Capitalism uses racism, and profits from it. That's a simple historical fact. The great New England fortunes of early America were largely built on the slave trade -- and those of us here are only just beginning to come to terms with that. But it's unimpeachable historical fact. The great fortunes of the pre-Civil War south -- need we even discuss those? The vast railroad fortunes of the 19th Century -- whose physical labor, exactly, built those railroads? It goes on and on, but I think the point is made.
The "black codes" imposed in the South in the late 19th Century were largely imposed to ensure a continuous source of cheap labor for, not just the plantation system, but also for manufacturing. The continued repression of African-American wages served as a useful tool for keeping working-class white wages down as well. And it wasn't just the South that profited from this -- the use of lower-paid black labor during the years of the Great Migration was used as a constant threat over white workers, thus preventing them from coming to any understanding of working-class solidarity across racial lines. The CIO worked mightily during the 1930s to overcome this, to only limited success, because the problem was so widespread. It wasn't until the Fair Employment Practices Act of 1941 outlawed race differentials in wages for defense contractors that any real progress was made toward dealing with this issue, and that law was bitterly opposed by the National Association of Manufacturers and similar capitalist-interest groups, and enforcement was always spotty. This, too, is unimpeachable historical fact. And I won't even start on our current administration, run by a billionaire who was seeded in his "self made" business career by a slumlord father who ran racially-restricted buildings, and who himself had an extremely dubious racial record in conducting his own real estate enterprises.
As for the rest of it, I believe that economics, as I said, is far more a "faith" than a "science." And when discussing matters of faith there's really no point in two people who are clearly of different fundamental philosophies running around in circles with each other. I can cite Marx and you'll cite Bohm-Bawerk and I'll cite Hilferding and you'll cite Hayek, and I'll say tomata and you'll say tohmato, and eventually we'll just call the whole thing off. I'm not in this for the ego-boost, so I'll save us both the trouble. If there's one thing I learned on the doorstep it's that you can't make a Witness out of a Mormon. OMG MORPHS LAW!