Cited by 4Political Economy and MarxismMarxism and Critical TheoryRace, History, and American Society

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 54 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Oliver C. Cox and the political economy of racial capitalism

Mann, Thomas J.·2022·Dialectical Anthropology

Abstract

Oliver C. Cox was one of the most important and accomplished US-based sociologists, labor historians, and socialist thinkers of the twentieth century. He produced a series of classic works on racial prejudice and race relations and the foundations and development of capitalism. Despite some recent interest in his work, likely due to the renewed interest in the concept of racial capitalism, in-depth analysis of Cox’s work remains underdeveloped. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, the paper shows that the development of racial prejudice was, for Cox, not only an invention of capitalism as a particular moment in history, but it was also always undergirded by the requirements of capitalist political economy. Second, I show the dynamics that Cox believed were required to establish the conditions for racially prejudiced working-class subjects. Part of capital’s ideological alibi was, for Cox, the development and sedimentation of working-class racial antagonism. Yet, Cox showed that racial antagonism among the working class was inherently contradictory and counter to working-class interests and was traceable to the social, political, and economic apparatus of the elite class. Because the elite class necessarily relies upon the exploitation of the labor supply, it likewise relies upon racial antagonism to maintain labor quiescence. The work of the social scientist, then, is to explain such asocial phenomena in materialist terms, thereby redirecting working-class energy toward solidarity and the horizon of socialist revolution.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Thomas J. Mann reconstructs Oliver C. Cox’s political economy of racial prejudice, arguing that Cox treated racism as a historically specific ideological alibi and structural requirement of capitalist exploitation rather than a timeless or autonomous cultural fact. The paper contends that, for Cox, racial antagonism among the working class is produced and maintained by the ruling political class to preserve labor quiescence and capitalist rule.

Key findings

  • Cox held that “the exploitative act comes first; the prejudice follows,” and that racial prejudice emerged at a particular historical juncture to justify mass exploitation, not from natural antipathy between groups.
  • Cox identified 1493–1494 as “the last critical years of non-racialized colonial expansion” and by 1550 pointed to Ginés de Sepúlveda as among “the first great racists,” marking “the beginning of modern race relations…only nascent race prejudice.”
  • For Cox, the ruling political class deploys racial prejudice to divert political-class struggle into intra-class conflict among the ruled; lynching is analyzed as a form of mob violence “directed against a whole people or political class,” not spontaneous or autonomous.
  • Cox concluded that racial prejudice is necessary to developed capitalist societies, such that “racial capitalism, as a necessary system of exploitation and ideological alibis, is always capitalism tout court,” and only socialism could eliminate it.

Methods

  • The paper is a conceptual and textual reconstruction of Cox’s political and sociological analysis, drawing primarily on Cox’s works such as *Caste, Class and Race* (1948), *Capitalism and American Leadership* (1962), *Capitalism as a System* (1964), and *Race Relations* (1976).
  • It engages secondary interpreters and critics of Cox, including Robert Miles, Christopher A. McAuley, Adolph Reed Jr., Charisse Burden-Stelly, and Cedric Robinson, to clarify Cox’s position on racial prejudice and the political class.
  • No empirical sample or quantitative analysis is reported; the main analysis is theoretical, reconstructing Cox’s categories of political class, exploitation, race prejudice, and the lynch mob.

Limitations

  • The paper states that Cox’s work “remains incomplete and predates the neoliberal era” (citing Spence 2015), and the author presents the article as “something of a prolegomena” rather than an exhaustive treatment.
  • The author notes that Cox is “less clear” about the development of racial categories themselves, including the process Barbara and Karen Fields call *racecraft*, and tends to focus on racial prejudice and exploitation rather than the production of racial classifications.
  • Evident from the text: the article offers no new empirical data or archival findings and relies on interpretive reconstruction of Cox’s published writings and secondary commentary.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10624-021-09646-1

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 54 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 45 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 47
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 36
68 of 68
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The current historical moment is saturated with discussions about the functions and dynamics of race and its production.

    “Particularly because of the current historical moment, which is saturated with discussions about the functions and dynamics of race and its production”
1 of 1

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Wilkerson book title differs between text and references

    Minor

    The text gives "Origins" in the title, but the reference entry gives "Origin."

  • Cox book title differs within the paper

    Minor

    A footnote calls the book *Caste, Caste, and Race*, while the paper elsewhere identifies it as *Caste, Class and Race*.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 18 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Charisse Burden-Stelly. 2020b. ‘Caste does not explain race.”’ The Boston Review. http://bostonreview.net/race/charisse-burden-stelly-caste-does-not-explain-race. Accessed 3 Nov 2021.
  2. Cox, Oliver C. 1957. The foundations of capitalism. London: Peter Owen Limited.
  3. Cox, O.C. 1964. Capitalism as a System. New York: Monthly Review Press.
  4. Fanon, F. 2004. Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press.
  5. Kelley, Robin D.G. 2020. Foreward: Why Black Marxism? Why Now? In Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition, Cedric Robinson, xi-xxxiii. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
  6. Robinson, C. 2000. Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
  7. Wilkerson, Isabel. 2020. Caste: The Origin of Our Discontents. New York: Random House.

Metadata

Authors
Mann, T. J.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Mann, Thomas J.
Venue
Dialectical Anthropology
Published
2021-12-30
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
85-102
ISSN
  • 0304-4092 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0786
OpenAlex
W4200509550
Cited by
4
References
18
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Dialectical Anthropology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Economy and Marxism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Marxism and Critical Theory
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Race, History, and American Society
Keywords
racial capitalism, racial prejudice, race relations, capitalist political economy, labor exploitation, elite class, socialist revolution, working-class solidarity, labor history

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review