Historical Context: Racial Capitalism and Its Digital Evolution

The Roots of Racial Capitalism

The term “racial capitalism” was popularized by the scholar Cedric J. Robinson, who argued that capitalism and racism are not separate systems but rather intertwined from the very beginning. In his seminal work, “Black Marxism,” Robinson posited that the development of capitalism was deeply embedded in racial and ethnic exploitation. This exploitation was not just an unfortunate byproduct but a fundamental element that fueled the growth of capitalism. From the enslavement of African people to the colonization of the Global South, racial capitalism has been a pervasive force shaping economic systems and social hierarchies.

As the 20th century came to an end, the globe started to see a substantial transition from industrial capitalism to what is frequently referred to as “information capitalism.” The development of the Internet, the use of digital technology, and the increasing emphasis on information as a commodity all contributed to this transformation. Although they changed and evolved, the racial undertones of capitalism persisted. For the advantage of the Global North, labor in the Global South was still exploited, but now it now included digital labor, such as data input and content moderation services.

In the digital age, the concept of racial capitalism has found new expression through “data colonialism.” Coined by scholars at the London School of Economics, this term describes the way massive corporations collect, analyze, and profit from user data. Much like historical colonial powers extracted natural resources from colonized lands, today’s tech giants extract data from users around the globe, often without their explicit consent. This form of digital extraction is particularly acute in regions like Africa, where data is frequently stored and processed outside the continent, perpetuating new forms of exploitation and power imbalances.

New media platforms have become instrumental in shaping political discourse, identity formation, and activism, especially in the Global South. While these platforms offer unprecedented opportunities for marginalized communities to have a voice, they also serve as new avenues for exploitation and control. From algorithmic biases that perpetuate stereotypes to the commodification of cultural identities, racial capitalism in the digital age is a multifaceted and deeply entrenched system.

In the age of digital technology, the allure of “free” services—be it social media platforms or search engines—is enticing. However, this ostensible freedom comes with a cost: our personal data. These companies transform our interactions and behaviors into quantifiable data to generate significant profits. The concept of data colonialism, as defined by the London School of Economics, describes the process by which massive corporations collect, analyze, and profit from user data. While we may think we are getting a service for free, the hidden trade-off is in the loss of control over personal information. This power imbalance raises new questions about human rights in the digital age, from the right to privacy to the right to be forgotten.^[1]

The concept of data colonialism has a particularly potent resonance in Africa, a continent with a history marked by colonial exploitation. In the digital age, international tech giants have extended their reach into African markets, offering “free” services much like they do elsewhere. While these services may bring about increased connectivity and offer new opportunities for economic development, they also carry the risk of perpetuating new forms of exploitation. Data generated by African users are mostly stored and processed outside the continent, often leading to a form of digital extraction that parallels historical resource extraction. This situation exacerbates existing power imbalances between Africa and the Global North, where most of these tech companies are based. In the African context, these digital inequalities go beyond personal data collection to issues like the digital divide, unequal access to technology, and information poverty. Given Africa’s burgeoning youth population and its drive to become a key player in the global digital economy, the stakes are high.^[2] You can view a TED talk about this by Nobukhosi Zulu:

This intricate relationship between data and racial capitalism is a focal point in modern discourse, challenging the traditional Marxist notion that racism is a secondary issue to economic exploitation. Instead, racialization is presented as a core component of capitalism, exemplified by the experiences of Indian IT workers in Berlin, Germany. Their labor is both racialized and undervalued, illustrating that a comprehensive understanding of racial capitalism requires a lens that encompasses both economic and racial dimensions. This approach emphasizes the importance of viewing issues from the margins, focusing on the uneven distribution of power dynamics and risks across different communities. The Global South thus becomes a relational term, offering a nuanced understanding of global inequalities and various forms of oppression and resistance.^[3] Therefore, racial capitalism may be a more appropriate conceptual lens of analysis as opposed to data colonialism. Each of the sections below represent one way we might analyze racial capitalism. You can listen to an overview of this topic in a Data & Society podcast: Becoming Data Episode 5: Data & Racial Capitalism: https://listen.datasociety.net/episodes/becoming-data-episode-5-data-racial-capitalism

Digital Democracy and Politics

The influence of new media platforms on political and social engagement in Africa is a complex interplay of democratization and control. These platforms have empowered marginalized voices, offering a space for political mobilization and accountability, as seen in Nigeria’s #EndSARS campaign.^[4] However, they also serve as platforms for misinformation and extremist rhetoric, which has led to cautionary perspectives on their unregulated use.^[5]

In Kenya, as Nanjala Nyabola outlines in “Digital Democracy, Analogue Politics,” the digital space has become a crucial arena for political discourse due to the abdication of responsibility by traditional media. The relationship between media and power in Kenya has led to a preference for political news on the Internet over traditional outlets. This has resulted in a complex ecosystem where the Internet intensifies existing societal energies, both positive and negative.^[6]

Governments have responded to the rise of new media with varying degrees of regulation and repression. Laws targeting social media users have been enacted in countries like Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania, often under the guise of combating fake news but effectively silencing dissent.^[7],^[8] In more extreme cases, governments have resorted to internet shutdowns and arrests to stifle online discourse.^[9]

The issue of misinformation remains a significant challenge. During Kenya’s 2017 general elections, both major political parties were accused of using social media to spread false information, contributing to a dangerous regime of misinformation that undermines democratic processes. This reflects the broader African context, where misinformation has become a significant concern.^[10]

In North Korea, the increasing availability of smartphones presents a dual-edged sword for its citizens. On one hand, these devices have become more accessible and offer new means of communication within the country. On the other hand, they also serve as a mechanism for governmental surveillance and control. Although the number of mobile phone users in North Korea has surged in recent years—now reaching approximately 4 million, a significant increase from 2012—these figures are still modest in comparison to global standards. The smartphones utilized in North Korea are generally produced locally or assembled using components imported from China. These mobile devices operate on indigenous software platforms that are carefully engineered to both filter content and monitor user activity. Rather than providing access to the global internet, these systems connect users to a domestic intranet, which is carefully curated to include only state-approved materials, such as speeches by Kim Jong Un and state-sanctioned news.^[11]

State authorities have the ability to remotely manage the devices, including deleting files and obstructing the sharing of materials deemed undesirable. This high level of scrutiny extends to random inspections by law enforcement agencies that can examine the contents of individuals’ phones. Some analysts suggest that this growing technological landscape could potentially undermine the regime by providing citizens with a glimpse of the outside world. However, the prevailing opinion among experts is that the stringent controls currently in place are more likely to consolidate the government’s power rather than weaken it.^[12]

In Berlin, Indian IT workers find themselves in a unique position that exemplifies the complexities of racial capitalism. These workers are often short-term migrants who engage in coding and other tech-related tasks. While their labor is essential, it is also undervalued and racialized, making them easily replaceable in the eyes of their employers. To counter this, some workers have resorted to leaving intentionally confusing or poorly documented code, making it more difficult for them to be replaced. This act serves as a form of resistance, albeit a risky one, as it could lead to their unemployment or replacement by another group. However, these actions are not necessarily part of a larger political movement; they are more individualized forms of resistance aimed at securing middle-class status rather than critiquing the broader political economy.^[13]

In conclusion, the influence of new media platforms is a complex tapestry of empowerment and control that varies significantly across different socio-political landscapes. Whether facilitating democratic activism in Nigeria, serving as both liberating and constraining spaces in Kenya, enabling authoritarian surveillance in North Korea, or exposing the nuances of racial capitalism among Indian IT workers in Berlin, these platforms necessitate a nuanced regulatory approach. Such strategies must account for the multifaceted roles these platforms play in democratizing public discourse, disseminating misinformation, and being tools for government control. Given the diverse contexts, a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework is not only impractical but potentially detrimental, underscoring the need for adaptable solutions that consider each setting’s unique social, political, and cultural dynamics.

Digital Inequality, Access, and Identify Formation

The landscape of Latinx identity formation has undergone a significant transformation with the advent of social media platforms, particularly Instagram. These platforms serve as digital archives where Latinx individuals and communities engage in real-time negotiations of identity, activism, and nostalgia. Accounts like Barriodandy, run by De Luna, utilize Instagram to circulate Latinx memory and nostalgia, often focusing on historical events and cultural shifts such as the gentrification of Chavez Ravine in Los Angeles. These accounts not only serve as repositories of collective memory but also as platforms for activism, challenging dominant narratives and bringing visibility to marginalized histories.^[14]

Another trend in Latinx digital memory is the commodification of identity through sponsorship. Accounts like mexicanProblemas curate memes that resonate with Latinx cultural experiences, but often these posts are sponsored by corporations, merging Latinx identity with global capitalist production. This dual function of social media—resisting narratives of assimilation while also serving capitalist interests—complicates the landscape of Latinx digital memory. However, not all Latinx digital memory projects aim for a unified identity. Accounts like Xicanisma’s  disrupt the homogenizing tendencies within Latinx communities by calling out internal issues such as anti-Blackness, sexism, and other forms of discrimination. These accounts serve as a mirror, reflecting the complexities and contradictions within Latinx identity and challenging the community to confront its own biases. ^[15]

Hernán Galperin’s “Why Are Half of Latin Americans Not Online?” explores the digital divide in Latin America, emphasizing that a large segment of the population remains without Internet access. This gap has significant implications for the broader discourse on Latinx identity, particularly for those who are excluded from these digital platforms. He finds that financial constraints and inadequate service infrastructure are primary roadblocks to both home-based internet subscriptions and individual utilization in the Latin American context, arguing that these barriers should be studied not just across countries but also among various socioeconomic strata.^[16]

In summary, a much more comprehensive approach to studying Latinx digital engagement is needed. Future work must consider factors such as access, gender, and the fluid nature of identity formation in their analyses. This multi-dimensional perspective is crucial for understanding the complexities of Latinx identity in an increasingly digital world.

Gender and Digital Spaces

The urgency of addressing gender bias in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) is escalating, compelling both social change leaders and developers to engage in immediate and sustained action. AI and ML systems are far from objective; they often mirror the biases of their human creators. This problem is exacerbated when there’s a lack of diversity within the fields of AI and data science, leading to a narrow perspective in system development. Another core issue is data bias. The gender digital divide means women are frequently underrepresented in datasets used for training AI systems. Even when women are included, the data might inherently carry biases due to historical discrimination. Algorithmic biases further compound the problem; they originate from biased training data and have the potential to perpetuate existing societal inequalities. The impacts of such biases are multi-faceted. For one, they affect the quality of service provided to women and non-binary individuals. Biased systems can also skew the allocation of resources, information, and opportunities, amplifying existing inequalities. These AI systems can reinforce harmful stereotypes and prejudices. Furthermore, the physical and mental well-being of individuals is at risk.^[17]

At the same time, digital spaces have emerged as a site of resistance for women. In recent years, Kenya has witnessed an evolving landscape of women’s activism that has found new life online. In the 2017 elections, women’s advocates banded together to rally around the #WeAre52 hashtag. This digital campaign aimed to draw attention to the need for enforcing the two-thirds gender rule, which mandates that no more than two-thirds of any public body should be of a single gender. Through effective use of social media, these activists were successful in bringing this issue to the forefront of political discourse, especially given the high-stakes nature of the elections. In the past, outspoken women activists often faced isolation and were branded as acting in a masculine manner. However, the age of new media has empowered these women to form online communities, providing a supportive environment that bolsters their activism. The digital platform allows them to turn societal rejection into a tool for advocacy. They insist on being heard, rejecting conventional ideas of being the ‘angry, bitter, or unmarriageable woman.’^[18]

Media and Digital Activism

To better understand digital activism around the globe, please watch the following video:

“Hannane Ferdjani, Nana Mgbechikwere Nwachukwu, and Dr. Allissa Richardson explore how young Black people around the world are utilizing tech tools to track and circumvent oppressive policies by repressive governments. The conversation includes how Black people of Nigeria, Uganda, and the United States are leveraging social media platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Clubhouse for artistic expressions on political and social issues in their countries. The panel also considers how young digital activists highlight the importance and place of the digital civic space to rights and freedoms offline. Finally, the discussion will address some of the limitations of digital tools in holding repressive governments and institutional bodies accountable. This event was moderated by Ellery Roberts Biddle.”