Underneath BLM is Marxist Rhetoric

This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's literally on their webpage. Even one of the founders have said in the past that they are "trained marxists"

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

Does any of this really focus on black struggle in America? They're trying to conflate LGBT, family structures (post-feminism), and other Marxist rhetoric. None of this has to do with police brutality or systemic racism that many black people fight for.

Even the media is catching on: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/04/black-lives-matter-yet-another-front-marxist-ideas-activists/

https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/the-agenda-of-black-lives-matter-is-far-different-from-the-slogan/

Thoughts on all of this?

Seems like 1920s are repeating itself again. Who exactly are we funding/donating to? Definitely something else.

White privilege (aka systemic oppression), removing whiteness (dismantling the system of capitalism that was created by white people), ACAB (all cops are bastards aka all cops are responsible for oppression/work for the elite white class). It boils down to white people being the gatekeepers to the standards of living in the western world and global world. A form of nepotism, you could call it.

You notice how their rhetoric explicitly says one thing but implicity means another? It's rhetoric that trails into a rabbit hole of communist dogma. I've seen this very trick used at my school about environmentalism and global warming. They never mentioned communism but their rhetoric was directly from a communist manifesto. These people think they're sneaky with their "we can save the world from evil" to the youth and to those who are naive and oblivious to methods of which communists have used in the past to indoctrinate and radicalize people.

Is this agenda necessarily a bad thing? No, I don't think so. It has good intentions and it promotes equity, the highest standard of equality. The problem is the human element and global population. Such a system could not work without automation or robots. People are born with different strengths and weaknesses. Environment plays a part too. Some can definitely grow into a skill but may never reach to the very top of that skill. To have America ascend from capitalism would affect other super powers. Possibly causing war, famine, and death. Throughout human history there has always been some form of hierarchy due to the limitations of our technology and environment.

With that said, it's sad to see that black people are once again used for someone else's agenda. I simply find it to be appalling.

I don’t have a problem with Marxism in theory.

Disrupting the nuclear family, as many have pointed out here and elsewhere, is pretty screwed up.

So you want to dismantle the patriarchy? OK....and replace it with what? Something tested and proven to work? No? OK...maybe have a solution before trying to break something down, or maybe see something that already works and adopt it.

People have been fighting the good fight for decades and shit has been getting better, slowly but surely. I think sometimes it is easy to lose sight of that, especially when we stumble a few steps back like we have recently. The current generation needs to realize they won't get 100% equality in their lifetime. But they can get close. Their children probably won't either. But maybe if they keep chipping away at it their grandkids will have it.

In short, don't mess with something that works. And what is their solution? Raise the kids communally? Nah, that's been attempted, doesn't work out so great.

I'm paraphrasing a [black] sportscaster, but he basically said how he came from a two-parent home growing up, but because of the area he lived in a lot of his friends were not so lucky. Children in single parent homes are:

• 5x more likely to commit suicide
• 6x more likely to be in poverty
• 9x more likely to drop out of high school
• 10x more likely to abuse chemical substances
• 14x more likely to commit rape
• 20x more likely to end up in prison
• 32x more likely to run away from home.

Why would you want to be OK with that? Encourage it? Spread it? I won't sit here and tell you to watch out for kids from single-parent homes, and I don't think those people are bad or anything, but it's just not an ideal situation if it can be helped.

BLM is not the way forward. Despite it's mission statement, it is regressive and divisive. Donate to the NAACP. Attend protests but don't support BLM.

*link below

I don't have any issue with the saying BLM, but the organization I have a ton of issues with and the video that @mrbojangles25 put it best. Sorry but the BLM organization is not for America or helping racism in this country.

Then that explains a lot about your positions then. It will never work with humans because we are power, money, and control hungry.

While I agree that ANY power structures designed to put people down, I dont think communal families would work all that well.

That said...

Forcing Nuclear Families down people's throats is dumb, forcing a toxic families to stick together as opposed to divorcing can be SIGNIFICANTLY more harmful than the actual divorce. Patriarchy is dumb, and I wont miss it if it goes. But I don't think anything needs to be done on this front. Families can already do what they are comfortable with. If individuals want to live in patriarchial households though, let them. There are some women who actually prefer it like that.

Also, very little of anything you said had anything to do with Marxism. Marxists have not been known for their social progressivism. These are anarchists, not marxists.

Run tha communists are coming!! You Americans are hilarious. You just can't escape decades of cold war propaganda.

They also have ties to a few terrorists who like to use explosives, weapons, to get their point across.

Wonder where all the money from these fundraisers will go. Whatever. More pawns, right? This wouldn't be the first time I've seen victimhood used for the start of something dark.

If people start getting shot in greater volumes, arm to defend yourselves regardless of what the law might have to say about it in your state. Anyone defending themselves 'legitimately' is going to face charges anyway. And I bet those will be met with actual punishment to comply with the mob. The law is on the verge of becoming a pawn too and I think the life of your family is more valuable than whatever the law has to say about it. Just avoid accidents at all cost.

Who is forcing families?

Like many interest groups, BLM is not a hive mind, has a range of viewpoints, and there isn't a single unified command.

The main thing to recognize is that whatever it was in the past is not what it is today (assuming that what is happening today continues). It's going mainstream and like everything that goes mainstream the people on the militant edges are going to get crowded out.

On the specific issue of nuclear family that some of you have zoned in on. What was referenced is not Marxist. The intellectual underpinnings of Marxism are wafer thin, economic oriented, and thoroughly laughable. Nowhere is there any description of what the 'withering of the state' really means, how it is achieved, or what it looks like. People default to assuming Marxist because of the collective interest angle, which is simply wrong.

What was referenced is community parenting and was how humans evolved over time. To this day many tribes still practice this and basically every society had this at one point in time. Arguably, many devout faith based groups operate this way, Amish, Hutterites, Mormons to an extent, even multi-generational families living together where the grandparents are actively involved with the grand children. There are many benefits and arguably it is of great benefit to the society. What is essential is to understand is that community parenting is a supplement to nuclear parenting not a substitute. It evolved from hunting/gathering where the men would be away and the women would collectively look after the children.

I cannot be certain what exactly was meant. However, a generous interpretation would be something like: nuclear parenting is failing us because of reasons (single parent, divorce, incarceration, etc.) therefore we have to work together and examine models of community parenting. Sadly, like with many frothing at the mouth advocates, the kernel of truth is lost in the rhetoric.

No one. It just seems like people think we have only two options, toxic male-dominated two-parent families or doomed single-parent families.

No one, some but people are being heavily pressured to stay into toxic relationships.

I laughed when I read their mission.

I support this group. Long live BLM.

There are radicals in every group. Whether it be Marxists in BLM or to a much worse degree KKK, Neo-Nazis, Q-Anon, etc. in many right wing groups.

All right wingers are not neo-nazis, kkk, or other white supremacists. Just like how not all BLM are Marxists.

Not sure why you are surprised or painting such a huge brush.

Yeah but a century long systemic racism to keep certain people down sure doesn't help.

Why do people cling to Marx? The fall of the Soviet Union disproved his "stages of history" theory. Nevermind how arrogant it is to try and predict the geopolitics of the far off future, he was flat out wrong. Socialism failed, capitalism prevailed, therefore there will be no communism.

Get ready for BLM to be a real political party. They’ve been getting millions recently from big corporations and Soros.

This is today’s far left. This is how they’ve aligned themselves with Antifa - the anarchistic group currently destroying Portland Oregon. More dangerous than ever.

Yeah it's a really great idea, form their own party that only <20% of the population will vote for. Let's just give the election to the Republicans from now on (because you know the GOP won't lose voters to the BLM party).

/s

With that said, I wouldn't call BLM "dangerous", just destructive. I wish they would channel their good intentions into something a bit more moderate and effective; I'd sooner call BLM the left's response the the far-right than a viable organization anyone should support.

There are already plenty of organizations (NAACP and ACLU, for starters) that actually know what they are doing that need help. BLM is just a distraction.

Communism failed, socialism did not.

I'd argue that the socialist aspects of the US are probably the best functioning ones right now. It's only when unbridled capitalism runs rampant that things go wrong.

Police, for example, are a socialist aspect of the US, but capitalism via police unions massive bargaining power (capitalism) have more or less ruined things, turned them from public servants into public persecutors.

I like capitalism in context but you can't just be like "let's have all capitalism and no socialism", you need to keep capitalism in check.

if it works ( gets votes ) why change it?

@mrbojangles25: As a Trump supporter myself I wouldn’t mind liberals splitting the vote. ;)

But I stand behind calling them dangerous. Police officers and innocents have died at their wake (woke?). Cities burned to the ground meaning small businesses are destroyed without hope of coming back. That’s livelihoods. You may claim BLM has nothing to do with the riots but I disagree - especially when there’s plenty of rioters chanting BLM while they steal, vandalize, and kill.

Chanting doesn't prove it's a specific group though. Anyone can chant to make other's look bad and deflect away from themselves. Critical thinking is a great tool.

Cops kill people, we say "Not all cops are bad"

Some bad protesters start fires and break windows, we say "The entire BLM is dangerous and should be stopped".

Surely you can see the hypocrisy here, yes? Also, let's stop with the hyperbole, eh? "Cities burned to the ground?" It's not that bad.

That's the one million dollar question. Are we ready to treat the far left by their own rules? Or should we remain sensible?

You'll find generalizations are merely stereotypes to avoid looking at the issues. For instance, I don't think all Republicans are foolish......just those still on the trump train.

BLM the Organization is a joke. They seems to have a big problem with straight people and the nuclear family. No mention of fathers at all. Read their "what do we believe page" its a bunch of far left goofy crap. Much of it has very little to black people as whole. I also know all thier donations go through ActBlue, straight to democrats like Biden and Warren. Gross.

The phrase black lives matter is cool, black lives do matter! But the organization is a joke.

Much like how Antifa absolves themselves of doing no wrong, because the name means "Anti Facist" BLM organization does something very similar with their name. These names are defensive in nature, it pushes you into a corner where it becomes " Oh you got a problem with the organization? You must think black lives dont matter!" "oh you dont like antifa?? You must be a fascist!!" Its the same shit.

Seriously read the BLM organizations webpage, look up the videos of their leaders. It does sound very marxist and divisive. They seem to have a major issue with the straight nuclear family, no mention of fathers to be found, but they constantly talk about mothers, its the 3rd wave feminism/LGBT agenda they are pushing hard.

Which not all black people like or want.... *shrug*

No, basic. That's not how it works, though. I mean yes, I agree with you. But no, it's not working is it? The scum writing articles about these 'peaceful protests' and the ones on the fora twisting this shit up don't care one bit about truth or reason. What they care about seems to be emotion and destruction.

Summer and Love on an interstate getting launched into the air, hit by a car and you can see how the car was moving to its left to not hit the incredibly stupid crowd of people standing at night on an interstate wearing the darkest clothing they could find but that's not the story being told. It's all about the car. The car shouldn't have been there. What about two cars with lights off blocking the interstate? They should have been there? The story told is that the driver wanted to murder these fools. There's nothing sensible or reasonable about it. And we can be reasonable about it and explain the slightly (being sarcastic) more likely truth of this event but they wouldn't care. It's fuel. Facts don't matter anymore. It's just lie, after lie, after lie. Twist and turn for all to see.

But it won't stop because even if there is an objective truth, I still have MY version of the truth so why would I care, right? So I think it's time we all stop being sensible because everybody knows by now what they are like and it's not doing anything anymore.

Nice straw man. Watch the flame...…..

An example. Not a straw man. Like I said I'm not disagreeing with you logically.

If you're talking about recent events I believe I read somewhere the road was closed. So the driver.....not so innocent.

I'm not saying the driver is innocent. I'm saying the driver probably wasn't intent on driving into a group of people to kill them which is what's being assumed now. I would sooner believe the people standing on the road were waiting for a car to hit them.

Many people today assume that BLM was started because of police brutality committed by white officers against black people. Go back several years, and you will probably find out that it was originally created in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, a Hispanic neighborhood watchman (not a police officer and not white, although the news tried to make people think he was) that shot and killed black teen Travyon Martin in 2012. It even says so on the linked page in the original post:

Enraged by the death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of his killer, George Zimmerman, and inspired by the 31-day takeover of the Florida State Capitol by POWER U and the Dream Defenders, we took to the streets.

Most people that follow the movement mean well, I won’t deny that. But there are others (to include people in this very thread) that refuse to criticize the movement in any way because they’re afraid that people will accuse them of being racist. “You don’t agree with Black Lives Matter? That’s something a Nazi would say”!

It was to the point where not even two weeks before George Floyd was killed, lockdown protestors were being called every name in the book for not just agreeing to accept the lockdown and after Floyd’s murder people that didn’t go out to protest were accused of racism.

It’s no secret that BLM is now a political movement. It’s also no secret why DC Mayor Bowser painted Black Lives Matter on the street near the White House and NYC Mayor De Blasio wants to do the same in front of Trump Tower. Terry Crews is now being dragged through the mud, being called every "token" name in the book because he is asking why BLM will go so passionately after the police, but will not even entertain addressing black on black violence. We have been talking about George Floyd non-stop, but we haven’t heard anything of substance about Secoriea Turner.

While that may be partially true in the basic sense, that doesn’t change the fact that the official website for BLM calls for those ideas, and one of the cofounders (Patrisse Cullors) stated that she is a Marxist. Funny thing is that people on her Wikipedia talk page are arguing on whether or not they should include her statement about being a Marxist, with the people against including it arguing that people only want to include it to reflect on her negatively (one accused the person that wanted to add it of being a white supremacist trying to discredit the BLM movement in general due to some previous edits that user made).

Capitalism just failed america in the wake of the pandemic, has been continuously failing, and when it has 'succeeded' it was only at the expense of everybody else. This nonsense is peddled by people who want to scare the boomer old guard by yelling "look! the commies!" like it's the 1950s.

You entirely missed the point.

America is still here. The Soviet Union is dead. Dead as the tens of millions of lives destroyed by Marxist-Leninist philosophy. According to that philosophy, the opposite should've happened. Very few people got history as wrong as Marx did, yet people still venerate him for reasons I cannot understand.

There's this stuff floating around online lately. Don't know why algorithms are pushing certain things at certain times. BLM in 2016 I think:

"melanine is essential for the efficient performance of all the body natural functions.

THEREFORE whiteppl are recessive genetic defects. this is factual.

whiteppl need white Supremacy as a mechanism to protect their survival as a people because all they can do is produce themselves. blackppl simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to.

it is why white Supremacy as an imperial System thrives. it tries to control, surpresses and destroy our existence in blackness because we are a threat to the genetic anhilation of whiteppl.

do you ever wonder how blackppl after centuries of colonial violence, genocide and destruction – no matter

coming back?

it is because we are superhumxns."

But it's a good example why you don't call your movement after one subgroup of victims so that you can ignore all others and start divvying people up based on skin or sex. This is why you don't call it BLM or feminism if you are serious about dealing with racism or sexism.

If your ancestors didn't live close to the equator you probably have a lighter skin. This is not a genetic deficiency, but it allows for better absorption of vitamin D at the cost of other things such as protection against direct sunlight. If your ancestors lived closer to the equator you probably have a darker skin, which needed to protect them against damage from direct sunlight. Neither skin tone means you are superior to the other. It doesn't make you a subhuman or a superhuman. And it doesn't make you a good or a bad person.

Being Asian makes you less likely to need deodorant and being European means you are more likely to be lactose persistent. All these effects through our ancestry can change the way we are and live, but they don't change the intrinsic value of a person.

People are still arguing this? Race is a human construct made to differentiate because people are afraid of what isn't familiar. At this point in time we just need to treat all people with the same respect. YES, there is a difference in how police respond to minorities. Only the close minded don't see that. We need to all work together to change the culture. And it starts with self. If you are denying there is a problem.............then you are the problem.

Is it? I always thought there was some science to it, i.e. how people of African heritage are pre-disposed to heart disease, how Japanese people's faces blush when they drink alcohol, and so on.

Not that I disagree with your other points. I get exasperated with the pointless debates some times.

Ditto for same sex relationships and reproductive heatlh/rights. The fact I have to ask myself "We are still debating this!?" saddens me.

I don't even think of it as a liberal vs conservative issue because that implies it is subjective. It's not. None of these things objectively impact us. A black person moving in next door, a gay couple getting married, or a woman getting an abortion has no impact on one's life. Only the policies we make around these issues do.

Genetic conditions are passed down in particular geographic regions and thus it appears to be a condition toward certain ethnic groups. But that has more to do with common ancestors and gene mutations. Also the mutations are generally found as well in other ethnic groups but can be shown to occur in greater numbers. But that's merely because people were more self contained and didn't intermingle much.

There is definitely science to it.

For example Steven Johnson Syndrome, and other serious skin reactions has been observed in Asian patients that have been administered phenytoin. This has been linked to polymorphism in the human leukocyte antigen allele that is seen more in Asian populations. It's not linked to a single ethnic group.

Another one is that Caucasians are more likely, than Asians or Africans, to be poor metabolizes of substrates for CYP2D6. This means that patients who are poor metabolizers of CYP2D6 drugs will have higher drug plasma levels, thus more likely to experience adverse drug reactions.

And yes, another one is that Africans are more at risk of heart related illness. For a Caucasian with hypertension and no other comorbidities we would see them prescribed an ace inhibitor (ACEi), angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), or a calcium channel blocker (CCB). But for an African with hypertension, with no other comorbidities, we would generally see a thiazide diuretic added to an ACEi, ARB or CCB. There were also trials that demonstrated that Africans did not respond as well, compared to Caucasians, to ACEi in heart failure. But Africans saw an improved benefit, compared to Caucasians, with hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate for treating heart failure.

The concept of race, has genetically speaking, pretty much been discredited in biology, and a TERRIBLE predictor for even genetics. It still serves a role in sociology, however. Ancestry, which is the predictor you were thinking of is not entirely correlated with the arbitary "race".

This is because there has been far too little time, and far too much interbreeding for race to have any real genetic basis.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

TL;DR: People trying to argue that they are superior because they are white/black/whatever, are just making fools out of themselves. And ancestry, does not necessarily prove they are superior in the ways they want to prove themselves superior.

So what you're saying is Bullworth was right?! Procreative racial deconstruction!

If you were to categorize people by race, skin colour would be the last thing to use. Things like facial characteristics and hair type would take precedent over skin colour. But yeah, kinda useless to do that.

Yup, which is the point :P

Imagine how hard I was cringing when I was in a relationship with someone obsessed with whiteness and elevated me because I am a nordic scandinavian. She seemed more interested in my useless features, than the ones that actually defined who I was.

@Maroxad: i total understand. had a chick mid way thru a date start saying bs about color/religion.

after a few mins i showed her the pic of the constitution . she said f you and left.

Did she also rant about New York, California and Washington, or any other blue state?

Because that sounds so familiar xD

@Maroxad: so she did not. thankful.

I see moral deterioration of American middle class and harsher polarisation of politics.

Remember than Venezuela and Zimbabwe are socialist and poor, while Chile and Botswana grow in GDP PPP per capita every year under capitalism.

Has more to do with leadership.........

Why is it that Marxism in practise often incorporates the removal of all or most private property? It's the single biggest problem I see with communism aside from the potential lack of drive, is the idea that you cannot own something anymore. It makes everything much less psychologically important and personal. And aren't those elements very useful to keep people engaged in a society?

I don't see a good reason why everything would have to belong to the state in communism. You could pay people reasonable amounts of money for work done and a living wage for no work done. And have people buy their own things with that money. Maybe some people don't want to/need to drive a car so they instead buy a bigger house. You can allow for personal preferences in life. You would still reward people for work done, just not in a way that creates an ever growing gap between richer and poorer people. Remove inheritance, if that's still a problem.

Sure it would be slightly less efficient on paper I suppose than knowing exactly how many of this TV and of this car you need to produce but with the rise and shine of machine learning I think that's actually going to become a non argument soon enough. And you get to celebrate the rising unemployment rates as automation kicks in.

And also this idea in communism that you have to appoint people their jobs is something I do not understand. That's not very Marxist is it? Marx was very much against the idea that you are forced to work somewhere that you cannot put your soul into. One of the reasons he started thinking about all his ideas was exactly because he saw that capitalism was heading into mass production taking the soul out of doing work and the satisfaction out of it.

I'm clearly not an expert on Marxism but I do recall some of it and I remember the one thing that I truly disagreed with was the notion that profit is inevitably and inexcusably a form of corruption. Profit can be very much like a wage a reward for something well done. Those who employ people can be fulfilling a service and keep things afloat, they're not ALWAYS useless. They don't HAVE to die. And it's OK for someone to produce more than someone else and get rewarded for it to some degree. Maybe they can help increase the production of other farms and facilities with their techniques and enrich the community.

kung. we the people rent property.. we never owned it.

seeing if we dont pay the taxes... it not ours anymore.

really sound like rent to me.