Read on Twitter
Yes, the NYT article on the whole Adolph Reed/DSA cancelation thing is bad. But I dream of time we can actually have a lucid debate around the questions Reed raises. I think these questions around race and political economy follow two distinct tracks: analysis and strategy.
In other words, Reed is often making two discrete claims. 1) a retrospective analysis of the role race has played (or not) in our economic configuration. 2) a prospective strategy of the role race ought to play (or not) in our organizing to have the best success at redistribution
1) and 2) are related, but how they are related is not automatic. One may agree with an analysis and disagree with the proposed strategy to overcome the problem identified by said analysis. My point is that 2) is a *wager* guided by assumptions of the effect race will have
The assumption seems to be that race will automatically divide solidarity because the focus will shift away from economic transformation towards "cultural" issues like changing the names of buildings names after racists.
One may happen to agree with that assumption or one may not. I am not sure that necessarily follows. But as it concerns 2) these will remain assumptions rather than established facts. Either way I think it would be useful to be explicit abt the content of these assumptions.
