ltg wins again. Buy that man a drink.

Don't give him false hope.

Do you consider America/Antarctica and ToxicMasculinity to be Anti Semites?

I've already stated that I think they were antisemitic, but yes.

Fair enough.
You have never called them out on it however. Not once.

Fair enough.
You have never called them out on it however. Not once.

Marxism is when the thing is bad.

It has become increasingly common for commentators to describe Black Lives Matter as a ‘Marxist’ movement. Most such characterisations have been pejorative, intended to discredit the organisation. But at the same time, one BLM co-founder was more than comfortable describing herself and her colleagues as ‘trained Marxists’.

It serves the interests of both critics and supporters of BLM to talk about it as a Marxist outfit. Critics get to dismiss BLM as part of the loony left, and supporters get to believe they are part of something genuinely revolutionary. But are they right?

Perhaps the most defining characteristic of Marxism is its explanation of class and its role in society. The Communist Manifesto famously claims that, ‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles’. In other words, class conflict is the driving force of history. Revolutions happen when societies can no longer contain that conflict.

Marx said such revolutions can only be successful if oppressed classes become sufficiently unified to be able to outnumber and overcome those in power. Attaining class consciousness, and rejecting the artificial differences imposed upon us by our rulers as a means of keeping us at war with one another, is key to bringing about change.

Fast-forward to today and many of the so-called Marxists of BLM are virtually devoid of any analysis of class at all.

One example of this refusal properly to engage with class is the accusation of ‘class reductionism’, levelled against those arguing that class is just as important as race in explaining inequality. Adolph Reed Jr – a black Marxist – was recently deplatformed for his ‘class reductionist’ views on race. Taking the traditional Marxist approach lands you in hot water with activists who live and die by the all-subsuming doctrine of institutional racism.

In fact, the BLM movement doesn’t only ignore class analysis, it also obscures the reality of class relations. The constant focus on ‘white privilege’, for instance, has come at the expense of any recognition that lots of poor white people suffer from deprivations, police violence and prejudice, too. Racial disparities are a problem. But obsessing over white privilege stands in the way of any real attempt to draw on the common experiences of the white and black working classes, with the aim of building a cross-racial campaign for change. Instead of putting aside our differences, we are encouraged to wallow in them.

Talk of ‘white fragility’, a term coined by Robin DiAngelo and discussed in her best-selling book of the same name, is an example of this trend. It undermines cross-racial unity by focusing on difference and by insisting that all whites are inherently racist. As Luke Gittos has pointed out on spiked: ‘By fixating on “whiteness” as the root of all the problems facing black Americans, DiAngelo discounts the possibility that solidarity in the face of common problems can be more powerful than racial identity.’ The same is true for BLM more broadly.

Indeed, how can the workers unite across racial lines if today’s anti-racist movement is right that the lived experiences of black and white people are so totally different? And if white workers are inherently racist, why would black workers want to join with them?

Modern identity politics wrongly views society as a split between a white ruling class and a non-white mass proletariat. It refuses to engage with the reality that Marx identified – that workers can be equally exploited regardless of their origins, and that the key to progressive change lies in building bridges between hitherto distinct communities rather than in setting them apart. In this regard Black Lives Matter clearly stands in opposition to Marxism.

Other woke campaigns have similarly been described (or dismissed) as an offshoot of Marxism. Right-wing critics of things like identity politics, political correctness and the trans movement say we are witnessing the rise of ‘Cultural Marxism’. But these movements are often more reactionary than revolutionary. We have only to look at how quick multinational corporations have been to endorse the woke worldview to see how utterly un-radical it is.

Every big firm from McDonald’s to Apple has doffed its cap to Black Lives Matter. Even members of the royal family – the epitome of inherited power and privilege – have backed BLM. When you have the backing of these sorts of people, you know you are not about to turn the world upside down in favour of workers’ revolution. The fashion today is less for champagne socialism and more for iPhone identitarianism, it seems.

The ‘Marxist’ appellation is not simply false, though. It is also both counter-productive and dangerous. George Orwell warned about the political implications of using ‘meaningless words’ in his great essay, ‘Politics and the English Language’. Bemoaning the abuse and overuse of the word ‘fascism’, in words that ring truer today than ever, he said that word now had ‘no meaning except insofar as it signifies something not desirable’.

Marxism is when the thing is bad.

It has become increasingly common for commentators to describe Black Lives Matter as a ‘Marxist’ movement. Most such characterisations have been pejorative, intended to discredit the organisation. But at the same time, one BLM co-founder was more than comfortable describing herself and her colleagues as ‘trained Marxists’.

It serves the interests of both critics and supporters of BLM to talk about it as a Marxist outfit. Critics get to dismiss BLM as part of the loony left, and supporters get to believe they are part of something genuinely revolutionary. But are they right?

Perhaps the most defining characteristic of Marxism is its explanation of class and its role in society. The Communist Manifesto famously claims that, ‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles’. In other words, class conflict is the driving force of history. Revolutions happen when societies can no longer contain that conflict.

Marx said such revolutions can only be successful if oppressed classes become sufficiently unified to be able to outnumber and overcome those in power. Attaining class consciousness, and rejecting the artificial differences imposed upon us by our rulers as a means of keeping us at war with one another, is key to bringing about change.

Fast-forward to today and many of the so-called Marxists of BLM are virtually devoid of any analysis of class at all.

One example of this refusal properly to engage with class is the accusation of ‘class reductionism’, levelled against those arguing that class is just as important as race in explaining inequality. Adolph Reed Jr – a black Marxist – was recently deplatformed for his ‘class reductionist’ views on race. Taking the traditional Marxist approach lands you in hot water with activists who live and die by the all-subsuming doctrine of institutional racism.

In fact, the BLM movement doesn’t only ignore class analysis, it also obscures the reality of class relations. The constant focus on ‘white privilege’, for instance, has come at the expense of any recognition that lots of poor white people suffer from deprivations, police violence and prejudice, too. Racial disparities are a problem. But obsessing over white privilege stands in the way of any real attempt to draw on the common experiences of the white and black working classes, with the aim of building a cross-racial campaign for change. Instead of putting aside our differences, we are encouraged to wallow in them.

Talk of ‘white fragility’, a term coined by Robin DiAngelo and discussed in her best-selling book of the same name, is an example of this trend. It undermines cross-racial unity by focusing on difference and by insisting that all whites are inherently racist. As Luke Gittos has pointed out on spiked: ‘By fixating on “whiteness” as the root of all the problems facing black Americans, DiAngelo discounts the possibility that solidarity in the face of common problems can be more powerful than racial identity.’ The same is true for BLM more broadly.

Indeed, how can the workers unite across racial lines if today’s anti-racist movement is right that the lived experiences of black and white people are so totally different? And if white workers are inherently racist, why would black workers want to join with them?

Modern identity politics wrongly views society as a split between a white ruling class and a non-white mass proletariat. It refuses to engage with the reality that Marx identified – that workers can be equally exploited regardless of their origins, and that the key to progressive change lies in building bridges between hitherto distinct communities rather than in setting them apart. In this regard Black Lives Matter clearly stands in opposition to Marxism.

Other woke campaigns have similarly been described (or dismissed) as an offshoot of Marxism. Right-wing critics of things like identity politics, political correctness and the trans movement say we are witnessing the rise of ‘Cultural Marxism’. But these movements are often more reactionary than revolutionary. We have only to look at how quick multinational corporations have been to endorse the woke worldview to see how utterly un-radical it is.

Every big firm from McDonald’s to Apple has doffed its cap to Black Lives Matter. Even members of the royal family – the epitome of inherited power and privilege – have backed BLM. When you have the backing of these sorts of people, you know you are not about to turn the world upside down in favour of workers’ revolution. The fashion today is less for champagne socialism and more for iPhone identitarianism, it seems.

The ‘Marxist’ appellation is not simply false, though. It is also both counter-productive and dangerous. George Orwell warned about the political implications of using ‘meaningless words’ in his great essay, ‘Politics and the English Language’. Bemoaning the abuse and overuse of the word ‘fascism’, in words that ring truer today than ever, he said that word now had ‘no meaning except insofar as it signifies something not desirable’.

BLM (Listening Two Buck Chuck?) Is nowhere near Marxist as an organization. The founders likely attempted to associate themselves with the term because of its revolutionary connotations but that still doesn't make the labeling apt.

In fact that is one of the biggest issues that I have with BLM as a movement. There hasn't been much reference to class and economics. Police Brutality is a huge issue but it isn't the worst thing afflicting black people right now. Poverty is . They have to be able to articulate this and quite frankly they haven't.

Just because they are shitty at it doesn't mean they aren't Marxist. They certainly THINK they are Marxist and so do some of their big, early backers.

Break down of the nuclear family. Abolition of religion. Erasure (not just a reporting from a different perspective) of history. Maybe they are not Marxist but they sure seem to be borrowing from its toolbox.

Just like you with Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson.

Historically there were a number of black leaders that were in fact Marxist. Martin Luther King, W.E.B. Dubois, Paul Robeson A. Philip Randolph too believe to name but a few. They were attracted to it because of the economic inequality which afflicted blacks during the period of segregation.

It is nearly impossible to be both a believer in an organized religion and a believer in Marx's vision but there are many who have tried.

It is nearly impossible to be both a believer in an organized religion and a believer in Marx's vision but there are many who have tried.

They could be compatible, especially if you consider the philosophical Marx, and not just the political side to him. Some liberation theologists were able to combine them, or cobble together a Catholic-Marxist sort of vision.

catholics need beliefs and actions for salvation
I think the early protestants think beliefs alone give salvation

They could be compatible, especially if you consider the philosophical Marx, and not just the political side to him. Some liberation theologists were able to combine them, or cobble together a Catholic-Marxist sort of vision.

Every Christian believes that the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus as one's personal savior. John 3:16, brother. I don't know what the Jesuits are teaching, but it sure ain't in the Bible.