Black lives matter co-founder says they are trained Marxists.

[Revoltingest]

Stalin became the very thing Marx swore to destroy though.

Marx made plans with unintended consequences.
Plans which don't fully incorporate human nature's effects are defective plans.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally an autocrat wannabe is in the same "dislike" area as a fully realized autocrat.

The advantage of our non-marxist system is that
the wannabee autocrat's power is limited, preventing
the country from resembling USSR / N Korea.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was talking with an Armenian man who emigrated from the Soviet Union, and he told me that, when Stalin was in charge, a person could leave his wallet in crowded bar or restaurant and come back 2 hours later and find it in the exact same spot. No one would dare touch it. They had very effective crime control, far better than these Republican "law and order" types could ever dream.

I've no doubt that Stalin exercised great control.
Do you believe this made the USSR a superior place to live?

 

[74x12]

BLM founder says they are "trained Marxist"

Out of the horse's mouth it seems and if it is true, I am no longer in support of Black Lives Matter. From what I understand this isn't speculation, she is purported to actually have said it herself. When you really look at it, there is an uncanny resemblance with Marxist revolutions and what Black Lives Matter is doing now.

I even checked with the Communist party website and here is the link regarding black lives matter...

Black Lives Matter

A couple of other links....

"We are Trained Marxists," says BLM Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors - Back to Jerusalem

Black Lives Matter Co-Founder in 2015: ‘We Are Trained Marxists’ | News Break


I have yet to see it in mainstream news such as Reuters or major networks. Whether they will or not I don't know. Time will tell if these stories surface in mainstream media.


Before I jump to conclusions however, I'm going to give people an opportunity to explain this in the spirit of fairness.

Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist organization? Is it a Marxist movement?

How do you explain the comments attributed to be made by Patrice Cullors?

Their website logo symbol is very .... very reminiscent of a hammer and sickle.

 

[Sunstone]

Winston Churchill was willing to make a pact with Stalin to defeat Hitler. I think we should be willing to make a pact with Marxists to defeat racism, don't you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nothing is pure....go with what's tried, & actually existed.

It has nothing to do with purity, its that no society on Earth has met the basics of Marxism. He wasn't even that influential in the socialist/communist that have and do exist. Hes been more influential in unions, and early feminism even.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Marx made plans with unintended consequences.
Plans which don't fully incorporate human nature's effects are defective plans.

That applies to capitalism and the entire idea of people acting in rational ways. Or being wise and conscious consumers who "vote" with their dollar. It failed in predicting money as an effective incentive. It fails to teach value by putting a dollar tag on everything. And instead averting a crisis of the commons, we have a crises if over consumption and disposable societies.

 

[Stevicus]

I've no doubt that Stalin exercised great control.
Do you believe this made the USSR a superior place to live?

"Superior" is too vague and subjective a term, especially if we're talking about places to live. Time is also a factor. In the early years of Stalin's reign, it was probably much worse in the USSR, at least in the late 20s/early 30s, but things slowly started to improve. But then there was WW2, which clearly affected the USSR far worse than we ever experienced in the US, so that would not have been a good time to be living in the USSR. But at the end of the war, they were in a pretty strong position and beginning a massive rebuilding of their country, while also keeping pace with the US during the arms race of the Cold War.

There are quite a number of Stalin fans in the former Soviet Union. I can't say how many, but enough to be noticed. He did, after all, lead the country to victory during WW2, so gotta give the guy some credit. A weaker leader in Russia at that crucial moment in history might not have held it together (or even be the slightest bit prepared). If the USSR had fallen, then the Axis would have captured the world.

So, I guess one could say that the USSR in 1953 was a superior place to live compared to the USSR in the mid 1920s when Stalin rose to power. It got slowly better in the years following. In terms of standard of living, they never had any hope of matching America's level of wealth and luxury, but compared to most of the rest of the world at the time, it wasn't too bad overall.

 

[sun rise]

The advantage of our non-marxist system is that
the wannabee autocrat's power is limited, preventing
the country from resembling USSR / N Korea.

As we've seen in other nations, democratic systems can be subverted especially if people start following a leader without question.
<godwin>
Germany, for example
</godwin>

 

[Augustus]

Supposed to be a natural economic progression caused by class struggle.

I would say that such 'objective and scientific' Marxist proclamations about the direction of History have not exactly turned out to be supported by real world experience.

I would like to think we have reached a point where 19th C pseudo-science no longer informs our political debates.

This idea is a contemporary of rank Social Darwinism and scientific racialism, and shares a similar misaplication of evolutionary logic.

 

[Augustus]

So, I guess one could say that the USSR in 1953 was a superior place to live compared to the USSR in the mid 1920s when Stalin rose to power.

If you were still alive to see it... Such 'progress' came at the cost of up to 10 million peacetime deaths, mostly in the Ukraine.

Not sure how you price in the fear factor into quality of life either.

 

[Notanumber]

The leaders who think that way might not fully represent the followers.

Only if those followers are ill informed.

 

[Notanumber]

Winston Churchill was willing to make a pact with Stalin to defeat Hitler. I think we should be willing to make a pact with Marxists to defeat racism, don't you?

No.

Is there no racism in Marxist countries?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Their website logo symbol is very .... very reminiscent of a hammer and sickle.

I now get why VP Pence was reluctant to say "Black Lives Matter" because the organization itself seems to be focused on something going well past the singular premise of an honorable fight against racism and injustice for minority people. If it only was just that, then I don't think there would have been any issues.

The Two Very Different Meanings Of ‘Black Lives Matter’

The political overtones are disturbing to say at the least. There's no question BLM needs to be watched from this point on.

 

[Notanumber]

How many others are still in the dark?

BLM is a massive deception that many political leaders and their followers have fallen for.

 

[Revoltingest]

It has nothing to do with purity, its that no society on Earth has met the basics of Marxism. He wasn't even that influential in the socialist/communist that have and do exist. Hes been more influential in unions, and early feminism even.

So they advocate an untried radical theoretical system, eh?

 

[Twilight Hue]

How many others are still in the dark?

BLM is a massive deception that many political leaders and their followers have fallen for.

I think people are slowly waking up to it now. The only reason I was aware of this was because yesterday I heard about this on the radio, otherwise I would not have even known had it not been for that.

Most I think see it as a movement to fight racism and leveling the playing field for minority groups without realizing it is an encroachment of Marxism.

It kind of suggests BLM organizers have been wantonly dishonest and were suppressing that particular piece of information.

It's out now thankfully, and it's going to need to be addressed.

 

[Revoltingest]

That applies to capitalism and the entire idea of people acting in rational ways.

Actually, many people (including even fans of capitalism) fail utterly
to understand how it works as a system. The assumption of rational
behavior is incomplete. There is also irrational behavior, which is
now fashionable to study in modern economic theory, but was also
implicitly fundamental from its inception, eg, wrong decisions resulting
in companies failing.
Competition is similar in this regard, ie, there is also cooperation.

Or being wise and conscious consumers who "vote" with their dollar. It failed in predicting money as an effective incentive.

This is wrong. It has great predictive power, but it is not deterministic.
One must consider many other factors too. Capitalism is far more
complex than your typical undergraduate micro & macro economics
classes, which study only simplistic emergent properties.

It fails to teach value by putting a dollar tag on everything.

This isn't a failing. It's just not part of the system. Think of
capitalism as being like atheism, ie, it's not about morality,
which is entirely separate. But it doesn't mean that either
capitalists or atheists can be without morals...no matter
what the commies or fundies say.

And instead averting a crisis of the commons, we have a crises
if over consumption and disposable societies.

This is where government & social pressure come into play.
For example, if we want a clean environment, no type of
economic system addresses that. (Marx never gave any
thought to regulating sewage runoff into rivers.) It's up to
society & government to decide what rules will improve how
our economic system serves us.

If fans of Marxism want it as an alternative to capitalism, they
should demonstrate that it would be an improvement. But
they can cite no attempt to even study. (I'd say that USSR,
N Korea, Cuba, & Mao's PRC are, but fans of socialism,
communism, & Marxism don't accept them as examples.)
So we're left with mere prognostications that their theoretical
construct with unstated premises will be superior.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Superior" is too vague and subjective a term, especially if we're talking about places to live. Time is also a factor. In the early years of Stalin's reign, it was probably much worse in the USSR, at least in the late 20s/early 30s, but things slowly started to improve. But then there was WW2, which clearly affected the USSR far worse than we ever experienced in the US, so that would not have been a good time to be living in the USSR. But at the end of the war, they were in a pretty strong position and beginning a massive rebuilding of their country, while also keeping pace with the US during the arms race of the Cold War.

There are quite a number of Stalin fans in the former Soviet Union. I can't say how many, but enough to be noticed. He did, after all, lead the country to victory during WW2, so gotta give the guy some credit. A weaker leader in Russia at that crucial moment in history might not have held it together (or even be the slightest bit prepared). If the USSR had fallen, then the Axis would have captured the world.

So, I guess one could say that the USSR in 1953 was a superior place to live compared to the USSR in the mid 1920s when Stalin rose to power. It got slowly better in the years following. In terms of standard of living, they never had any hope of matching America's level of wealth and luxury, but compared to most of the rest of the world at the time, it wasn't too bad overall.

This doesn't really address the big question...
Would we be "better off" under Stalin's great control in modern Ameristan?
Vague as the quoted criterion is, if one cannot demonstrate a positive answer,
then the cure for crime might be worse than the crime. After all, isn't heavy
handed policing the problem?

Moreover, if their goal is to end racism, they've not
stated how adoption of Marxism would accomplish that.

 

[Revoltingest]

As we've seen in other nations, democratic systems can be subverted especially if people start following a leader without question.
<godwin>
Germany, for example
</godwin>

And yet, our system has showed durability by preventing
Trump from blossoming as you-know-who incarnate.
Also, the people have not followed him "without question".
There have been questions....challenges even.
And lo !!!!
In half a year, the people will vote on giving him a 2nd
term or the boot. So I find claims that Ameristan has
turned into a fascist state to be histriobolic (a neologism).