Class reductionism is the belief that you don't need to address racial issues and disparities, because the harm that impacts black folk is solely due to their economic position and can be resolved by solely economic means.
I've never done that. And you're not quoting me doing anything like that. I honestly have no idea how you think Bernie's statement is class reductionism.
yeah to white leftists who underachieved in lifeclass reductionism is a myth
Do you honestly think that targeting the White working class is class reductionism? Cause Biden does that all the time, and he does it WITHOUT mentioning their race, which is part of what class reductionism actually entails. Is this class reductionism or not?
I wouldn't say that. I've definitely heard/seen some class reductionist takes before with the backlash to pandering and identity politics from the last few years. You'll always find some goofy on twitter espousing any kind of horse shyt though.class reductionism is a myth
I wouldn't say that. I've definitely heard/seen some class reductionist takes before with the backlash to pandering and identity politics from the last few years. You'll always find some goofy on twitter espousing any kind of horse shyt though.
I think the concept that it's anything more than an insignificant fringe view that doesn't have any traction is the myth.
When hes caught, he claims he doesn't know what a class reductionist is when bernie got called out for doing that shyt
There's still people who don't have nap blocked?
Rhakim just as crazy as nap is. Both might be autistic. Nap definitely autistic.
This is nap. If you engage with him the only conclusion would be that you're also one of these.
No dumbassAren’t you maga?
Exactly. There are rare people who say it, but socialists, communists and leftists have been advocating for civil rights, women rights, lgbtq rights, immigration rates, etc forever and been a large part in these movements. For black civil rights, when shyt actually made progress, it was leftists and socialists leading. Why? Because you can’t have these reckonings without an economic reckoning.I wouldn't say that. I've definitely heard/seen some class reductionist takes before with the backlash to pandering and identity politics from the last few years. You'll always find some goofy on twitter espousing any kind of horse shyt though.
I think the concept that it's anything more than an insignificant fringe view that doesn't have any traction is the myth.
“Class reductionism” is, in other words, a myth. It is a caricature rooted in hoary folk imagery, likely as not originating in tales of late-1960s debates during the raucous disintegration of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), as a clutch of nominal socialists insisted that any distinct focus on racial and gender injustice would undermine the greater political goal of working-class unity. But even at its height, this view only gained currency among a very small cohort of sectarian dogmatists. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, Communists, Socialists, labor-leftists, and Marxists of all stripes characteristically were in the forefront of struggles for racial and gender justice. And that commitment was natural, because such leftists saw those struggles as inextricable from the more general goal of social transformation along egalitarian lines; they properly understood the battles for racial and gender equity as constitutive elements of the struggle for working-class power. Class reductive leftism is a figment of the political imagination roused by those who have made their peace with neoliberalism.
The myth, moreover, obscures important contemporary and historical realities.
Black, female, and trans people tend to be disproportionately working class. So any measure to advance broad downward economic redistribution—from Medicare for All to a $15 hourly minimum wage—can’t coherently be said to thwart the interests of women, racial minorities, or other identity groups. What’s more, this brand of class denialism artificially separates race, gender, and other ascriptive identities from the basic dynamics of American capitalism. True, African Americans, Latinos, and women are disproportionately poor or working class due to a long history of racial and gender discrimination in labor and housing markets—conditions that have worsened alongside the postwar deindustrialization of American cities. But this means that these populations would benefit disproportionately from initiatives geared to improve the circumstances of poor and working-class people in general.
As American politics shifted steadily rightward between the Nixon and Clinton presidencies, so, too, did the discourse surrounding race and the country’s political economy. Conservatives attributed black socioeconomic inequalities to bad values; liberals attributed them to bad values and racism. Once it was effectively decoupled from political-economic dynamics, “racism” became increasingly amorphous as a charge or diagnosis—a blur of attitudes, utterances, individual actions, and patterned disparities, an autonomous force that acts outside of historically specific social relations. Today it serves as a single, all-purpose explanation for mass incarceration, the wealth gap, the wage gap, police brutality, racially disproportionate rates of poverty and unemployment, slavery, the Southern Jim Crow regime, health disparities, the drug war, random outbursts of individual bigotry, voter suppression, and more.
The obvious racial disparities are cause for concern, but the way forward is precisely through the kinds of social and economic policies that address black people as workers, students, parents, taxpayers, citizens, people in need of decent jobs, housing, and health care, or concerned with foreign policy—not to homogenize them under a monolithic racial classification. Thanks to this misguided reflex, we now routinely act as though initiatives directed to address working-class concerns can’t suffice for African Americans, since they’re class reductionist and therefore racially exclusionary. Ironically, as Touré Reed also points out, this perspective is race reductionist: It presumes that key policies and initiatives must always and everywhere be tailored to singularly African American-branded issues in order to appear to address African Americans’ needs.
Exactly. There are rare people who say it, but socialists, communists and leftists have been advocating for civil rights, women rights, lgbtq rights, immigration rates, etc forever and been a large part in these movements. For black civil rights, when shyt actually made progress, it was leftists and socialists leading. Why? Because you can’t have these reckonings without an economic reckoning.
Prof. Adolph Reed had a good article on this in 2019:
The Myth of Class Reductionism
The fight for racial and gender justice has always been about economic inequality, too.newrepublic.com
…
Ask yourself, who in oppressed communities benefits from thinking only in a racial lens and forgoing class? It ain’t the working class in those communities.
Im not saying there are not people who think only in class, but no one listens to them, and no one has ever listened to them.