According to Cedric Robinson, Marx understood capitalism as presupposing two classes—the capitalist class and the working class—and assumed that differences within the working class would be homogenized after primitive accumulation. On this basis, Robinson criticized Marx through his theory of “racial capitalism.” However, this interpretation is closer to that of so-called “orthodox Marxists” than to Marx himself, who never stated such a view.

Marx’s theoretical abstraction sought to depict the logical structure of capitalism, using British capitalism as a model. It was not intended as a description of Britain itself. What he presented was an ideal type of “pure capitalism.” Yet a careful reading of his writings makes it clear that he did not reduce capitalism to a simple two-class model.

There is always a tension between Marx’s theoretical model—an abstract notion of pure capitalism—and the complex world he recognized as historical reality. To read Marx is precisely to interpret this tension. Critics such as Edward Said and Gayatri Spivak may be understood as thinkers who have articulated this tension from their own theoretical perspectives. Robinson may also belong to this group; nevertheless, is the interpretation described above not mistaken? Where in Marx’s works, including Capital, can such a reading actually be found? Marx’s method of theoretical abstraction is highly complex and often difficult to grasp. For example, in Chapter 15, “Quantitative Changes in the Value of Labor-Power and in Surplus-Value,” he analyzes four different cases, and in Chapter 16 he presents three formulas for calculating the rate of surplus value. In Chapter 20, “National Differences of Wages,” he shows the development of the analysis from abstraction to concreteness. In Chapter 24, “The So-Called Primitive Accumulation,” he describes in detail the violent processes involved in the emergence of capitalism—the enclosure movement, and the exploitation of Ireland and the colonies. It is here that the famous line appears: “Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one.” Marx also discusses the significant role played by the enslavement of Black people in the Americas in the production of surplus value, a theme that recurs elsewhere in his writings. From these discussions, we can see both the scope of Marx’s interests and knowledge, and why Robinson’s criticism is not necessarily accurate.

The way in which capital extracts surplus value and transforms it back into capital does not depend solely on racial discrimination. Marx discusses the mechanisms of the reproduction of capital through his analyses of child labor and women’s labor. References to this appear throughout Capital, but Volume I, Chapter 10 in particular provides a detailed description of the realities of child labor, drawing on sources such as the Factory Inspectors’ Reports.

Furthermore, Section 3 of Chapter process examines the mechanism by which the mechanization of production incorporates women’s and children’s labor into the capitalist system, offering a critical analysis of how this process accelerates the accumulation of capital. In addition, in Chapter 14 of Volume III of Capital, edited by Engels, it is noted that the large-scale employment of women and children further expanded the supply of surplus value.

Marx also analyzed complex relations of power and ownership that extend beyond a simple two-class structure through distinctions such as profit, rent, and interest. In Volume II of Capital, edited by Engels, questions concerning multiple forms of power—such as the military and systems of discipline—are addressed, together with their relationship to the state apparatus. Michel Foucault reread such aspects of Marx’s analysis within his own theory of power, discussing the diverse domains—property, factories, the military, and others—through which power is organized and ultimately rearticulated within the apparatus of the state.

In this sense, Marx’s method should be understood as one that temporarily brackets certain conditions in order to abstract the logical structure of capitalism, and then reintroduces historical, racial, and colonial differences. Yet this method also carries the risk of obscuring the racial and colonial violence that was essential to the emergence and maintenance of capitalism. The problem is that Marx’s abstraction is often misunderstood as a simplification, rather than recognized as a methodological operation. In this respect, serious critics reread Marx by reintroducing historical concreteness. Critiques of Marx from the perspective of racial capitalism should likewise be understood as articulating a “tension” between theoretical abstraction and historical concreteness.

In that sense, a proper critic rereads Marx while reintroducing historical concreteness. Criticism of Marx from the perspective of racial capitalism should also be read as a "tension" between theoretical abstraction and historical concreteness.

Kōzō Uno was the thinker who most systematically developed this method of abstraction. Although Uno directly criticized Marx’s theory of the value-form, he nevertheless strongly affirmed Marx’s fundamental validity. Uno argued that “capitalism does not require the capitalist transformation of rural areas beyond what is necessary for its own development,” and on this basis further developed his theoretical framework. This implies that capital is an organic entity that adapts to its environment and changes its form accordingly.

In other words, the question concerns how the laws governing the movement of capital themselves shape society. Capital does not uniformly transform the whole of society into capitalism. Under whatever natural and social conditions it encounters, capital generates surplus value through the exploitation of labor power and expands through its own process of reproduction.

Racial discrimination, Buraku discrimination, and child labor—if they are considered beneficial to capital—will be readily utilized by it. For this reason, the concept of “racial capitalism” alone cannot fully explain capitalism as a whole.

Marx’s theory, and the various interpretations of it, are ultimately only tools for analyzing society. If one tool proves inadequate, another can be employed. That is all. Pointing out the limits of a theory is certainly important, but there is no need to present such criticism as if it constituted a decisive intellectual victory.