Need Help Finding Something About BLM

[chevyontheriver]

This might not be well known to people who don't have a specific interest in liberation theology and the intersection between Christianity and Marxism, but I think it is useful to keep in mind that pretty major Catholic figures like Dorothy Day and Jacques Maritain actually collaborated with Saul Alinsky, of all people. Because they were all interested in community building.

Those were very complex relationships, and it would be an oversimplification to say either Maritain or Day were flirting with Marxism. Maritain sought the conversion of Alinsky. And we should all be interested in community building even though it has become a code phrase for radicals, just as 'radical' has become a code word for Marxist revolutionary.

 

[Silmarien]

Those were very complex relationships, and it would be an oversimplification to say either Maritain or Day were flirting with Marxism. Maritain sought the conversion of Alinsky. And we should all be interested in community building even though it has become a code phrase for radicals, just as 'radical' has become a code word for Marxist revolutionary.

Well, I said collaborating, not flirting. I certainly don't think they were flirting with Marxism; just that they were capable of working with Marxists. If people are seeking the conversion of BLM, that is also way cooler than just screaming, "Marxist!" and running away.

 

[Arc F1]

Why do you believe that? I mean, if you look at stuff like marijuana convictions, it certainly seems the case that blacks are disproportionately targeted.

Are they really disproportionately targeted or just more careless? Do they put themselves in a position of getting caught more than others? There could be a multitude of reasons other what you stated. Younger people tend to get caught more often than older adults because of the situation they put themselves in.

 

[camille70]

Are they really disproportionately targeted or just more careless? Do they put themselves in a position of getting caught more than others? There could be a multitude of reasons other what you stated. Younger people tend to get caught more often than older adults because of the situation they put themselves in.

A month and a half into protests and I still can't believe comments like this are cropping up.

Selective policing takes place in many places. Often white kids/people aren't stopped at all, and if they are stopped any drugs they have are confiscated and they are sent on their way, or they are just sent on their way.

When doing stop and frisk in NY, a higher percentage of whites had illegal substances when frisked, but they weren't the ones being targeted. In some areas the percentage of black people stopped and frisk was above their percentage in that areas population, because it was being used as a means of harassment and back citizens were being stopped multiple times.

Not to mention legal representation. A white person with a lawyer is going to gain freedom far more often than a black person without one or with a public defender. White kids are also seen as needing guidance while black kids are seen as needing to be controlled and to have an example made out of them. This results in less dismissals, harsher judgements etc, just like with school discipline. Collective thinking is that black behavioral problems are an inherent character flaw, white behavioral problems are just a phase of which they will outgrow.

People don't consider even weapon wielding, wildly aggressive white folks to be a threat.

ACLU had a report they did a few years ago. The PDF is online. Google Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey.

 

[Silmarien]

Are they really disproportionately targeted or just more careless? Do they put themselves in a position of getting caught more than others? There could be a multitude of reasons other what you stated. Younger people tend to get caught more often than older adults because of the situation they put themselves in.

Given the way communities of color are over-policed, I would very much suspect that they actually are being targeted disproportionately for marijuana possession.

 

[istodolez]

The woman is not just associated with, she is one of the FOUNDERS OF.

When a Marxist declares their Ideology what is it, that makes you not believe them?

One can be something but still not make those things which they are associated with be that same thing.

Look at the folks who run Hobby Lobby. They are self-professed Christians with a strong Christian sensibility yet they still economically support atheist China (they buy a LOT of stuff from them), they still lie (charged by the NY State Atty General for deceptive advertising, all in service to Mammon.

People can be something but their organizations aren't necessarily that too!

 

[Silmarien]

One can be something but still not make those things which they are associated with be that same thing.

Look at the folks who run Hobby Lobby. They are self-professed Christians with a strong Christian sensibility yet they still economically support atheist China (they buy a LOT of stuff from them), they still lie (charged by the NY State Atty General for deceptive advertising, all in service to Mammon.

People can be something but their organizations aren't necessarily that too!

But as far as I can tell, their theology does in fact revolve to a certain degree around free market capitalism that I find suspiciously like Mammon-worship, but they seem to believe otherwise. I do not think that they are uninfluenced in this by what they actually believe. Same goes for the BLM folk, and I'm not sure why that's even controversial, since community organizing is a huge part of Marxism and it's what they're into. (Am I the only one here who isn't all that fazed by the fact that they're Marxists?)

 

[renniks]

Does anyone here have a link to anything, where someone prominent within BLM states the truth, that BLM has nothing to do with Marxism? I know something has to exist online, but I can't find anything. I suppose because it's sort of harder to use a search engine to find a negative assertion, you know?

Well since the leaders have said it certainly is Marxist, that is a big " No."

 

[istodolez]

But as far as I can tell, their theology does in fact revolve to a certain degree around free market capitalism that I find suspiciously like Mammon-worship, but they seem to believe otherwise. I do not think that they are uninfluenced in this by what they actually believe. Same goes for the BLM folk, and I'm not sure why that's even controversial, since community organizing is a huge part of Marxism and it's what they're into. (Am I the only one here who isn't all that fazed by the fact that they're Marxists?)

I'm also not particularly upset about Marxist-idealists who found groups. I think the key is that the Right who wish to delegitimize BLM are counting on people equating "Marxist" with "Stalinist Dictatorship". That's an absurdity of course but as you point out community organizing is an inherently "social" (and by extension "socialist") type of undertaking. And yes, BLM does focus on utilizing "community" as a part of the broader support structure.

But the minute one allows that "Marxism" is an ok term and isn't a horrible 4-letter word meaning all the horrible things we can pile into it, then the Right gets to run with that. They get to label it freely however they want and they get to control the narrative.

It's the same with "Obamacare". Back in the late 2000's something like 85% of Americans, when presented with the list of things the ACA would provide SUPPORTED IT. And when people were polled with the name "Obamacare" attached instead of general healthcare reform, a lot of people freaked out and said "No way!"

Americans are not the deepest thinkers and simple rhetorical tricks are often enough to turn the conversation.

 

[Dryskale]

So what is Chesterton's criticism of BLM if it incorporates Marxist ideals into their rehtoric?

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Am I the only one here who isn't all that fazed by the fact that they're Marxists?

I suppose if you can ignore the fact that when the kind of centralised control advocated by Marxists was tried in the Soviet Union, it was an abject failure, then there's not much to be fazed about. And I'm not sure how you interpret the recent rioting, looting, arson, shooting, and destruction of monuments, but I think many would suspect that it is the behaviour of people trying to destabilise a nation prior to pushing a Marxist agenda in some kind of socialist revolution.

If you speak to a Marxist, they will probably inform you that the only reason Marxism has failed everywhere it's been tried, is that the wrong people were in charge. It never seems to occur to them that as soon as the right people are given power, they suddenly mutate into the wrong people. And then it's too late to change your mind, because you can't vote them out.

From that point of view, I feel that capitalism and the free market is a bit like democracy, in that it's the worst system, apart from every other system. I certainly wouldn't want to live under the kind of governance that Marxists advocate. I rather like being able to go shopping and not have to choose between almost empty shelves and the black market.

But hey, as long as tractor production continues to rise, we will all be living the good life under Marxists!

 

[Dryskale]

I suppose if you can ignore the fact that when the kind of centralised control advocated by Marxists was tried in the Soviet Union, it was an abject failure, then there's not much to be fazed about.

That right there suggests you dont know much about what Marxism is or the history of the Soviet Union. Marx does not support centralized control, a specific school of thought brought the idea to prominence, but it was shown to have limitations. Marxism is not synonymous with central planning.

And I'm not sure how you interpret the recent rioting, looting, arson, shooting, and destruction of monuments, but I think many would suspect that it is the behaviour of people trying to destabilise a nation prior to pushing a Marxist agenda in some kind of socialist revolution.

I am pretty sure you are projecting too much onto the protests. Riots tend to establish when there is a breakdown in the systems that establish the status quo and when people are put in a position where their voices are no longer heard.

If you speak to a Marxist, they will probably inform you that the only reason Marxism has failed everywhere it's been tried, is that the wrong people were in charge. It never seems to occur to them that as soon as the right people are given power, they suddenly mutate into the wrong people. And then it's too late to change your mind, because you can't vote them out.

This literally just sounds like Jordan Peterson parroting. Marxism isn't about the right people leading, but a framework of viewing class struggle and economic distribution. Just like Capitalism. It's a framework with many schools of thought.

From that point of view, I feel that capitalism and the free market is a bit like democracy, in that it's the worst system, apart from every other system. I certainly wouldn't want to live under the kind of governance that Marxists advocate. I rather like being able to go shopping and not have to choose between almost empty shelves and the black market.

The issue I see with your position is that Marxism and capitalism are not synonymous with Market freedoms. Marxist socialism advocates for collective ownership of a means of production. This can range from a co-OP to a sole proprietorship, to a central economy, ect. Same with Capitalism. Free markets are just about what level of interference does a government place on it. Shortages happen is noth Marxist and capitalist economies based around total supply. Most stories of bare shelves in the Soviet Union were from resources being regulated for war efforts.

But hey, as long as tractor production continues to rise, we will all be living the good life under Marxists!

As long as the banks can extend loans and their is a healthy exploitable work base capitalism is fine as well.

 

[Caliban]

Two weeks ago, the BLM website clearly stated their intent to revolutionize the economic structure of the United States; it is now redacted from the "What We Believe" section. I should have screen shotted it when I read it then. I am sure you can find it online somewhere.

 

[istodolez]

So what is Chesterton's criticism of BLM if it incorporates Marxist ideals into their rehtoric?

The impression I get from most folks who are hammering on the "Marxism connection" is just that: "Marxism". 'nuff said.

I believe for those working to negate the message of BLM it is sufficient to attach the label of "Marxism" onto the movement to turn off a large portion of Right-leaning individuals.

If one actually reads what BLM publicly states they stand for the ideals are pretty good overall. Safe spaces for families, community support for non-2parent family structures, elimination of systemic racism, etc. The deeper fear for the Right comes in how they extrapolate those comments. You'll see plenty of folks on the Right who think BLM stands to destroy the nuclear family (even though that is a skewed reading of the actual BLM statements) or that it will inexorably lead to a communist dictatorship a la Stalin.

It's a facile means of de-legitimizing the BLM movement but certainly not ineffective in the US where even modest "democratic socialism" like we see in western Europe is considered EXTREMISM.

 

[FenderTL5]

I'm sorry but I can't agree. To me this smacks of saying "Hitler wasn't wrong about everything. After all, the German people were victims of the Treaty of Versailles"..

Lots of people around the world, including the USA, drive Volkswagons.

And anyway, the only people who suffer "racial injustice" in America today are Europeans and Asians.

just for my clarification, was this tied to the previous hypothetical or is this a stand alone comment? The opening "And" has me confused.

 

[istodolez]

Two weeks ago, the BLM website clearly stated their intent to revolutionize the economic structure of the United States; it is now redacted from the "What We Believe" section. I should have screen shotted it when I read it then. I am sure you can find it online somewhere.

What's wrong with that? It isn't like they say they are going to completely destroy "capital" and devolve all means of production to the proletariat. But you have to admit there are a LOT of Americans who stand for changes in our economic structure which has, over the past 40 years, seen a steady stagnation or decline in median standard of living of the "middle class" while the upper 1% rake in massive gains at our expense.

Am I a marxist radical if I ask that we go back to 1950's levels of taxation on the ultra-wealthy? Were my parents radical marxists for having been that generation who started families in the 1950's and enjoyed unprecedented levels of middle-class growth?

 

[istodolez]

I'm sorry but I can't agree. To me this smacks of saying "Hitler wasn't wrong about everything. After all, the German people were victims of the Treaty of Versailles".

This is the thinking behind a lot of folks' support for Confederate Statues isn't it? The whole "The Civil War was about 'states rights' not slavery per se!" crowd.

 

[istodolez]

just for my clarification, was this tied to the previous hypothetical or is this a stand alone comment? The opening "And" has me confused.

There's a certain degree of unhinged "backlash" that white Americans retreat to when faced with changes required in terms of racial equity. People want to be the "victim" but not really suffer victimization.

 

[Caliban]

What's wrong with that? It isn't like they say they are going to completely destroy "capital" and devolve all means of production to the proletariat. But you have to admit there are a LOT of Americans who stand for changes in our economic structure which has, over the past 40 years, seen a steady stagnation or decline in median standard of living of the "middle class" while the upper 1% rake in massive gains at our expense.

Am I a marxist radical if I ask that we go back to 1950's levels of taxation on the ultra-wealthy? Were my parents radical marxists for having been that generation who started families in the 1950's and enjoyed unprecedented levels of middle-class growth?

I am not claiming there is wrong with it; I am merely pointing out their intentions. I find it informative that the BLM website removed evidence of this when it hit the news. There is a range of Marxist views and most of those ideas are unpalatable to contemporary Americans. I support the right of BLM organizers to put their ideas forward to the public--discussion and conversation is always healthy.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm also not particularly upset about Marxist-idealists who found groups. I think the key is that the Right who wish to delegitimize BLM are counting on people equating "Marxist" with "Stalinist Dictatorship". That's an absurdity of course but as you point out community organizing is an inherently "social" (and by extension "socialist") type of undertaking. And yes, BLM does focus on utilizing "community" as a part of the broader support structure.

But the minute one allows that "Marxism" is an ok term and isn't a horrible 4-letter word meaning all the horrible things we can pile into it, then the Right gets to run with that. They get to label it freely however they want and they get to control the narrative.

It's the same with "Obamacare". Back in the late 2000's something like 85% of Americans, when presented with the list of things the ACA would provide SUPPORTED IT. And when people were polled with the name "Obamacare" attached instead of general healthcare reform, a lot of people freaked out and said "No way!"

Americans are not the deepest thinkers and simple rhetorical tricks are often enough to turn the conversation.

But it's not the Right calling them Marxists. They're calling themselves Marxists! At this point, BLM and other openly Marxist organizations have made the opening salvo and declared that they are in fact what they are, so it seems that trying to legitimize the word "Marxism" would be a better tactic here than to pretend it isn't BLM controlling the narrative here in the first place.