Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Intolerance of ‘Black Lives Matter’ Is Perplexing. I Hope.
The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., led an organized movement against an obvious injustice, using eloquent, simple arguments which were based on sources that few questioned (the Bible and the Constitution), while denouncing violence and emphasizing honesty and integrity. Many argued with him for a while but, eventually, America agreed with him and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By passing this law, white America agreed that the way they had treated blacks was wrong and such abuses would no longer be tolerated. The transformation in American society since then has been remarkable. I was born in 1968 and in my 51 years, I have never seen what Rev. King or his contemporaries would call racism against blacks. I’m sure it happens, but it has become extremely rare. Not only are racist acts illegal but they have also become unacceptable behavior for white people in our society, even in private. As they should be.
The Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests which have been sweeping the country over the past month are ostensibly focused on race. But the similarities to Rev. King’s movement end there. BLM is leading a chaotic and unpredictable movement against subtle concepts that are difficult to specifically define, such as micro-aggressions and white privilege. Their arguments are highly variable, unclear, poorly stated, and do not appear to be based on any set ideology or legal framework. They do not denounce violence and frequently seem to actually encourage it. White Americans are desperately competing with one another to prove they’re less racist than the next guy but they can’t meet the demands of BLM, because they’re not sure what they are, exactly, on any given day. There is, however, one consistent message pushed by BLM and their supporters, and it terrifies me:
They tolerate absolutely no debate or discussion. Blacks who question BLM in any way, no matter how small, are branded “Uncle Toms.” Whites who do so are called racists.
A quick aside: If a white person is called a racist, by anyone, just that accusation (regardless of its merit) can destroy that white person’s life. S/he can lose friends, their job, and their place in society with little to no hope of ever recovering from such destruction. That truth suggests that BLM’s claims of widespread systemic white racism against blacks are apparently not anywhere near correct. But, whatever.
My point is that the BLM movement tolerates no dissent. Even from dead people. They destroy statues and attempt to rewrite history, like Muslim extremists and other tyrants all over the world. If a comedian once made a joke they found offensive, that comedian should not be permitted to make jokes about anything else, even years later. Works of art that don’t share their worldview should be destroyed, rather than carefully considered. If a police officer in Minnesota is suspected to be a racist, then police departments across the country should be shut down. The intolerance of the BLM movement and its supporters is breathtaking.
Intolerance of others is always dangerous. This is the genius of our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers recognized that we would often disagree, and used federalism, three branches of government, a nation of laws and not of men, and various other techniques to allow a diverse group of individuals to co-exist peacefully.
But this particular brand of intolerance – the one pushed so hard by BLM and their supporters, I find particularly concerning. And that is because I can think of only two possible reasons for it. Perhaps you can think of others but these are the only ones that come to my mind:
- BLM does not permit anyone to argue with their ideology or goals, because no one (including BLM) knows what they are. They understand that any effort to debate their point will quickly show that they don’t have one, and they don’t want to look stupid. I don’t think this is the case but I suppose it’s possible. But I hope this is it because the only other possibility I can think of is…
- Their true underlying goals are nefarious and extremely unpopular. They are simply Marxists using their current source of leverage (in this case, racial tensions) to get what they’ve wanted all along – to destroy America. Or, as President Obama put it, “…a fundamental transformation of America.” Make America into something completely different than what it has always been. They despise democracy and capitalism, and seek to transform America into some sort of socialist state with more central control and fewer individual liberties. They denounce racism because they know that most Americans don’t want racism. But they can’t admit that their ultimate goal is Marxism, because they also know that most Americans don’t want that either.
What do you think? Am I overlooking something?
Why are BLM and their supporters so extreme in their intolerance? Rev. King went out of his way to find areas of agreement with American whites. He based his entire movement on the Constitution and the Bible, and he eloquently explained that all black people wanted was the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He relentlessly emphasized his hope to have blacks join American society. BLM appears to seek further separation between blacks and American society.
This seems odd. Any minority movement tends to attempt to broaden its appeal, form coalitions when possible, and build support in order to achieve their goals.
That is clearly not what BLM is doing. Why?
Rather than encouraging people to agree with them, they make it harder and harder for people to agree with them. They say that it is no longer good enough to not be a racist — you must be “anti-racist.” I’m not quite sure what that means, but I suspect it means agreeing with whatever BLM says is important this afternoon. And stay tuned for changes tomorrow morning.
Why are the demands of this minority movement so vague, and yet so draconian? It doesn’t make any sense.
I can think of only two possible reasons. And I think one of them is wrong.
And I really hope I’m wrong about the other one. Because if that one is true, if BLM really is nothing more than a camouflaged Marxist revolution, we may have a very serious problem here. A problem that could lead to a very, very, very messy conflict.
What do you think?
Published in General
what is a neo-marxist and how does it differ from a ‘classical’ marxist?
I’ve no idea, I was hoping someone here knew. Perhaps someone who’s used the term Marxist to describe BLM?
Question was for Jerry, Arizona Patriot
I wish we had a trained Marxist here who could help us with proper terminology…
I wonder. Possibly, Rev. King would have decried the left for being unable to condemn looters because of the color of their skin
This generation of Marxians and self-identified Marxists have gone beyond purely economic class distinctions. Race, gender, you name it are all part of the structural advantage/disadvantage calculus. It gives them broader appeal: you can make $350,000/year at a corporate job and own a nice home and send your kids to private school but you’re disadvantaged.
I saw a house in a nice neighborhood; it just sold for $1 million. The new owners are a young couple who want kids and didn’t want to raise them in San Francisco. They have a Black Lives Matter sign hand crafted in tile outside their house. The Black Lives Matter signs in front of the other houses on the block are hand written with markers on paper or cardboard.
“The soft bigotry of low expectations.”
This post and comment from Glenn Reynolds is timely:
I’ll take a shot at it. Karl Marx thought that proletarian workers would be the shock troops of the revolution. That’s why he did not expect the serfs of Russia to be good candidates for Marxism. China showed it could be imposed from above on a serf culture although the “Cultural Revolution” showed what could happen when ignorant youth, students and semi-educated teenagers, got turned loose. What we have now is a movement run by the angry children of Bourgeoisie parents who have no time for them and who do not set standards for them. Blacks are the cannon fodder of this movement which is not about Black Lives, except as an excuse. They have replaced global warming, which was losing its power.
So the difference is about who makes the revolution?
That’s a resounding YES!
Does that mean that the revolution itself is different? If so, how?
Is the purpose to build or to destroy?
Revolutions generally intend to do both.
Haven’t detected any of the build part in these riots.
One of the problems with terms like “socialism” and “Marxism” is that, in the context of popular discussion, they become vague and actually detract from the conversation. And so we end up with circumlocutions like “democratic socialism” to describe an economic system that apparently retains the good parts of socialism while dispensing with the bad. Or something. And we get into probably pointless discussions about whether the self-professed “Marxists” of BLM are in fact Marxist by this standard or Marxist by that standard.
In contrast, we have a pretty good idea what a market is, and we have a pretty good idea what a free market is, which is to say one in which the vast preponderance of decision-making is made by buyers and sellers without central management. What seems important to me isn’t whether or not BLM is “Marxist” per se, but rather whether it is opposed to free markets.
And the answer to that question is yes.
I don’t care whether that opposition is based in textbook Marxism or some bastardized version of same, or economic fascism, or any other particular distortion imposed on the market. I don’t think, at the end of the day, that it matters all that much which economic theory is imposed by an authoritarian bent on preventing the essentially free exchange of goods and services. Whatever label you slap on it, we end up eating our pets.
I will be forever perplexed by the fact that otherwise intelligent people can look at laissez-faire markets, without question the most successful economic strategy in history given any sensible definition of “successful,” and conclude that one or another variation of collectivism is somehow preferable.
Black Lives Matter, the Green New Deal, Antifa — all of these have in common as their central motivation the destruction of the tested engine of prosperity. They gussy it up with various noble justifications — race, environment, anti-fascism — all of which are both fundamentally dishonest in the instance and also intended to distract from the true agenda.
I agree with your comment. BLM as a movement with the three founding members as leaders is a misnomer in any terms related to improving conditions for those Americans who identify as black or Americans of African descent. Thus the question posed here regarding whether the BLM movement is Marxist or not is not meaningful in terms of the movement having a racial orientation. If the movement were in anyway true to that racial proposition there would not exist the resistance to addressing the fate of all those residents of urban areas like Chicago who would fit the objective if it were as inclusive as implied. BLM is just another prong of the Leftist effort to reduce the likelihood of President Trump’s re-election prospects.