Fraser is Henry and Louise A. Loeb Professor of
Philosophy and Politics at the New School for Social Research. She
is the author of Fortunes of
Feminism and The Old is Dying and the New Cannot be
Born, and co-author of Capitalism: A
Conversation and Feminism for the 99%.
Welcome to Philosophy Podcasts where we interview leading
philosophers about their recent books. I'm August Baker. Today, I'm
speaking with Professor Nancy Fraser about her new book, Cannibal
Capitalism: How Our System is Devouring Democracy, Care, and the
Planet and What We Can Do About It. Some of the endorsements,
Wolfgang Streeck says, "A brilliant synthesis of Fraser's many
pathbreaking contributions to Marxian theory of capitalism for the
21st century, beautifully written." The second one, Cornel West,
"Nancy Fraser is a legendary radical philosopher grounded in the
best of Marxist and feminist traditions yet whose genuine embrace
and profound understanding of Black, ecological, immigrant and
sexual freedom movements make her unique in the contemporary scene.
Cannibal Capitalism is not only a singular gem, it is an instant
classic for our bleak times!" She is the Henry and Louise A. Loeb
Professor of Philosophy and Politics at the New School for Social
Research. Welcome, Professor Fraser.
Thank you so much. I'm happy to be here.
As I see it, your starting point is that there are many
different crisis points that we're facing at this time, yet there's
no theory which integrates them.
That's correct. Absolutely. The Marxist theories that we've
inherited focused almost exclusively on the economic crisis and the
dynamics within capitalism that incline it to periodic economic
crises. But in our time, it's very clear that we have a major and
very urgent ecological crisis on the agenda as well as what many
people would call a crisis of care or social reproduction,
political crisis, crisis of democracy, racial justice, or I should
say injustice crisis. There's a lot going on and I think the idea
of a theory that focuses on only one dimension will not really
clarify our situation and help us figure out what we can do about
Right. I like the way you said there were these different
crisis points. I think of them as flash points, gender, race,
ecology, and then for politics, you say that's kind of all of the
other crisis points are overarched by the political dysfunction,
you say the political dysfunctions that block our ability to
envision and implement solutions.
Right. Because politics is what we look to to solve crises, to
figure out how to unblock the blockage and transform whatever needs
to be transformed and move on. But when the political system is
itself in crisis, then we have to ask, well then where is the
medium that we can use to correct the situation to resolve it? That
does in a way give a political dimension, a special importance, but
I would not on that account say that it is the fundamental deepest,
like the old idea of the economic base of society, politics is the
base. I wouldn't say that, but I do think from a practical
standpoint, it creates a huge dilemma for us.
Right, and kind of a feeling of being in a dream where you
want to do something but you just can't do it.
Good analogy. Absolutely.
Let's talk about that crisis of care, crisis of social
reproduction. It's a resting phrase. Can you explain some more of
In every society has to, in addition to producing food and
shelter and tools and other useful objects, every society also has
to devote a certain amount of time and energy and creativity,
giving birth to children, to raising them, to caring for adults, to
socializing new generations, all of that stuff that is devoted not
to making things, but essentially to sustaining people, and that's
been called the work of social reproduction. It's about reproducing
human beings and the social bonds that connect us.
Now, in most societies, that social reproductive activity has
been more or less integrated with the making of things. These have
not been too sharply separated domains. Capitalist societies are
quite unique in making them sharply separated domains. For us, work
means employment and that usually, at least pre-COVID, meant
leaving the house, going somewhere else, doing something and
getting a paycheck while reproduction, making and sustaining and
nurturing of people was supposed to happen in the household as a
Even in terms of space, home versus workplace, there's a sharp
separation. And then when you add historically in one case there's
cash remuneration through wages or salaries and the others, not so
much. It's either not paid at all or in some cases when it is, it's
severely and chronically underpaid. This is a fundamental
structural division of capitalist societies, every bit as
structural as the one that people usually talk about, the
structural division between the owners and those who have nothing
to sell, but their labor power. This is also structural and the
problem is that capital societies incentivize the business owners,
the investors and other powerful economic actors to free ride on
care work, to not pay for it if they can get away with it, or to
pay as little as possible.
It's like something to which they help themselves and depend
on because where would they get their workers if somebody else
weren't back there in the shadows, feeding and bathing and clothing
and educating and raising those workers.
And caring for the elderly as well.
Exactly. All of that. Capital depends on this care work, the
social reproductive activity, but also disclaims any obligation to
replenish it, to repair any damage that's done to the family or
communities that do it. It basically takes what it needs and it
sort of in a way, assuming or it's built in a kind of assumption
even when it's not made explicit that this work is just somehow
there infinitely available. You can keep taking whatever you want,
you don't have to worry about replenishing. This is the way we used
to think about natural resources.
Now, we learned in the environmental and ecological movements
that that's false about natural resources, that we do have to worry
about replenishing what we take and repairing what we damage. The
same is true with care work or social reproduction. When you get a
phase of capitalist development that is just using that up and
doing nothing to assure that it will be there, then you get an
acute care crunch.
That's what I think is happening today because this form of
capitalism relies very heavily on women's waged work. This system
depends on women leaving the home, going into often service work,
often low paid service work, but also in some cases, professional
work that's well paid. It depends on that. At the same time, it's
also insisting on austerity, we have big deficits, we have to cut
social spending, we have to cut social programs. It's like a pincer
motion, you are taking the time of those who used to devote a fair
amount of their time to care work in the home, in the community.
You are taking away the public programs and public supports for it.
Is it any wonder that we have latchkey kids running around and
elderly people being warehoused in or with for-profit nursing
homes? So, yes, there is a crisis of social reproduction or care
that is very acute at the moment.
Right. No, that's fascinating. That has so many different
aspects to it. You think about the caregiver, a well-off family
hires a nanny or a caregiver, but that caregiver is often a young
woman who has kids of her own, but she's caring for some kids, not
her kids. It also seems like what's really valuable, I don't know
if this fits into the same framework, but what's really valuable in
capitalism or what gets paid a lot is the opposite of care. It's
sort of the ability to ride your employees really hard to get a lot
out of them, to get a lot out of people. Narcissism is highly
valued, being able to lie is highly valued, and that is to say
something like care is not highly valued.
I think you're absolutely right on both points. This issue
that you raised first about hiring the solution for those families
who have the sufficient income to purchase care work that it's
purchased from people who are often migrants or racial or ethnic or
religious minorities who have very few opportunities to earn real
decent wages, and as you say, who have to skimp, if not totally
leave the place where they would normally be performing these
functions in their own family for their own children and relatives.
In fact, feminists have theorized what we call global care chains
in the same way that economists have talked about-
... global value chain, because in some cases, we are talking
about migrants who leave their families halfway around the world to
come to wealthy regions and they don't see their families and their
children for many, many years. They try to FaceTime them. Sometimes
their kids are pretty angry about being left and refuse to even
talk to their mothers, and then you get this sort of outpouring of
love. It's a diversion of care from a poor part of the world and
poorer populations to wealthier and more privileged populations,
which is in a way, the formula for imperialism to extract precious
metals from one place and divert the wealth elsewhere. Now, we're
Very interesting. They're literally in their new country
performing the same work, caring for kids, caring for the elderly
often, that they would've been where they came from.
Or adult partners and other adult relatives. Absolutely. That
point is quite right and it does raise this question that you noted
about what is valued in capitalism. Anything, in this case, I would
completely agree with your idea that part of what's valued is the
capacity to be an egotist, to be instrumental, to be almost
predatory. That's rewarded in the society. Even if we might raise
an eyebrow now and then, that's where the money goes, that's what's
rewarded. You're absolutely right that those qualities are the
inverse of what we expect in the way of care, what we expect
mothers to do, what we expect grandmothers to do, and so on. We
expect selflessness, we expect exquisite attention to the needs of
others and all of that altruism.
In a sense, I would say that that capitalism has a built-in
tendency to turn the world upside down, to take the things that we
should value and treat them as if they're dirt, they're worth
nothing, that if they're going to be paid at all, they're going to
be paid very little and the work is going to be organized in a way
that is degraded so that the caregiver who performs that work be
subject often to abuse, to violation, sexual assault, will have no
labor rights, no capacity to complain and better the situation. The
things we should be valuing, we are degrading, and the things that
arguably at least we should not be valuing, we're elevating. It's
Right. Even on a more, this happens by what you might call
osmosis, that there's the typical story that the children in a
family, they understand on some level that the person who's going
to work and then coming back home is the powerful one, the one to
be respected. The one who is staying home is the one who is lower
level, who is the maid or whatever. I mean, that's just kind of
picked up, that's just assumed by the... which makes the care work
I think you're right. That's a really deep and very sad
observation you've just made because it means that children
internalize a value system that is, as I said, perverse, but in
many cases it's going to cripple them. Those among them, roughly
half, are themselves going to be people who essentially assigned a
heavier share than their fair share of that work. It's pretty
consequential from a psychosocial point of view, pretty
The one thing I would add though is that today, in the United
States, many, many women do go out to work. They figure out the
best they can, who's going to be there when their kids come home
from school, what kind of after school programs there are, what
kind of daycare there is that they can afford, what kinds of
bartering, childcare relations they can make within the community
and so on. They figure that out, and yet, when they come home, they
still have all kinds of housework and domestic-
Well, that's true.
... abilities and kids see that as well.
That's a very good point.
They see what the division of labor is like in the home even
when both parents, assuming we are talking about two parent
families, even when both are doing wage work outside the home.
Absolutely. I noticed many times in the book this inversion.
One of the ones, I was going to talk about this later, but to talk
about it right now, which I thought was fascinating. You talk about
the word cannibal, you say cannibal, you talking about the history
of the word, it was applied by an inverted logic to Black Africans
on the receiving end of European predation are fascinating.
Right. Who's eating who, right?
And then I'm trying to turn the tables yet again-
... by speaking of capitalism as a cannibal and of the
capitalist class as those who, in effect, whether they intend it or
not, are making a meal of the rest of us.
We've got these multiple areas of crisis. Then as I understand
it, there are also multiple theories each focusing on one
particular scene, but they're lacking integration perhaps, or
you're trying to provide some integration and you're looking back
to Marx, but you're saying Marxist theory doesn't do the job, we
need to go deeper than that. As I see it, you make three moves. One
is to add in this concept of expropriation in addition to
exploitation. We can come back to each of these two. I think to me,
what was interesting was then capitalism understand as having a
broader domain, you might say, than production and exchange. Then
third, this notion of cannibal capitalism and what that means. Does
that seem like an overview that captures essential pieces?
Absolutely. That's a very good overview. I would say that
you're right that as I see it, we've got feminists, philosophers
and others working on the question of care and social reproduction.
We've got eco-philosophers working on our problem of nature and
climate catastrophe and so on. The point is that from my
perspective, all of these crisis points, as you call them, are
located in one and the same social system, and all of them arise by
a certain logic, which I'm calling the cannibalizing logic.
In every case, you have a system that licenses, authorizes and
incentivizes the managers and owners of profit-making firms and
investors to, like I said before, help themselves to care work, to
public goods and political regulatory capacities that they need to
help themselves to natural inputs, to energy sources, to so-called
raw materials and all of that, and to the free or very cheap labor
of people who have been colonized or enslaved or subjugated or
dispossessed from their land and so on, and who are not really
exploited so much as expropriated. These are all, let's say, forms
of social wealth, that labor, that natural wealth, that caring
activity, those public goods, these are all forms of social wealth
that capital helps itself to, does not pay for, or to the extent
that it's forced to pay, is always chiseling, paying as little as
possible, trying to get out of it, right?
Tax offshoring, all of it. Therefore, over time, the result is
a depletion or destabilization or really messing up these essential
forms of social wealth. They're not, as I said before, infinitely
self-regenerating. If you take them long enough, you will destroy
them. I think that's in a sense what has happened today. We have
lived through now 40 years of an unusually predatory form of
capitalism, which has been called neoliberalism or financialized
capitalism. That has been like a green light, permission, just go
devour whatever you want. We are reaping that multiple crisis that
we started out by talking about on all of those fronts because of
that cannibalizing logic.
Expropriation, exploitation, you mentioned to me, that's a
distinction that corresponds to the global color line. It's a
distinction between those who are free, they have the status of
citizens, they have papers, they have labor rights, they have at
least in theory, the ability to call on the state or whatever
powers are around to protect them from violation. Therefore,
they're in a position to insist maybe there are minimum wage laws
or they have unions or whatever, they're in a position to insist
that they be paid, if not profit, at least for their living costs,
but that's exploitation.
But capitalism also has historically depended and still
depends also on labor that is expropriated, that is labor that is
not fully free. This can range from chattel slaves at one stage, to
colonized subjects, to dispossessed indigenous peoples, to
racialized minorities under Jim Crow or mass incarceration,
subprime capitalism today. These are all cases where people are
not, even if they are formally citizens, they don't have rights
that are actionable that they can vindicate, they can't call on
state protection, or maybe they're migrants and they're deportable,
may have no papers, or even if they have some papers, they don't
really guarantee a secure right to stay and to claim other rights.
These people are often not paid for their full living costs. They
are severely under-waged.
If you could also extend that to someone who is Black, who is
working in a professional job and making a lot of money, but not
making as much as the other person, as a colleague, and who is kind
of harassed in certain ways, having to justify himself or herself
more. This would apply along gender lines too. There's that no
matter where you are, you might think of that gap as a
expropriation gap. I'm not sure if that-
I do. I think that historically, to the degree that racialized
people have or some portion of them have been able to advance and
to move into professions or other reasonably well paid jobs, you're
right, there remains a sort of subtext of expropriation. I think of
this as a hybrid situation where they are both exploited and
Right. No, I agree with that. That's what I was thinking when
I was reading that.
The interesting thing is that nowadays, that hybrid situation
has become quite normal. It's not so exceptional because now we
have lots of white or majority ethnic workers, working class people
who used to be paid for their full living costs and were merely
But now with deindustrialization, with the crushing of many
labor unions, with the rise of a low wage service work economy,
displacing better paying... now those people are also being paid
less than the full cost of their living. And so, they have a mix of
exploitation and expropriation as well. This form of capitalism,
this neoliberal capitalism is scrambling, I would say, that what
used to be a sharp division between exploitation and expropriation,
it's now becoming a bit more blurred, and partly because some
people are doing better than they did before and also because lots
of people are doing worse than they did before.
Right. It's interesting, as you broaden the concept of what
the capitalist economy is, you also broaden the domain of economics
as a field. Often, economists would think, racial discrimination,
that's just this strange unfortunate taste that people have, but
that's outside of our realm. Our realm is the market and then
markets work against that. This is a broad book and there's a lot
of places to backfill, I think, and that would be one in my
Yes. There are two things going on here. One is that I'm
trying to expand our conception of what capitalism is. I'm
suggesting that it's a mistake to think that capitalism is an
economic system, one that's based on market exchange, private
property in the means of production, wage labor, and so on and so
forth. That's all true. That's what the capitalist economy is like,
but the economy sits, let's say, in a relation of dependence on a
whole range of other spheres of social activity and social life.
Capitalism is not just about the economy, it's about the relation
between the economy and nature. It's about the relation between
production and reproduction or paid work and care work. It's about
the relation between exploitation and expropriation. It's about the
relation between the market and the state between commodities and
Right there, we get access to a potential critical scrutiny of
those relationships instead of just talking about the internal
dynamics about the economy. There, you can have more or less rosy
views of how well markets work, do they really clear, et cetera, et
cetera. But now, we get a whole new set of questions within
capitalism. What's the relation like between economy and nature and
so on and so forth? This is where we get access to those forms of
cannibalization and to those other crisis tendencies, those other
Then as you said, if you take that expanded view, then we
should very well be looking at the racialized character of the
economy itself. The labor system is racialized, it is gendered, it
is crosscut by issues about citizens versus migrants and so on. You
can't understand that as just supply and demand. We have a demand
for this kind of person as opposed to that kind of person.
It occurs to me that in neoliberalism, I would like it
actually if you could say a bit about what neoliberalism is for our
listeners, but I also think that there's a sense in, as I
understand it in neoliberalism, that the attitude is kind of a
surface level and it's at for every single person, it's kind of,
"Oh, I'm not racist." It takes neoclassical economics and says, I'm
going to fit neoclassical economics, which means I'm not going to.
It's almost part of the whole ethos is to deny these things that's
an essential part of the way one fits in in a neoliberal economy.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, that's a very interesting way to think about it. I think
that has a lot of merit. To me, the most important starting point
is to say that capitalism has a history and that history is well
understood as a succession of different forms of capitalism
punctuated by moments of crisis, by interregna, where something has
stopped working very well, and then there's a rush to figure out
how to reform it. In that history, we've had mercantile capitalism
in the 16th through 18th centuries. We had industrial/colonial
capitalism or liberal colonial capitalism in the 19th and early
20th. We had social democratic or state managed or New Deal
capitalism in the interwar and postwar period, depending on which
country, but war anyway from the '30s to '70s in the US, and then
we got something else, this new animal, this the liberal thing.
Basically, each one of these forms responds to the previous
crisis. Each one is an attempt to solve a problem that was
generated in the previous era. But in each case, the problem arise
from that same dynamic of cannibalization one way or another. A
famous example, probably the most familiar example would be the way
in which New Deal capitalism tried to solve the problem of the
previous era, which was this kind of crisis of social reproduction.
The previous form of capitalism was making it very, very difficult
for people to raise families and to have a home life and a
community life. Women and children were being dragooned to work in
mines and factory, and so on and so forth. Protective legislation
didn't really work as a solution. It turned out that what you
really needed was states to tax and invest public funds into
supports for family life. We got social security, pension
assistance, we got unemployment insurance, we got all sorts of ways
to make it possible for families to live with all-
This insane asylums.
Right. Now, what we can see in retrospect, and this is really
interesting, I think, that seemed to solve one problem, at least
for a while and at least for people in the wealthy countries of
Europe and North America. This didn't do much for anybody else. In
fact, a lot of it was funded through the continued siphoning of
wealth from what was then called the Third World. But it worked for
a while for some. Now what we see in retrospect was another way in
which this was all financed. It was the age of the automobile. It
was the internal combustion industry. It was refined oil. It was
the steel and cement industries. It's like the Dutch Boy. We put
the finger in one hole in the social [inaudible 00:33:38], but the
other hole opened up and that's the ecological hole.
That was fascinating.
We're constantly doing this. We're trying to solve one problem
and creating another. In the neoliberal, you asked, what is
In a way, it's the idea that what caused profit rates to drop
in the '70s and caused problems for firms was too much state
regulation, too much taxation, too much labor rights, the
beginnings of environmental concerns with Rachel Carson, the Silent
Spring, and the creation of the Superfund and the EPA in 1970. And
so, you just got capital flight. Let's go someplace where they
don't have unions, where they don't have these pesky environmental
regulations, where we can just be as rapacious as we want and
people are going to be thrilled to have us there. They need us and
we'll escape all of that. Basically, it was that sort of evasion of
the New Deal regulatory apparatus, including the relatively high
rate of corporate taxation, which was to pay for all of this.
We got a race to the bottom, then everybody's trying to get
foreign direct investment and is going to give away the store. You
get that. You get unions reeling and making all kinds of devil's
bargains. Just keep the insurance for the current workers. You can
hire new ones, that kind of situation. It's every man for himself,
basically. Then you get overlaid on that financialization. You get
a huge ballooning of economic sectors where people make nothing
except securities, new derivatives, new kinds of investment
vehicles, which is paper being traded back and forth until 2007,
'08 when we get the New York meltdown of all of this in the
beginning of [inaudible 00:36:00] securities.
Right. Oh yeah.
In other words, it's financialization, it's offshoring, it's
evasion of regulation and of taxes. Then the last piece, well, I
already mentioned, then we're going to bring women into the paid
workforce in a massive way that changes the relation between
production and reproduction. It changes the relation between
society and nature, vastly exacerbates that aspect. It changes the
relation between manufacturing and banking or other forms of
finance between states and the market because states are now with
each other. It's a race to the bottom. They dismantle Brett Woods,
the international financial system that permitted deficit financing
and capital controls.
Now, you have periodic attacks from the investors on different
currencies. The question of who's going to get bailed out and so on
and so forth. Debt is a huge part of this. There's a lot going on
here, but all of that is neoliberalism, including what you
mentioned, the sort of ideological veil that we should think of
everything as, in economic terms, as capital. We should all be
investing in our own human capital, treat our children like
capital, and just figure out how to get them into expensive nursery
schools that will set them on the road to Harvard.
I guess you didn't really go into this in the book as I
recall, but just as a layman, you said 40 years. Do you think that
the fall of the Soviet Union was used ideologically to say, this is
all by the way natural, this is all by the way the only way to do
things is to be rapacious and greedy?
Absolutely. I mean, it was clear that really existing
communism on the Soviet model, the Eastern European model was
hollowed out on a non-viable society. It was really, who knew
exactly when and how it would crumble, but it was crumbling
internally already. And so, naturally, the collapse, the fall of
the Berlin Wall and all of that was this moment of capitalist
triumphalism. Famously, Francis Fukuyama writes the book, it's The
End of History. Margaret Thatcher says, "There is no alternative."
This is the sort of idea that yeah, you're right, what we have,
warts and all, is the only game in town. That was a very paralyzing
and to many people persuasive moment.
We are still, I would say, struggling to convince ourselves
and to convince others that there are alternatives. They're not
going to look like socialism was historically imagined or built
before. We have to invent something new. It's got to be logical,
it's got to be feminist, it's got to be anti-racist, it's got to be
democratic, but we're up against the wall. If anything bespeaks the
urgency and severity, it is the looming climate catastrophe, which
is already catastrophic evidence. We're up against it and we have
to find alternatives.
Capitalism cannot fix this, in my opinion. Now, maybe that's a
controversial statement and not everyone will agree. I'm saying,
fine, let's focus on de-fossilizing the world economy and stopping
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. If what we end up
with, you want to still call capitalism, that's fine with me. I
don't care about the word. I care about the problem. Maybe we don't
have to exactly agree on what we're going to call it. We have to
get serious about imagining and implementing alternatives that
involve deep restructuring of what we have.
I think from my reading of your book, props to you, admiration
and respect for going into these areas. You're adding some thoughts
about what the future would look like. From my reading, it seems
like you are including some sort of democracy in these plan, which
is of course so difficult as we see people have this great ability
to ignore things that they want to ignore. And so, I give props to
you for being positive and coming up with ideas. It's very easy to
cut them down. But that was one that just looms for me. But there
would be a lot of work involved in what this democracy would look
You're absolutely right, and I'm really not in a position to
give anything like a full picture of this, but I think we can
already say some things about why the forms that democracy takes
within capitalist societies are extremely limited and not capable,
going back to the point you raised with the [inaudible 00:41:38],
not capable of actually solving our problems and that we will need
to reinvent democracy to solve these problems. Because first of
all, I mean, many people would say that there is a problem of money
in politics, citizen [inaudible 00:41:58] Supreme Court decision
that removed all limits on the basis that contributing money was a
form of speech, free speech, that's an obvious point. It's obvious
that richer people have a much easier time making themselves heard
how there are lots of obstacles to poor and people of color even
getting valid access in the first place and so on.
Those are the obvious problems about money and politics, but I
think there are much deeper problems in addition. What I have in
mind is the whole way in which we distinguish what is an issue for
the market and what is an issue for the Congress. Capitalism
essentially, let's say, devolves the whole question of what should
be produced, how much, on what basis with what kind of energy
underpinning with what materials, by whom on the basis of what
sorts of labor relations, all of that is off the political agenda.
That's for the market. That's for the-
For no one.
... for the entrepreneurs to decide.
Well, that's a good point.
They decide on the basis of their profit, how they are going
to survive in a world of cutthroat market competition. Democracy in
a sense is already relegated to a remainder of issues that are left
over, wants all of that. What all of that after all is our relation
to nature, the character of our family life, all of that is somehow
fall out from the way these productive decisions are made.
I think we have to democratize. We'd have to not just get the
money out of the politics understood as a predefined-
... political sphere. We have to democratize the question of
what should be decided democratically and what should be left to
the market. That's a kind of meta question in a way.
No, I understand.
The whole design of the society, it's become so dysfunctional
that we have to have the capacity to redesign it and to call on
democratic forms of deliberation and decision making in that
redesign. Can't leave it to elites or authorities or wealth or
market to decide. We've got to get into the act. That's a part of
what I think is involved now is that whatever new form of post
capitalist society we want to try to create, you can call it
socialism if you like, I'm happy with that name, but not everyone
will be. Whatever we call it, it's got to be democratic in the way
it's going to operate in a robust way, and it's got to be designed
and implemented in a democratic way.
Now, that's a very tall order. How exactly we get there, I
can't say. But my best guess is that we try to find some way of,
let's say, bringing together the people who really care about
climate, with people who really care about racism, people who
really care about social reproduction and gender, with people who
care about livelihood, insecurity, and democracy.
The idea would be all of these issues have become acute crisis
problems because all of them arise in one, in the same social
system that is cannibal capitalism, and that basically, we have to
stop cannibalization and the only way that we can be strong enough
and a broad enough social constituency to do that is by bringing
together all of those. Not everyone has to have the same priority,
that climate is number one, or police murdering of Black people in
the streets is number one. We don't all have to have the exact same
lexical ordering of importance, but we have to all share the
understanding that the root of all of this is this cannibal
capitalism and that we have to transform.
You've provided a framework for understanding that, which I
think is extremely valuable. It's hopeful, I must say. The easy
thing is just to say, "Oh, well, nothing can happen." But I
appreciate your going in and finding some optimism, finding some
hope for the future. The book is Cannibal Capitalism: How Our
System is Devouring Democracy, Care and the Planet and What We Can
Do About It. Professor Nancy Fraser, thank you so much for writing
the book and for joining me today.
Well, thank you. It's been a real pleasure to talk with you
about it, and I enjoyed it a lot. Thank you.