gothcactus 
Race Reductionism and Liberalism
“Liberals have divorced racial inequality from political economy and have consistently rejected redistributive class-based anti-poverty policies that might address the sources of economic inequality that have, indeed, impacted blacks disproportionately.” - Touré F Reed
Recently I watched a heated debate between the Fred Hampton Leftists (FHL) members Compton Jay and Afeni and Jen Perelman from JENerational Change. It was interesting because it captured some of the fundamental disagreements between movement groups that are primary white and those that are non-white. The argument reminded me of the types of arguments that I used to participate in as part of the non-white groups when I was a student organizer.
Essentially, Jen was trying to make the argument that electoral politics, especially targeting labor, will be a unifying factor in leftist movements because it affects the majority of people.
Jay pushed back on Jen’s argument by saying that prioritizing electoral politics has not helped Black people as a racial group historically or currently, so there’s little point in participating in it, especially when people are asked to unite under leaders that are known to be racist, misogynist, etc. He proceeded to make points about how certain social welfare policies only benefitted white people.
The key moment that set the argument off to an explosion was when Jen shrugged off the racist leader point, and Jay interpreted this gesture as Jen not caring about racist leaders.
Jen kind of fumbled on this point and became defensive of her position that escalated into defending her organization. She went further to say that Jay and Afeni “ambushed” them, and that she didn’t want to invite people from FHL anyway.
In this back and forth, I realized that the exchange was emblematic of so many leftist arguments. And it stems from this confusion and ahistorical analysis of race, class under the current regime of liberalism. I don’t think the intent of either side is disingenuous, but there’s a key piece missing in both of their arguments.
Touré Reed and Adolph Reed, and other scholars who studied race in a framework that considers capitalism and political economy that is grounded in history, provide an excellent explanation to both the scenario above and more accurate way to analyze race.
The issue with Jay’s argument is that he still operates under this individualistic analysis of race that is influenced by post-modern cultural framework of race. I agree that elected individuals probably won’t change the lives of most people, but for a different reason. Jay thinks these individuals are racist and therefore will not support policies that will benefit black people. So I wonder: if these individuals are not racist, will they make a difference then? And to this point, how would you even determine that they are not racist?
You can see the rabbit hole that you might end up in when the framework of analysis is inaccurate and inadequate.
Jay’s argument is also flawed in that it does not consider historical moments that have fundamentally changed the lives of black working class people. The labor policies of the 60s, for example, have benefitted a large amount of boomer black people who were able to gain economic opportunity like never before. And these policies were not race-based.
What I find refreshing about the idea of race reductionism is that it pushes back against racial analysis that essentializes it as if it exists outside of the realm of history. In other words, it is a fixed entity that is not a product history, but rather a reality by itself.
You can see how this can turn into a dangerous presumption because it then renders race was something that cannot be changed and something inherent in society.
Unfortunately, the dominant narrative of racial politics these days is precisely based on this presumption. Post modern theories are to blame, as they focus on cultural groups and view race was a fixed entity, rejecting historical materialism entirely.
Another issue with this post modern presumption is that it also adopts the individualist lens of subjectivity and personal responsibility. It also views societal trends as an aggregate of individual actions and beliefs rather than a structural system of various institutions.