"The question inevitably arises: Will the Negroes of Harlem be able to hold it? Will they not be driven still farther northward? Residents of Manhattan, regardless of race, have been driven out when they lay in the path of business and greatly increased land values. Harlem lies in the direction that path must take; so there is little probability that Negroes will always hold it as a residential section. But this is to be considered: the Negro's situation in Harlem is without precedent in all his history in New York; never before has he been so securely anchored, never before has he owned the land, never before has he had so well established community life."

Manhattan: the land of sky-high real estate prices. This fact-of-life was just as true in the 1920s and 30s as it is now. So what about Harlem? Can Harlem stay a mecca for African Americans, or will African Americans eventually be priced out as Manhattan's overall property values continue to increase?

Johnson can't tell us the future from where he is. (Aw, shucks.) But he does know that black people are in a much better position than ever before. Why? He owns land in Harlem. And Harlem, on the whole, offers a pretty rad black community.

Alright. This passage is supposed to tell us something about socialism/communism. So what does the Donald Trump-ification of Harlem have to do with those big sociopolitical philosophies?

Think of this quote as almost a cautionary tale of capitalism. Johnson doesn't actually mention the alternatives of socialism or communism at all here. In fact, what he describes is a rabid capitalism that might "[drive]" the "Negroes of Harlem" "still farther northward," especially since "Harlem lies in the direction that path must take."

But instead of turning to other philosophies for a solution to this impending problem, Johnson makes a very different argument. He thinks that capitalism is here to stay, and that black residents might get priced out of Harlem. But at least black Harlemites have some property under their belts—at least they're even allowed to participate in the system of capitalism at this point in history.

As he points out, "never before has his position [in Manhattan] been so securely anchored, never before has he owned the land." So, in other words, even though Johnson expects the white gentrification of Harlem to continue, he's optimistic. Why?

Because now that African Americans are part of the capitalist game of ever-climbing property values, they've at least got a chance to (re)claim Harlem for themselves.

This passage may only mention property values, but to Johnson, it's really about class wars. "Will the Negroes of Harlem be able to hold it?", he asks, as if the "Negroes of Harlem" are citizens of a separate country, "holding" the line against an invading enemy.

And that threat is real. Sure, there might not be guns or tanks, but lives—a whole way of life, really—are still at stake. After all, "Harlem lies in the direction that path must take." Rapid gentrification is inevitable in Manhattan.

Maybe that's why, in order to fight against the inescapable, Johnson ends up adopting the same terms of engagement—as opposed to, say, suggesting a communist revolution. He writes:

Never before has [the Negro's] position been so securely anchored, never before has he owned the land, never before has he had so well established community life.

See all those "never"s? Johnson's building up black Harlemites as worthy opponents who can engage in the battle for their home neighborhood. These locals have some of the same weapons as the invaders (specifically, they own land there).

But we're left to wonder: is the battle already lost? If Johnson is willing to use the same terms of war (market capitalism) as a way of judging black Americans' fitness for "battle," isn't that a sign that market capitalism has already won?

Food for thought, kiddos. Food for thought.