It's oddly gratifying to come across an article from a traditional news source that shares a perspective with me on a subject. Especially if it's not currently a widespread assertion. I write mostly for the practice of writing. This format makes it somewhat easy when other formats are less conducive. So to have another writer advocating a position I take, it makes me feel almost legitimate or something. Almost. Check out this article from Mark Woford.
One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that
Comments
Post a Comment