Does the Marxist Ideology of the BLM founders give you pause in supprting them?

[J Boogie]

Just curious to get a quick gut check of how people feel about this. I have a general sense that the overton window has shifted somewhat but trying to get a clearer picture of what kind of acceptance Marxism is seeing among the left and center left. Feel free to add comments if you feel the options don't represent your views very well.

[sherr]

You are begging the question. What about BLM is Marxist?

[ixtap]

They said they are super familiar with, sort of, Marxist ideologies. That doesn't actually mean anything except that they are reasonably educated.

[Kris]

You are begging the question. What about BLM is Marxist?

Apparently, three days ago, someone dug up some video of an interview that one of the two founders of BLM gave in 2015, in which she said she and the other co-founder were trained organizers, versed on ideological theories, and she also used the phrase “trained marxists.” And now the right are losing their shit. :eye roll:

[bacchi]

A recent common refrain on the alt-right pepe sites is that anything contributed to BLM goes to the Democrats; Soros; and/or Marxists (presumably Chinese communists and not Russian communists).

[J Boogie]

You are begging the question. What about BLM is Marxist?

Sorry, I should have provided context.

Here is the video (about the 6 minute mark) the other posters have referenced which includes her response to the concern that BLM has a lack of ideological direction which would allow it to fizzle out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCghDx5qN4s&feature=emb_title

As the other posters are mentioning, they believe the right is overreacting to this. I'm trying to get a sense of how centrists and more left leaning people feel.

[Wrenchturner]

I don't think I can answer this question.  Marxism seems to be the last bastion of people who have lost faith in reform.  We see this in politics and economics re: wealth disparity.  If the downtrodden don't feel that they have influence on reform, they start holding hostages, whether those hostages are human or material.

[ctuser1]

Not with an intent to engage in whataboutism - but to draw a comparison:

I dislike Marxism and the Libertarian ideology with equal fervor. Marxism has done greater damage globally, but the Libertarians have done far greater damage within the US. However, just because I dislike the "ideologies" (and if you did not know - I dislike all ideologies) does not mean I will not work with an ideologue if there are common goals.

The police and systemic violence against Blacks is a reality. If BLM founder is a Marxist, I'd still not shy away from providing transactional support while keeping a close eye on whether his/her activities are becoming a purity-spiral induced liability.

The same would apply with libertarians.

I have donated to causes championed by a libertarian before. I have so far never donated to a cause championed by a known marxist (are there any in the US) before, but I don't see anything wrong in principle with that.

[Hula Hoop]

I didn't vote as you left off the option for people who don't think that the BLM movement supports Marxism. 

Another issue that you didn't explore is 'what is Marxism' exactly?  I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time.  And if his Marxist utopia had ever actually existed (or if such a utopia were even possible in the real world) - yeah it would be great.  However, no country has ever even gotten close to a the Marxist utopia described by Marx, Engels and their followers.  And IMO such a utopia would not be possible. So when people talk about "Marxism" I always wonder what they mean exactly since it's never actually existed in the real world. Do they mean Marxism as described by Karl Marx?  The Soviet Union?  China? Cuba? Venezuela?  None of the above?

[Watchmaker]

Not voting, but I don't think BLM is particularly Marxist.

If BLM was Marxist, that wouldn't change my support of their stated aims.

[J Boogie]

I didn't vote as you left off the option for people who don't think that the BLM movement supports Marxism. 

Another issue that you didn't explore is 'what is Marxism' exactly?  I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time.  And if his Marxist utopia had ever actually existed (or if such a utopia were even possible in the real world) - yeah it would be great.  However, no country has ever even gotten close to a the Marxist utopia described by Marx, Engels and their followers.  And IMO such a utopia would not be possible. So when people talk about "Marxism" I always wonder what they mean exactly since it's never actually existed in the real world. Do they mean Marxism as described by Karl Marx?  The Soviet Union?  China? Cuba? Venezuela?  None of the above?

Well, I'm not sure the BLM movement supports Marxism either. It's just that the co-founders (or at least two of them) are self-identified Marxists.

If a person identifies as a Marxist, my assumption is that their intent is to bring about a world without private property rights via revolution.

[Kris]

I didn't vote as you left off the option for people who don't think that the BLM movement supports Marxism. 

Another issue that you didn't explore is 'what is Marxism' exactly?  I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time.  And if his Marxist utopia had ever actually existed (or if such a utopia were even possible in the real world) - yeah it would be great.  However, no country has ever even gotten close to a the Marxist utopia described by Marx, Engels and their followers.  And IMO such a utopia would not be possible. So when people talk about "Marxism" I always wonder what they mean exactly since it's never actually existed in the real world. Do they mean Marxism as described by Karl Marx?  The Soviet Union?  China? Cuba? Venezuela?  None of the above?

Well, I'm not sure the BLM movement supports Marxism either. It's just that the co-founders (or at least two of them) are self-identified Marxists.

If a person identifies as a Marxist, my assumption is that their intent is to bring about a world without private property rights via revolution.

If one has to go back to 2015 to find one example of one person (not two) in an organization using the word "marxist" one time in an interview...

And if the very context of that conversation was someone asking that person whether BLM's lack of clearly defined ideological direction was a problem...

Then yeah, no. I don't really think BLM is Marxist.

[Paul der Krake]

I doubt many people in the BLM or anti-BLM camps alike have actually read Marx, or any complicated philosophical book for that matter. Poor Karl is routinely invoked by everyone with a beef on some issue.

[J Boogie]

I didn't vote as you left off the option for people who don't think that the BLM movement supports Marxism. 

Another issue that you didn't explore is 'what is Marxism' exactly?  I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time.  And if his Marxist utopia had ever actually existed (or if such a utopia were even possible in the real world) - yeah it would be great.  However, no country has ever even gotten close to a the Marxist utopia described by Marx, Engels and their followers.  And IMO such a utopia would not be possible. So when people talk about "Marxism" I always wonder what they mean exactly since it's never actually existed in the real world. Do they mean Marxism as described by Karl Marx?  The Soviet Union?  China? Cuba? Venezuela?  None of the above?

Well, I'm not sure the BLM movement supports Marxism either. It's just that the co-founders (or at least two of them) are self-identified Marxists.

If a person identifies as a Marxist, my assumption is that their intent is to bring about a world without private property rights via revolution.

If one has to go back to 2015 to find one example of one person (not two) in an organization using the word "marxist" one time in an interview...

And if the very context of that conversation was someone asking that person whether BLM's lack of clearly defined ideological direction was a problem...

Then yeah, no. I don't really think BLM is Marxist.

I don't think BLM is Marxist either. But a co-founder said that she and her partners are. And naturally co-founders of a movement have an outsized ability to determine the trajectory of a movement.

Do the stated aims align with Marxism? Not at first glance. But there does seem to be some philosophy that arguably dovetails, for example defunding the police (Since many Marxists believe the role of the police is protecting capital / capitalism) or the interest in disrupting the nuclear family (Since many Marxists believe that the nuclear family is a mechanism which perpetuate capitalism).

There seems to be a pretty radical anti-capitalist sentiment among prominent BLM activists.



https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-black-christmas-capitalism-724309

"Black Lives Matter and other organizations build a strong critique and understanding of racism and white supremacy and sexism and homophobia, transphobia, but we have to have as much hatred or vitriol against capitalism," said Ratcliff. "Until we start to see capitalism [is] just as nefarious as white supremacy, we will always be struggling."

(Anthony Ratcliff is a BLM leader and CSU-LA professor)



From Chicago rapper Noname's Twitter (half a million followers) yesterday:

any campaign to “end racism” that doesnt explicitly address capitalism is not for black liberation. if companies want to be anti-racist they need to be anti-capitalist first.

black ppl suffer globally because of US imperialism.

black liberation is a global struggle.

[js82]

Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?

As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.

[ctuser1]

Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?

As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.

True communism can be scary.

It doesn't exist in the US, however. Even people who call themselves Marxists generally have no idea what they are talking about.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Do the stated aims align with Marxism? Not at first glance. But there does seem to be some philosophy that arguably dovetails, for example defunding the police (Since many Marxists believe the role of the police is protecting capital / capitalism) or the interest in disrupting the nuclear family (Since many Marxists believe that the nuclear family is a mechanism which perpetuate capitalism).

I do think that    Marxian  "class  struggle"  is unquestionably an element of  the BLM movement.

BLM's  demand  for reform of policing is a particular element of BLM's class struggle.

Society as it exists is the status quo.

The police are an integral part of  the status quo  and they sustain it: A police-society symbiosis exists.

The status quo is the THESIS.

I gather that many  members and supporters of BLM are upset by the status quo.

 They comprise  the dynamic societal force,  the ANTITHESIS in the form of a class struggle that opposes the THESIS and  demands its reform.

The SYNTHESIS  is the reform  BLM seeks.

For weeks we have witnessed a societal COLLISION, a class struggle  between the THESIS and ANTITHESIS as BLM and some of its supporters engage in a class struggle to bring about reform in general  that includes reform of policing in particular.


THESIS >>>> COLLISION <<<< ANTITHESIS = SYNTHESIS

   

[ixtap]

Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?

As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.

This poll was not written to get unbiased opinions.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Well, I'm not sure the BLM movement supports Marxism either. It's just that the co-founders (or at least two of them) are self-identified Marxists.

If a person identifies as a Marxist, my assumption is that their intent is to bring about a world without private property rights via revolution.

 In terms of political economy, to varying degrees redistributionist  policies fulfill  Marx's maxim.

[John Galt incarnate!]

 'what is Marxism' exactly?  I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time. 

I give Karl Marx much credit for his insights and understanding of an individual's sense of themself with respect to the means of production and how collectively, this sense gives rise to societal changes that alter the course of  human history.

[MudPuppy]

Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?

As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.

This poll was not written to get unbiased opinions.

This, basically

[Herbert Derp]

I'm a left-leaning libertarian. Where's the option that I strongly disagree with the people who are trying to "abolish capitalism," whatever that means? The BLM movement seems to be infested with these idiots, and most of them seem to be white.

[Roland of Gilead]

The police and systemic violence against Blacks is a reality.

I have been hearing this word a lot (systemic) in phrases such as systemic racism and systemic violence.

It means system wide, or whole body (government, public).

Do the numbers support this as a reality, or is it a perception?

For police shootings, I have found the following:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Which shows in 2019, 370 White people shot to death by police, 235 Black people, and 158 Hispanic
Population percentage of the above is: 60.4% White, 13.4% Black, 18.3% Hispanic

By population, you would expect about 90 black people to be shot to death instead of 235 if we are doing equal opportunity police shooting.

If you dig deeper though, you will find that black people commit about 52% of the homicides in the USA, while making up only 13.4% of the population.  If you just go with violent crime in general (rape, aggravated assault, manslaughter, murder, armed robbery) black people commit 38.5% of those crimes.

So just like a logger is far more likely to be killed by a falling tree than a person working in a office in the city, a black person is more likely to be in a situation where they get shot because they are committing more violent crimes per population than white people.

This doesn't mean that the reasons they are in that situation are not problems we should fix (poverty, education, steering away from gangs) but it might mean the police shootings are not really systemic racism, but rather a side effect of a wealth racism.

[J Boogie]

Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?

As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.

This poll was not written to get unbiased opinions.

I put up the poll because the right wing media reaction would be predictable and overblown and the left wing reaction would simply be that the right wing media reaction is overblown.

I am interested in how left leaning and moderate types view this in and of itself, not how they view right wing media takes on it.

I'm interested in all genuine opinions, biased and unbiased. However I'm far more interested in substantive debate rather than sniping.

If you don't think the 2015 interview represents the co-founders' political philosophy today, ok. Valid.

If you think she and possibly her partner (s) are indeed ideologically Marxists as she said, but the movement is decentralized enough to dilute it, ok, also valid.

But your take seems to be that because I'm even curious about something that might show up on Fox news that I'm asking this question in bad faith.

[AccidentialMustache]

I put up the poll because the right wing media reaction would be predictable and overblown and the left wing reaction would simply be that the right wing media reaction is overblown.

I am interested in how left leaning and moderate types view this in and of itself, not how they view right wing media takes on it.

I'm interested in all genuine opinions, biased and unbiased. However I'm far more interested in substantive debate rather than sniping.

If you don't think the 2015 interview represents the co-founders' political philosophy today, ok. Valid.

If you think she and possibly her partner (s) are indeed ideologically Marxists as she said, but the movement is decentralized enough to dilute it, ok, also valid.

But your take seems to be that because I'm even curious about something that might show up on Fox news that I'm asking this question in bad faith.

If I assume your intentions are honest and good, then your phrasing/etc is bad.

If I assume you phrasing is accurate, then I do not read your intention as good.

Problems at a glance:

1) founders plural, but links to a single founder
2) no option for "unaware of such" re the founder's marxism comments
3) "the movement" vs "black people" in two different answers

I hang up on pollsters who start asking questions with those issues. Or I dig up a d6 and start answering randomly.

Writing fair and unbiased polls is hard.

[Bloop Bloop]

In my country, Australia, I do question the stat that the BLM protestors use as a demonstration of "police brutality". The number of Aborigines dying in police custody is in line with the make-up of the total prison population, so the stats don't show that any more Aborigines die in custody than would be statistically expected. Also, deaths in custody include all deaths, not just those caused by (non-prisoner) human agency, so it doesn't follow in any event that deaths in custody are reflective of police brutality.

For what it's worth, I think there more likely than not has been institutional racism in the police force, but the statistic used is a red herring, misguided at best and completely disingenuous at worst, and I hate that.

[ctuser1]

The police and systemic violence against Blacks is a reality.

I have been hearing this word a lot (systemic) in phrases such as systemic racism and systemic violence.

It means system wide, or whole body (government, public).

Do the numbers support this as a reality, or is it a perception?

For police shootings, I have found the following:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Which shows in 2019, 370 White people shot to death by police, 235 Black people, and 158 Hispanic
Population percentage of the above is: 60.4% White, 13.4% Black, 18.3% Hispanic

By population, you would expect about 90 black people to be shot to death instead of 235 if we are doing equal opportunity police shooting.

If you dig deeper though, you will find that black people commit about 52% of the homicides in the USA, while making up only 13.4% of the population.  If you just go with violent crime in general (rape, aggravated assault, manslaughter, murder, armed robbery) black people commit 38.5% of those crimes.

So just like a logger is far more likely to be killed by a falling tree than a person working in a office in the city, a black person is more likely to be in a situation where they get shot because they are committing more violent crimes per population than white people.

This doesn't mean that the reasons they are in that situation are not problems we should fix (poverty, education, steering away from gangs) but it might mean the police shootings are not really systemic racism, but rather a side effect of a wealth racism.

On this specific metric, analyzed in this specific way, no effect of systemic racism show up conclusively.

However, there are many others where it does. This article, for example points to some of them:
https://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/the-color-of-justice.html

They, in fact, cite some RAND corporation studies.
(I mistakenly used to associate them with libertarian ideas for the word "rand". It seems they do real data driven research too, so I need to pay more attention to them in future. "unbiased"/"centrist" POV is of course more valuable because it is likely to be less influenced by political BS.).

Raw data is a bitch. You will have a lot of noise in the data due to many complex factors. Sometimes the noise will drown out the signal. e.g. a specific data point can act very differently in the middle of the curve vs. at the tail. How do I konw? Just contemplate the effect/utility of $1 for a median American household earning $50k vs Jeff Bezos. Similarly, when US has 10 deaths per 100k, it is much easier to change vs. Australia's 1.6 per 100k.

So you need to look at it from many different angles and only *then* construct a story - especially in a complex sociological issue. The more different angles you look at, the more likely you are to overcome the confounding factors that are a bane of any honest boffin. These confounding factors can just make the data appear random, or may even point you in the incorrect direction.

After confounding factors come the innate bias of the person. e.g. I used to think of myself as centrist, but of late have seen myself alarmingly close to most liberal positions. So I should require extra dose of evidence to reach any position that agrees with the liberal political point of view. If your "bias" is conservative, you should ask for the same on the other end of the spectrum.

Hence the importance of looking at as many (preferably mutually independent) such angles as possible.

I can tell you that I have seen several such studies showing a persistent presence of systemic violence, and it has a negligible probability that they are all pointing to the same direction by chance.

But again, I am no expert on this. I have no training in sociology. So it is possible that the 5 (or 10) such studies I have seen are indeed hand-picked by a biased media to show to the common public, and that there are 100 others that point in the opposite direction that I have no idea of. If so, please point me to them and I will happily adjust my stance.

[js82]

Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?

As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.

This poll was not written to get unbiased opinions.

I put up the poll because the right wing media reaction would be predictable and overblown and the left wing reaction would simply be that the right wing media reaction is overblown.

I am interested in how left leaning and moderate types view this in and of itself, not how they view right wing media takes on it.

I'm interested in all genuine opinions, biased and unbiased. However I'm far more interested in substantive debate rather than sniping.

If you don't think the 2015 interview represents the co-founders' political philosophy today, ok. Valid.

If you think she and possibly her partner (s) are indeed ideologically Marxists as she said, but the movement is decentralized enough to dilute it, ok, also valid.

But your take seems to be that because I'm even curious about something that might show up on Fox news that I'm asking this question in bad faith.

The reason people(including me) think the question is in bad faith is because of the following:

1) The second part that I bolded above (basically that the movement is too decentralized and lacks a central command structure, hence the notion that the founders economic views are largely irrelevant as the movement has taken on a life of its own) is so utterly obvious to me that coming up with excuses as to why it's not the case, seems to be denying reality.
2) In the US, the right wing plays the "OMG SOCIALISM" card so often that it's lost all meaning.  It's akin to the Boy Who Cried Wolf at this point.

True communism can be scary.

It doesn't exist in the US, however. Even people who call themselves Marxists generally have no idea what they are talking about.

Essentially, this.

[matchewed]

Your survey lacks options of other opinions, you're leading people into voting on only particular view points when there are many more.

[J Boogie]

Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?

As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.

This poll was not written to get unbiased opinions.

I put up the poll because the right wing media reaction would be predictable and overblown and the left wing reaction would simply be that the right wing media reaction is overblown.

I am interested in how left leaning and moderate types view this in and of itself, not how they view right wing media takes on it.

I'm interested in all genuine opinions, biased and unbiased. However I'm far more interested in substantive debate rather than sniping.

If you don't think the 2015 interview represents the co-founders' political philosophy today, ok. Valid.

If you think she and possibly her partner (s) are indeed ideologically Marxists as she said, but the movement is decentralized enough to dilute it, ok, also valid.

But your take seems to be that because I'm even curious about something that might show up on Fox news that I'm asking this question in bad faith.

The reason people(including me) think the question is in bad faith is because of the following:

1) The second part that I bolded above (basically that the movement is too decentralized and lacks a central command structure, hence the notion that the founders economic views are largely irrelevant as the movement has taken on a life of its own) is so utterly obvious to me that coming up with excuses as to why it's not the case, seems to be denying reality.
2) In the US, the right wing plays the "OMG SOCIALISM" card so often that it's lost all meaning.  It's akin to the Boy Who Cried Wolf at this point.

It's hard to deny that the question of whether or not it is "utterly obvious" that a founder's extremist ideology would be relevant would depend largely upon the observer and their political leaning.

Steve Bannon, for example, often tries to explain that race is not a factor in the national populist movements he supports. It's not about race, he'll say. It's about nationality. However, I think we all agree that any racist views of the founders of any of those local movements are totally relevant. You don't have to look too closely to see plenty of racism in national populist movement. But center-right Trump voters who believe themselves not to be racist have an incentive to ignore racism within the movement that got Trump elected.

Just as the non-marxist BLM supporters have an incentive to ignore marxism within the movement.

[J Boogie]

Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?

As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.

This poll was not written to get unbiased opinions.

I put up the poll because the right wing media reaction would be predictable and overblown and the left wing reaction would simply be that the right wing media reaction is overblown.

I am interested in how left leaning and moderate types view this in and of itself, not how they view right wing media takes on it.

I'm interested in all genuine opinions, biased and unbiased. However I'm far more interested in substantive debate rather than sniping.

If you don't think the 2015 interview represents the co-founders' political philosophy today, ok. Valid.

If you think she and possibly her partner (s) are indeed ideologically Marxists as she said, but the movement is decentralized enough to dilute it, ok, also valid.

But your take seems to be that because I'm even curious about something that might show up on Fox news that I'm asking this question in bad faith.

On this specific metric, analyzed in this specific way, no effect of systemic racism show up conclusively.

However, there are many others where it does. This article, for example points to some of them:
https://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/the-color-of-justice.html

They, in fact, cite some RAND corporation studies.
(I mistakenly used to associate them with libertarian ideas for the word "rand". It seems they do real data driven research too, so I need to pay more attention to them in future. "unbiased"/"centrist" POV is of course more valuable because it is likely to be less influenced by political BS.).

Raw data is a bitch. You will have a lot of noise in the data due to many complex factors. Sometimes the noise will drown out the signal. e.g. a specific data point can act very differently in the middle of the curve vs. at the tail. How do I konw? Just contemplate the effect/utility of $1 for a median American household earning $50k vs Jeff Bezos. Similarly, when US has 10 deaths per 100k, it is much easier to change vs. Australia's 1.6 per 100k.

So you need to look at it from many different angles and only *then* construct a story - especially in a complex sociological issue. The more different angles you look at, the more likely you are to overcome the confounding factors that are a bane of any honest boffin. These confounding factors can just make the data appear random, or may even point you in the incorrect direction.

After confounding factors come the innate bias of the person. e.g. I used to think of myself as centrist, but of late have seen myself alarmingly close to most liberal positions. So I should require extra dose of evidence to reach any position that agrees with the liberal political point of view. If your "bias" is conservative, you should ask for the same on the other end of the spectrum.

Hence the importance of looking at as many (preferably mutually independent) such angles as possible.

I can tell you that I have seen several such studies showing a persistent presence of systemic violence, and it has a negligible probability that they are all pointing to the same direction by chance.

But again, I am no expert on this. I have no training in sociology. So it is possible that the 5 (or 10) such studies I have seen are indeed hand-picked by a biased media to show to the common public, and that there are 100 others that point in the opposite direction that I have no idea of. If so, please point me to them and I will happily adjust my stance.

Did you mean to reply to Bloop bloop?

[J Boogie]

I put up the poll because the right wing media reaction would be predictable and overblown and the left wing reaction would simply be that the right wing media reaction is overblown.

I am interested in how left leaning and moderate types view this in and of itself, not how they view right wing media takes on it.

I'm interested in all genuine opinions, biased and unbiased. However I'm far more interested in substantive debate rather than sniping.

If you don't think the 2015 interview represents the co-founders' political philosophy today, ok. Valid.

If you think she and possibly her partner (s) are indeed ideologically Marxists as she said, but the movement is decentralized enough to dilute it, ok, also valid.

But your take seems to be that because I'm even curious about something that might show up on Fox news that I'm asking this question in bad faith.

If I assume your intentions are honest and good, then your phrasing/etc is bad.

If I assume you phrasing is accurate, then I do not read your intention as good.

Problems at a glance:

1) founders plural, but links to a single founder
2) no option for "unaware of such" re the founder's marxism comments
3) "the movement" vs "black people" in two different answers

I hang up on pollsters who start asking questions with those issues. Or I dig up a d6 and start answering randomly.

Writing fair and unbiased polls is hard.

Legitimate beeves.

Though in my defense, I don't think it's misleading to write "founders" plural as a co-founder used the plural herself and was not corrected in way by other BLM leaders. I don't think regarding a co-founder's description of the leadership team as accurate shows any bad faith on my part.

[ctuser1]

Did you mean to reply to Bloop bloop?

Edited to fix the quote in my post now.

No idea how I managed to quote the wrong post altogether.

[Wrenchturner]

It's hard to deny that the question of whether or not it is "utterly obvious" that a founder's extremist ideology would be relevant would depend largely upon the observer and their political leaning.

Steve Bannon, for example, often tries to explain that race is not a factor in the national populist movements he supports. It's not about race, he'll say. It's about nationality. However, I think we all agree that any racist views of the founders of any of those local movements are totally relevant. You don't have to look too closely to see plenty of racism in national populist movement. But center-right Trump voters who believe themselves not to be racist have an incentive to ignore racism within the movement that got Trump elected.

Just as the non-marxist BLM supporters have an incentive to ignore marxism within the movement.

Good post!

[ctuser1]

I think that the "philosophy" of Marxism is not an "existential problem" for a modern state, but the political ideology of "Communism" sure is!!

When someone says "Marxist" - it is important to distinguish whether that term is being used in a philosophy/economics sense, or "I want a totalitarian state" sense. If I was convinced it was the later for the BLM founder(s), then I would not touch them with a ten foot pole. The former is perfectly kosher in "my" book (and mine only. there are many reasonable disagreements possible with this stance).

Why do I remain so blase about Marxism despite it's strong identification with Communism (which, I think is a massive, frigging, human disaster. Stalin killed more people than Hitler and Pol Pot combined)? Because, they simply are not a realistic threat within the US at this point. they *can* become a bigger threat 50 years down, but definitely not now.

Bannon and gang represent the nativist movement that has a very long history too. They are just a much bigger threat at this day and age. Hence, I am quite intolerant even to the associated ideologies (e.g. libertarian/conservative etc).

It's just my personal threat perception. Your's may differ. But if/when you have inconsistent/tilted/biased threat perception (obvious e.g. Faux News), then it becomes funny and silly.

[Wrenchturner]

Philosophical and economic movements lead to influences on the state.  So that is a viable connection.

The bridge looks like Sokal/Sokal Squared, critical theory, identity politics, intersectionality and the general relativity that Marxism permits.  It is a dangerous road to build the merit of arguments on intersectional identities, rather than First Principles or something more reputable. 

The usual response is to call this a hoax or overblown, but at some point it no longer is overblown, and where that line exists is a matter of interpretation.

Consider the journal Nature, which recently decided to participate in #ShutDownSTEM to help protest along side BLM:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01723-9

I'm not sure that shutting down STEM is a great idea.

[J Boogie]

It's hard to deny that the question of whether or not it is "utterly obvious" that a founder's extremist ideology would be relevant would depend largely upon the observer and their political leaning.

Steve Bannon, for example, often tries to explain that race is not a factor in the national populist movements he supports. It's not about race, he'll say. It's about nationality. However, I think we all agree that any racist views of the founders of any of those local movements are totally relevant. You don't have to look too closely to see plenty of racism in national populist movement. But center-right Trump voters who believe themselves not to be racist have an incentive to ignore racism within the movement that got Trump elected.

Just as the non-marxist BLM supporters have an incentive to ignore marxism within the movement.

Good post!

Thanks! I have found various posts of yours to be insightful as well :)

[J Boogie]

I think that the "philosophy" of Marxism is not an "existential problem" for a modern state, but the political ideology of "Communism" sure is!!

When someone says "Marxist" - it is important to distinguish whether that term is being used in a philosophy/economics sense, or "I want a totalitarian state" sense. If I was convinced it was the later for the BLM founder(s), then I would not touch them with a ten foot pole. The former is perfectly kosher in "my" book (and mine only. there are many reasonable disagreements possible with this stance).

Why do I remain so blase about Marxism despite it's strong identification with Communism (which, I think is a massive, frigging, human disaster. Stalin killed more people than Hitler and Pol Pot combined)? Because, they simply are not a realistic threat within the US at this point. they *can* become a bigger threat 50 years down, but definitely not now.

Bannon and gang represent the nativist movement that has a very long history too. They are just a much bigger threat at this day and age. Hence, I am quite intolerant even to the associated ideologies (e.g. libertarian/conservative etc).

It's just my personal threat perception. Your's may differ. But if/when you have inconsistent/tilted/biased threat perception (obvious e.g. Faux News), then it becomes funny and silly.

I guess that's another factor I didn't consider - whether or not you currently consider our nation to be vulnerable to communist marxism.

I might spend some time learning about the prior conditions of the countries that fell into communist marxism so that I can better calibrate my personal threat perception. I agree with you that far right extremism is a more threatening ideology at the moment for the US.

[Tyler durden]

I didn't vote as you left off the option for people who don't think that the BLM movement supports Marxism. 

Another issue that you didn't explore is 'what is Marxism' exactly?  I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time.  And if his Marxist utopia had ever actually existed (or if such a utopia were even possible in the real world) - yeah it would be great.  However, no country has ever even gotten close to a the Marxist utopia described by Marx, Engels and their followers.  And IMO such a utopia would not be possible. So when people talk about "Marxism" I always wonder what they mean exactly since it's never actually existed in the real world. Do they mean Marxism as described by Karl Marx?  The Soviet Union?  China? Cuba? Venezuela?  None of the above?

Well, I'm not sure the BLM movement supports Marxism either. It's just that the co-founders (or at least two of them) are self-identified Marxists.

If a person identifies as a Marxist, my assumption is that their intent is to bring about a world without private property rights via revolution.

I think I’m about here as well.

The founders can be marxists but that doesn’t make the movement Marxist.

[SachaFiscal]

The primary purpose of the Black Lives Matter movement is to stop police brutality against black americans. Simple.  Do you support the end of the senseless killing of black americans by police?  Then you support the BLM movement.

[partgypsy]

I knew a number of people in college who read Marx, maybe consider themselves marxists, but the extent of being involved in politics being able to move our country towards "Marxism" is negligible or nonviable. We like our cars, we like owning houses. We like private ownership of property. As others note, it is easier to move our country towards a fascist or nativist state by concentrating power to the executive branch, weakening other branches, as well as cracking down on freedom of the press, speech etc, while keeping it "legal". If anything, our country is moving towards unfettered capitalism, increased corporatism, to the point often lobbyists are the ones writing legislative bills. Why? Because for those in power, there is money in it. In contrast the number of self described marxists getting elected to office I would imagine is small. 2ndly it doesn't describe accurately why so many people are marching for BLM. If you did a poll of people marching for BLM, what % would be self described marxists? Otoh if you did a poll of self described nativists about white supremacists beliefs, what percent would identify with that?  I suspect there would be a more widespread identification. And the FBI reports that right wing groups are biggest threat for increased violence and homegrown terrorism in the US.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/racially-motivated-violent-extremism-isis-national-threat-priority-fbi-director-christopher-wray/

[GuitarStv]

I didn't vote as you left off the option for people who don't think that the BLM movement supports Marxism. 

Another issue that you didn't explore is 'what is Marxism' exactly?  I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time.  And if his Marxist utopia had ever actually existed (or if such a utopia were even possible in the real world) - yeah it would be great.  However, no country has ever even gotten close to a the Marxist utopia described by Marx, Engels and their followers.  And IMO such a utopia would not be possible. So when people talk about "Marxism" I always wonder what they mean exactly since it's never actually existed in the real world. Do they mean Marxism as described by Karl Marx?  The Soviet Union?  China? Cuba? Venezuela?  None of the above?

Well, I'm not sure the BLM movement supports Marxism either. It's just that the co-founders (or at least two of them) are self-identified Marxists.

If a person identifies as a Marxist, my assumption is that their intent is to bring about a world without private property rights via revolution.

I think I’m about here as well.

The founders can be marxists but that doesn’t make the movement Marxist.

Yep.  The founding fathers of the United States were racist slave owners who didn't believe that slaves were equal people (based on what they wrote in the constitution).  Does this make the United States a bad idea?

[ctuser1]

I knew a number of people in college who read Marx, maybe consider themselves marxists, but the extent of being involved in politics being able to move moving our country towards "Marxism" is negligible or nonviable. As others note, it is easier to move our country towards a fascist or nativist state by concentrating power to the executive branch, weakening other branches, as well as cracking down on freedom of the press, speech etc, while keeping it "legal". If anything, our country is moving towards unfettered capitalism, increased corporatism, to the point often lobbyists are the ones writing legislative bills. This has been the biggest change in US politics. In contrast the number of self described marxists getting elected to office I would imagine is small. 2ndly it doesn't describe accurately why so many people are marching for BLM. If you did a poll of people marching for BLM, what % would be self described marxists? Otoh if you did a poll of self described nativists about white supremacists beliefs, what percent would identify with that?  I suspect there would be a more widespread identification. And the FBI reports that right wing groups are biggest threat for increased violence and homegrown terrorism in the US. Not Marxists.

The US was one of the very first countries that adopted some of the core political/economical tenets from Marx's ideas.

Eleaneor Marx (Karl Marx's daughter) was actively working with the Chicago labor movement in the 1860s. This is from where we got the Labor day. We can also thank them for starting the movement towards 8-hour-workday and general labor practices improvements that we all take for granted.

Labor conditions were abysmal before those movements.

Yes, looking back we can see what a huge mistake it was for Marxism to let labor monopolize any economic discourse and leaving no room for capital to participate. But hindsight is 20/20. It's the same (but opposite) mistake that the "Chicago School of Economics" protagonists (almost exactly 100 years after the Chicago labor movement - huh, irony!) made with their version "Public Choice" theory - which is to let capital monopolize economic discourse and pushing labor completely out in the cold.

Even though public perception is different today, Marx's ideas do not *only* equate to Communism. That's why I use the word "Communism" separately from, and to mean a different thing from "Marxism".

[partgypsy]

I guess I need to read up on Marxism, if there is a Marxism for Dummies book out there. Or maybe I disagree with the premise that people are strictly part of one class, or another. Or stay in one class for their entire lives. Workers can own stocks, and hence own the means of production. What about people who are self employed, like artists, crafts persons, or people who own rentals? Are they workers or part of the bougie class? It seems like an overly simplistic way of viewing the world. And maybe I'm naive, that even if we are a capitalistic society, we also are a democracy. We can use our collective power, and use non violent means like voting, writing to our representatives, joining unions, and yes marching or protesting to change laws to make them more equitable.  Anyways I apologize but reading those kind of political tracts gives me a headache. 

[J Boogie]

I knew a number of people in college who read Marx, maybe consider themselves marxists, but the extent of being involved in politics being able to move our country towards "Marxism" is negligible or nonviable. We like our cars, we like owning houses. We like private ownership of property. As others note, it is easier to move our country towards a fascist or nativist state by concentrating power to the executive branch, weakening other branches, as well as cracking down on freedom of the press, speech etc, while keeping it "legal". If anything, our country is moving towards unfettered capitalism, increased corporatism, to the point often lobbyists are the ones writing legislative bills. Why? Because for those in power, there is money in it. In contrast the number of self described marxists getting elected to office I would imagine is small.

Good points. In the near future, I agree.

However, do you envision a sea change on the horizon, precipitated by the growing trend of overeducated and underemployed millenials and zoomers unable to partake in homeownership in the cities they uber around in? Thanks to your comment I am connecting some dots in that the "sharing economy" has not only exacerbated wealth inequality but also might result in future generations being far less attached to major possessions and far more interested in experimenting with abolishing private property.

I predict this happens right around the time that Bezos hits the trillion mark :)

[ctuser1]

I guess I need to read up on Marxism, if there is a Marxism for Dummies book out there. Or maybe I disagree with the premise that people are strictly part of one class, or another. Or stay in one class for their entire lives. Workers can own stocks, and hence own the means of production. What about people who are self employed, like artists, crafts persons, or people who own rentals? Are they workers or part of the bougie class? It seems like an overly simplistic way of viewing the world. And maybe I'm naive, that even if we are a capitalistic society, we also are a democracy. We can use our collective power like voting, writing to our representatives, joining unions, and yes marching or protesting to change laws to make them more equitable, using non violent means.  Anyways I apologize but reading those kind of political tracts gives me headaches.

I think the wikipedia article may be a good place to start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

And May Day (which is where Marx's ideas connect to US history):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

And Labor Day:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day

Talking about headache's, when I first thought I will read up on Marx - I tried to read the Das Capital. Well I made it through chapter or two, found it extremely dense going, and never went back.

That gave me a headache!!

[Optimiser]

I have no problem supporting the idea that black lives matter regardless of what ideologies the Black Lives Matter™ founders embrace.

[partgypsy]

J boogie. I have no idea what the future holds. I guess my general view is if society allows nonviolent means by which people can change society to reflect the way they want it to be, then over time society will be more representative of what people want. I wouldn't feel bad at all if Americans in general were less materialistic, and needed less resources in order to be happy, such as people trading versus buying, using pooled resources, public versus private spaces, or simply not needing so much stuff.  Americans use a far higher percentage of the world's resources than the 4% of the population that we are. In no way is us starting to use bike shares, public transportation, etc, making us remotely in tthe realm of communism. And those zoomers etc may choose to live in the city because of its amenities. And even if not interested in buying a house (for many reasons) are still invested in their jobs, their retirement funds, and quality of life in general. Maybe that quality of life has more to  do with friendships, going to coffee in a neighborhood coffeeshop, and traveling. But its based in an underlying capitalist model. Maybe people's fear of "socialism" makes us less likely to adopt what are actually common sense and useful solutions like universal healthcare. That "fear" causes more harm than the actual threat of socialism.

[Kris]

J boogie. I have no idea what the future holds. I guess my general view is if society allows nonviolent means by which people can change society to reflect the way they want it to be, then over time society will be more representative of what people want. I wouldn't feel bad at all if Americans in general were less materialistic, and needed less resources in order to be happy, such as people trading versus buying, using pooled resources, public versus private spaces, or simply not needing so much stuff.  Americans use a far higher percentage of the world's resources than the 4% of the population that we are. In no way is us starting to use bike shares, public transportation, etc, making us remotely in tthe realm of communism. And those zoomers etc may choose to live in the city because of its amenities. And even if not interested in buying a house (for many reasons) are still invested in their jobs, their retirement funds, and quality of life in general. Maybe that quality of life has more to  do with friendships, going to coffee in a neighborhood coffeeshop, and traveling. But its based in an underlying capitalist model. Maybe people's fear of "socialism" makes us less likely to adopt what are actually common sense and useful solutions like universal healthcare. That "fear" causes more harm than the actual threat of socialism.

+1. Very well said, partgypsy.

[Wrenchturner]

The notion that young people don't want to own things is being conflated with the fact that assets are very expensive.  Not to say that's occurring in this thread specifically but I'd say more generally.  Young people would love to own things but they don't have the buying power.  Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos has more wealth than the annual GDP of Hungary.  Ergo, Marxism. 

If you consider that international travel has devalued deeply compared to--say--the dollars required for a downpayment on a house, it's not surprising to see many young people choosing to travel.