Recently there have been several articles accusing Black Lives Matter of being a Marxist Organization, as well as a number totally rejecting the assumption. Much of this comes in the wake of a re-surfaced video of co-founder Patrisse Cullors declaring that she and fellow organizers are “trained Marxist.” Black Lives Matter is an organized movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality against African American people. An organization known simply as Black Lives Matter exists as a decentralized network with over 30 chapters in the United States and sister organizations worldwide while a larger Black Lives Matter movement exists consisting of various separate like-minded organizations such as Dream Defenders and Assata’s Daughters. The broader movement and its related organizations typically advocate against police violence towards black people, as well as for various other policy changes considered to be related to black liberation. Patrisse Cullors is one of the three co-founders of the Black Lives Matter movement. In the summer of 2013 fueled by the acquittal granted to George Zimmerman after his murder of Trayvon Martin, Alicia Garza posted on Facebook, Patrisse added a hashtag, and Opal Tometi had the vision of a platform for Black liberation.
Is calling yourself a Marxist and declaring the organization to be Marxist in outlook a bad thing? For those who reject it out of hand, in an article for My Christian Daily, Buckingham writes.
As one writer said “BLM is not a Marxist movement. It is a movement that encompasses many people, no doubt some of them Marxist. A few years ago, my eldest daughter and I attended the March for Refugees in the city (Melbourne). At the March there were all sorts of people handing out leaflets/papers including Marxist propaganda. People’s opportunism doesn’t mean the March was Marxist. No doubt there will be all sorts of people hitching their wagons to BLM at this time, but that shouldn’t blind us to the facts.”
In his book ‘Disinformation’ a former Romanian Intelligence officer, LTG Ion Minai Pacepa, spoke of how the former Soviet Union established so called liberation movements to undermine western governments. Infiltrating and eventually controlling church organizations the Soviets begain the process in South America. Elevating Cuban terrorist Che Guevara to icon status they begain to subvert the poor of the catholic countries to a view of liberation. Subverting the World Council of Churches the Soviets begain to plant false stories and incite racial hatred in the US as well.
“A few years ago, a black version of liberation theology began growing in a few radical-leftist black churches in the United States. Black liberation theologians James Cone, Cornel West and Dwight Hopkins have explicitly state their preference for Marxism because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (white) versus victim class (black), and it sees just one solution; the destruction of the enemy.”
“Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. “
The hand of the Kremlin reached the shores of the United States as well. In March 1996, a sensational story jolted the American conscience. The National Council of Churches and the Center for Democratic Renewal, which according to Pacepa are secretly Marxist organizations, held joint press conferences to announce a huge increase in the burning of Black churches in the US. This was followed by a swift condemnation by President Clinton and the enactment of laws and setting up a federal task force. Clinton spoke passionately about his memories of black churches being burnt in Arkansas in his youth.
According to Pacepa “Then the bubble burst. It was eventually established by a private group, the National Fire Protection Association, that in recent years there had been far fewer church fires than usual, and law enforcement officials in the South could not confirm any as having been racially motivated. No church burning had occurred in Arkansas during Clinton childhood.”
All of this points to the ongoing interference the Russian government has had on the institutions of government in the US. This began under Soviet leadership, but reports continue to indicate the GRU, Russia’s intelligence service, continue to spread discord around the world. Does any of this indicate that BLM is a Marxist organization? No it does not. I would venture to say that most rank and file members are not in fact consciously Marxist, but in fact passionate people being led by people that do subscribe to the Marxist ideology.
One problem with this is
that the main tenant of Marxism is class struggle, the oppressed rising up to overthrow the oppressor. Once the oppressor is vanquished all become equal and paradise reigns supreme. While this incites passions the second problem is not addressed, it does not work that way in reality. Watching the protest on both sides it is evident that passion has overtaken reason, and this is dangerous.
B.H. Liddell Hart, a 20th century military historian and theorist wrote in “Why Don’t We Learn from History.”
“The history of ancient Greece showed that, in democracy, emotion dominates reason to a greater extent than in any other political system… No political system more easily becomes out of control when passions are aroused. These defects have been multiplied in modern democracies, since their great extension of size and their vast electorate produces a much larger volume of emotional pressure.”
We see both sides using terms such as Marxist and White Supremist to raise passions. What needs to be done is to try and raise the conversation to reason and facts. If we are to discuss race relations it is best to define terms that are reasonable. BLM is not an overt Marxist organization but follows many of the teachings of Marx. Defining systemic racism also requires an understanding of a point of view. Does racism exist in the United States, of course it does as it exists in every country in the world. Did systemic racism exist in the United States, it is hard to ignore our slavery past or the imposition of Jim Crow laws, so the answer is yes. The problem today is defining and deciding if it is still in existence.
Looking up definitions of systemic racism I became very confused. If there is government mandated actions or corporate activity that is driven primarily by race, then that is systemic racism. If on the other hand, if in day to day actions, certain activities are perceived as racist by one side but not the other, then how do we agree. One example given of systemic racism was if a white person buys a house in a predominantly white neighborhood then that can be perceived as systemic racism. The position of the writer was that even unconscious actions are driven by systemic racism. On the other hand, if the decision were driven by the fact the house was the best one you could find in your price range then what is that.
To conclude we must as a people search out the answers in a reasonable and logical manner. This will not lead to the end state that will satisfy everyone but so be it. I look forward to the day that all Americans and America in general can live long and prosper.