanks to the U.S. iteration of the ideology of ‘race’, it’s so much easier for the exploited to hate and exact violence on the expropriated, and those who advocate for them, than to challenge the system that exploits them. This boundary struggle over the production of workers is as much a critical political issue as it is an ‘economic’ one, especially as many of the exploited increasingly see the state not as a mere advocate but an avatar of the expropriated (Hochschild, 2016; Mbembe, 2019; Sharlet, 2023). (See the January 6, 2021, U.S. Insurrection for evidence.)

These immediate concerns with the exploitation-expropriation nexus aside, the state has always acted as a background condition for capitalism, as Fraser (2022) notes, drawing upon a variety of past and contemporary interlocutors. So much is not new to Left theory. The state produces and enforces laws that protect private property and corporate interest, so much so that, in the U.S., the Supreme Court decided in 2010 that, for the purposes of campaign finance laws, corporations are individuals and their unbridled selection and sponsorship of politicians is protected free speech. (A well-resourced, plural citizen that is not required otherwise to exercise the same responsibilities and comport with the same laws as individual citizens.) Further, the state offers military intervention to open and guard markets abroad, while police forces protect market interests at home. The state intervenes in labour disputes, creates (or erases) environmental regulations, sets tax and interest rates, etc., all this under the guise of ‘free market’ economics. The state, per force, grants rights, determining who acts as doubly-free labor and who can be violable, or who is simply disposable. So what’s of new concern? Not much, except the way that Fraser (2022) presents the boundary between capitalism and the state and the light that her analysis of this boundary shines on the various ways the state is at work (or not) in the intensification or mediation of crises at the boundaries of the other non-economic realms.

Yet, for this reader, Fraser’s (2022) concise and strident argument against capitalism stands out most prominently in her consideration of the state-capitalism boundary. Following on the theme of cannibalism, Fraser excoriates capitalists for the ways that capitalism ‘butchers’ democracy, to borrow from the title of chapter five: ‘Butchering Democracy: Why Political Crisis is Capital’s Red Meat.’ Offering a corrective to the prevailing common sense reinforced since the 1980s, Fraser (2022) explains how capitalism is plainly ‘inimical to democracy’ (p. 117). For Fraser (2022), it’s not only or merely about the values associated with capitalism that undermine democracy (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism, impulsivity vs. caution, competition vs cooperation or collaboration), but also the structural divisions that capitalism, with the state’s assistance, has installed and reinforces between polity and economy, and polity and government, long-standing divisions that neoliberal and financialized capitalism have only further fortified. Tremendous potential for crisis exists when polity effectively becomes purely workers alone, whether in the productivist or consumerist guise. Capitalism creates political (and social) problems that it has no immediate interest in resolving and, perhaps, has an interest in actually fomenting (think: disaster capitalism) (Saltman, 2007), while it has eroded the effective capacities for government intervention. Fraser sees this crisis of democratic governance on the global stage as the result of a ‘double whammy’: States face more complex problems that they cannot resolve for their citizens, while ‘global banks’ that ‘have hobbled the state’ operate independent of political fetters (p.128). By artificially separating politics and economy, Fraser (2022) further argues that the scope of the political shrinks, which means the space of effective democratic action shrinks. Fraser (2022) at length on this point:

Devolving vast aspects of the social life to the rule of ‘the market’ (in reality, to large corporations), it declares them off limits to democratic decision making, collective action, and public control. The arrangement deprives us of the ability to decide collectively what and how much we want to produce, on what energic basis and through what kinds of social relations. It deprives us, too, of the capacity to determine how we want to use the social surplus we collectively produce; how we want to relate to nature and to future generations; how we want to organize the work of social reproduction and its relation to that of production. By virtue of its inherent structure, then, capitalism is fundamentally anti-democratic.

p. 122

Fraser (2002) puts a finer, summary point on the matter: Because of the way that neoliberalism and financialized capitalism have transfigured the relationship between economy and polity (pp.127-128), we have entered the ‘era of “governance without government”’ (p.130). This current crisis of government looks even more despairing when considering the existing and likely boundary struggles between the environment and capitalism, and production and social reproduction.

Capitalism’s always-existing free-riding on and destruction of the environment has come under ever-increasing scrutiny. Governments, like the U.S., unsurprisingly lack both the political will and capacities to address environmental degradation on an intra-national level, particularly that which is directly or indirectly the result of corporate activity and interest. On a global scale, corporations, like the politically independent global banks, fear not being held accountable by a transnational political organization. One of Fraser’s (2022) most striking observations and subsequent argument emerges out of these broad and despairing illustrations of political impotence relative to the boundary between capitalism and the environment.

Fraser (2022) frames her investigation of this boundary with the claim that ‘Anti-capitalism…could – indeed should – become the central organizing motif of a new common sense’ (p.78). In her view, one cannot be pro-ecology and pro-capitalist, no matter the greenwashing in which corporations and states engage. Fraser makes a convincing argument that, more centrally, environmental degradation, corporate plundering of natural resources, and the division between humans and the environment, or non-human systems, is not a necessary or inevitable part of socialism, but all these things, especially a tendency toward ‘eco-crisis’ because of the blind separation created between capitalism and nature and humans and non-human systems (p.80), are structurally endemic to capitalism, and more intensively so in its consumerist guise: incessantly strip natural resources to make disposable goods (another oxymoron), produce waste and pollution in the process, send wasted goods back to nature, and have workers labor and live in contaminated environments (the domain of social reproduction). This argument seen differently: Capitalist produced environmental degradation cannot be fixed by capitalism, and hence any efforts to promote environmental sustainability must be anti-capitalist. And, the reason is patently obvious: Profit – not the environment and the ways that environmental destruction impinges on other realms like social reproduction and the boundary between exploitation and expropriation – remains the driving motive on the one hand, and corporations strip individuals and communities of democratic participation in developing long-term solutions for environmental damage they suffer and forms of social organization to prevent future destruction, on the other. Cast another way, every form of capitalism has knowingly plundered nature, capitalists know as well as any other that their continued livelihood relies upon the vitality of nature, and yet they continue to plunder even as evidence daily shows that nature, this background condition, cannot feasibly satiate their appetite much longer, while the overlapping, and disproportionately gendered, effects of environmental degradation on social reproduction promise to enflame crises at its boundary with production.

What about the boundary issues between production and social production? A few ideas underpin Fraser’s (2022) analysis of the interplay between the two. Social reproduction, or the ‘care strand’, is so foundational to – woven into – all of the other background conditions that it must be understood in relation to other ‘strands of the broader crisis’ (environment, government, labor) (p.54). Who parents or cares for the young when the adults work? Who educates future citizens and workers? Who nurses the injured, sick, and elderly? In what conditions and with what resources, time being one of them, do they perform care? How is that care valuated? Fraser’s (2022) second and third guiding observations indicate that our ‘care crunch’, or care deficit, has ‘deep structural roots…in financialized capitalism’, while ‘indicat[ing] something rotten not only in the system’s current form but in capitalist society per se’ (p.54), something she extensively inventories and analyzes across different capitalist eras. Women, of course, provide the vast bulk of social reproductive activity, and they, along with children, experience the brunt of the strain when capitalism presses upon or undermines the institutional conditions for social reproduction. Historically, not all women experienced the same strains on social reproduction, and the same holds true today, as women flee or are pushed out of their countries for religious or political reasons, or voluntarily leave their families to earn more money, and enter wealthier countries to provide care for other people’s children or elderly family members, or service and maintain their educational and healthcare institutions or homes, ‘freeing’ other women to engage in productive wage labor. Here, one can see that not only is social reproduction preyed upon by capitalists when strain is produced in the realm of social reproduction, but social reproduction also overlaps with or enters into the exploitation<->expropriation nexus, while creating a new geography in care deficits by moving ‘care gaps’ from ‘richer to poorer families, from the Global North to the Global South’ (p.70). While this dynamic deepens, and women by and large still work the unpaid shift at home after engaging in wage labor, capitalism feeds them corporatized ‘wellness’ strategies. Take a hike. Leave the rest to corporations. As Fraser (2022) rightfully notes, the ‘care crunch’ is about so much more than the emphasis on ‘work-life balance’ (p.71), and its resolution faces a set of challenges in the current moment that is as structural as it is global and ideological under financialized capitalism. Any response to the care crunch must attend to these factors, along with rethinking the ‘gender order’ (Fraser, 2022, p.73), a challenge that links a boundary struggle between production and social reproduction to boundary struggles between capitalism and the state, and nature and capitalism as nature, too, has been historically gendered through acts of ‘othering’ and symbolic diminishment (Massey, 1994).       

What’s Fraser’s (2022) recommendation after all of this critique? A socialism for the 21^st century. While I disagree with her claim that ‘socialism is back!’, using in the U.S. context Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as examples of proud and out socialists and pointing to membership in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSoA),[iii] I do agree with the core premise of her closing reflections in ‘Food for Thought: What Should Socialism Mean in the Twenty-first Century?’ Tepid enthusiasm at this time might exist for socialism, but such excitement ‘for the word does not translate automatically into serious reflection on its content’ (p.141). For her part, Fraser (2022) has done ample reflection on the term, its content, and what it should mean – and do – in the 21^st century.

If Fraser’s thought is anything across her oeuvre, it is exactingly systematic, if not also accessible and incisive. Her recommendations – not a program – for socialism in the 21^st century mirror and are scaled to the boundary struggles and inter-realm crises she identified across her analyses. To the degree that she theorized capitalism as an institutionalized societal order (and not merely a form of economic organization), she sketches a view of socialism as an institutionalized societal order that does a number of things that social democracy and communism didn’t, couldn’t, or don’t do in light of the ways they approached the economy and its non-economic conditions of possibility. Rather than liquidate the domains or realms, Fraser (2022) suggests that a socialism for the times would have to attend, and be equipped to attend, to the relationships between domains and the ‘organization of relationships’ within them. Socialism would allow for a reassessment of how we valuate the relationships between domains and the priorities within them (p.152). The recommendations are as structural as they are everyday, requiring systems put into place to invite equitable and inclusive participation, particularly around ‘institutional design’, making this concern a ‘political question’ that gets ‘decided by us’ rather than for us by the capitalists (Emphasis in original, p.153). Institutional design, she argues, should be subjected to a process of ‘redomaining’, by which she means the ‘redrawing [of] the boundaries that demarcate societal arenas and deciding what to include in them’ (p.153), with a value of sustainability – protecting ‘the conditions of possibility for production that capitalism has callously trashed’ (p.153). Lastly, Fraser (2022) recommends a model that socializes the surplus and allows for democratic decision-making for how that surplus, including time, gets used or allocated, while socializing issues related to social reproduction, infrastructure, and ecology – no markets at ‘the top’ or ‘the bottom’ (p.156).

In addition to systematic, one could describe Fraser’s work in this relatively slim volume as imaginative, too, even utopian. There is much to admire in this work. For this reader, Fraser’s integrated, holistic view of capitalism, wherein she simultaneously holds capitalism’s foreground and background together, identifies realistic points of action, no matter how structural the sources of boundary struggles might be. By offering a domain/realm approach to capitalism, she theorizes an alternative to capitalism in a way that allows for genuine intersectionality, avoiding nagging interest-based politics and thin versions of identity politics that parade as ‘intersectional’ but often privilege one category over another, forgetting that identity is a modality through which class and inequality is experienced. Categories become a bit more complex, alliances more variegated and suppler, when place and its interrelationships, even interdependencies, with other places (and people) rather than ‘identity’ alone becomes an organizing motif for self- and collective understanding, belonging, and action. Such an approach also increases the likelihood for boundaries to become an object of critique and a source for transformation when we heighten our concerns with inter-realm crises rather than beginning and ending with inter-identity conflicts. This is by no means a vulgar Marxism (Fraser (1995) spoke to and offered a nuanced position on identity politics long ago), but it is a materialist and structuralist one, looking to expose the structural divisions at play in the construction of identity and how capitalism preys upon those divisions. So long as the perpetrator of those conflicts remains out of view, the conflicts will remain. This is a sketch of an intersectionality with teeth that could be sunk into the serpent, and with open arms to invite different groups into alliance because identity can be created in common cause and shared interest, not in the differences that capitalism creates or intensifies and on which it feeds.

Is Fraser’s proposal realistic? This is the wrong question to ask. One question that I would ask is: What will be left, as in what will remain, and what is left, as in a vibrant and effectively just Left, if we can’t begin by imagining and inviting others to imagine an inclusive, collective, and democratic alternative to capitalism? The Right has an answer, and its own utopia: Fascism is back! And, it will be what is left if we cannot confidently, and with a straight face, exclaim, ‘Socialism is back!’

---

Notes

[i] A slight revision could be recommended: A society’s wealth today could be spotted as much by its accumulation of commodities as by its capacities to offload mountains of wasted goods on less powerful societies (Lea, 2023).

[ii] Fraser (2022) uses the term ‘cross-racial’ instead of ‘cross-ethnic’ or ‘cross-ancestral.’ I defer to Fields and Fields’ (2014) analysis and recommendation. The ideology of race is a slippery one, mercurial and alchemy-like in the ways that it can penetrate discourses (and relationships) that otherwise attempt to oppose racism. While ‘race’ is socially real, no identifiable biological basis for it exists. ‘Race’, per Fields and Fields’ historiography, emerges after the institutionalization of racism – the application of a double-standard based on perceived ancestral difference. In their view, we unwittingly reproduce racism when we assume ‘racial’ difference while, ultimately, distracting from the founding, and historical, inequality at the root of capitalism that the ideology of ‘race’ obfuscates.

[iii] Two of 535 federal congress people do not inspire great confidence for me in the prospects of socialism when 200+ congress people are a mix of religious bigots, market fundamentalists, and casual or outright fascist toadies, or when organized neo-nazi and white supremacist groups total over 1000 in the U.S. and operate in at least 340 U.S. counties (Florida, 2018), almost 30 million U.S. citizens indicate that they are comfortable with neo-nazi thought (Barnes, 2017), and DSoA’s membership registers a mere 80,000).

References

Barnes L (2017) Nearly 30 million Americans think it is ok to have neo-nazi views. Think

Progress. Retrieved from https://archive.thinkprogress.org/nearly-30-million-americans-think-its-okay-to-have-neo-nazi-views-4ff429b67b0c/.

Bauman Z (1998) Work, Consumerism and the New Poor. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Fields B (1990) Slavery, race and ideology in the United States of America. New Left Review, 181: 95-118.

Fields B and Fields K (2014). Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in America. New York: Verso.

Florida R (2018) Where hate groups are located in the U.S. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-15/the-geography-of-hate-groups-in-the-u-s. 

Fraser N (1995) From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a “post-socialist” age. New Left Review 212: 68-93.

Fraser N (2014) Behind Marx’s hidden abode: For an expanded conception of capitalism. New Left Review 86: 55-72.

Fraser N (2017) Progressive neoliberalism versus reactionary populism. In H. Geiselberger (Ed.) The Great Regression (40-48). Polity.

Fraser N (2022) Cannibal Capitalism: How Our System is Devouring Democracy, Care and the Planet – and What We Can Do about It. New York: Verso.

Goldberg DT (1993) Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning. Malden: Blackwell.

Goldberg DT (2002) The Racial State. Malden: Blackwell.

Goldberg DT (2008) The Threat of Race: Reflections on Racial Neoliberalisms. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hochschild A (2016) Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York: The New Press.

Lea R (2023) High fashion! Mountain of discarded clothes in Chile is visible from space. Space. Retrieved from https://www.space.com/mountain-discarded-clothes-chile-satellite-photo.

Luxemburg R (1961) The Accumulation of Capital. trans. A. Schwarzchild. London: Routledge.

Marx K (1976) Capital (Volume 1). trans. Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin.

Marx K (2011[1906]) Capital (Volume 1). trans. Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling. New York: Dover.

Massey D (1994) Space, Place, and Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Mbembe A (2019) Necropolitics. Durham: Duke University Press.

Saltman K (2007) Capitalizing on Disaster: Taking and Breaking Public Schools. Boulder: Paradigm.

Sharlet J (2023) Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Wacquant L (2009) Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Winant H (2002) The World is a Ghetto: Race and Democracy since World War II. New York: Basic Books.