Critical Race Theory is not Marxist in my opinion

Thats cool you guys got these niche categories for it.

Thats special.

It's still total trash.

originally posted by: Randyvine
a reply to: machineintelligence

So is it Black Lives Marxist? I'm sure it is.

That's actually a contradiction in terms. Like having a Homophobic LGBT society, or Jewish Nazi.

Marxism is about class warfare. A true Marxist isn't interested in the color of your skin because that's an arbitrary characteristic.

To BLM you're black or white. To a Marxist your a laborer or you take advantage of the labor of others. Race doesn't come into it.

originally posted by: seedofchucky
a reply to: AaarghZombies. Its a new breed today and so much the definitions change. they cherry pick what they like about old marxism and intertwine it with a updated it version . a post modernist one at that.

Then they're not Marxists because Marxism without class warfare isn't Marxism.

You can't simply take the name of something and then throw out its single defining factor. It's like having a straight homosexual, or a cisgender transexual. The contradiction nullifies it.

A better title for what you are talking about might be "People who misuse the word Marxist".

I understand what you are saying, but with feminism it's still broadly "about women's rights". They're just trying to take things a step beyond what the original feminists wanted. They're perverting the original goals, but they're still maintaining the same ideological direction.

The idea of "modern Marxism" is throwing out everything that Marx believed and replacing it with something different.

That would be like having a form of feminism that used a value system drawn from The Handmaid's Tale.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: machineintelligence

CRT started in universities in the 80's as a backdoor approach to introduce Marxism.

That makes no sense?

You're introducing people to Marxism by spitting on everything that Marx believed in.

Why not just use Donald Trumps Twitter account as a back door to an open door immigration policy.

Or Donald Trump Jr's trophy room as a back door to nature photography.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh yea and what did Marx propose as a solution to inequalities?

Marx saw inequality as being an issue of class. Those that produced and those that profited from the production of others but who did not produce themselves.

In very simple terms, he proposed that you flatten the industrial hierarchy. That you train and educate your laborers so that they can perform many of the functions of executives. Then you divide the tasks done by the executives among the laborers, as well as the money that the executives would have earned.

Essentially, you create an economy where businesses don't have CEO earning millions, everything that the CEO would do would be done by people lower down in the chain, who earn a portion of what the CEO would have earned. Thus sharing both the wealth AND the responsibility out among many more people.

Those who wanted to do better and to educate themselves could rise higher (Marxism didn't believe that we should be identical, only that we should be given the same chances), but never so high that they could exploit the labors of others for their own gain.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

That's actually a contradiction in terms. Like having a Homophobic LGBT society, or Jewish Nazi.

What about people like me? I'm a lesbian in a mans body.
Does that mean I have to be liberal?

Either way if it makes the founder of BLM look even more like
a hypocrite I'm a go.

Critical Race theory is just a Red Herring, an a selling point for them.

It funny though, for a bunch of Communists, they sure do enjoy the fruits of a Free Market , like Starbucks an Iphones.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

What you miss is that to the left class and race are inextricably linked. Urban blacks and illegal aliens are a permanent underclass because of their race and no other factors ... and that's where the Marxism comes in. They are part of a socio-economic underclass that needs to stop being oppressed.

Anyone who excels is part of the privileged, white oppressor socio-economic upper class - anyone (even POC who excel are being called white supremacists for this purpose these days).

The class struggle is still there, but it's being couched in terms of race and racial oppression, and that's why all the proposed solutions to it are Marxist.

a reply to: Specimen88

And that would be where the term "useful idiot" comes in.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Marx never really gave a solution, he only gave his thoughts on already existing problems within the capitalist system.

Division of labor which you basically described here:

In very simple terms, he proposed that you flatten the industrial hierarchy. That you train and educate your laborers so that they can perform many of the functions of executives. Then you divide the tasks done by the executives among the laborers, as well as the money that the executives would have earned.

But he came to the same issue that Ricardo and Smith pointed out already, (which is one of the reasons why he got involved in political and economic philosophy) that capital will remain in the hands of just a few. He was left with the contradiction, and quite the conundrum, that hierarchies are inevitable. This is where his theory on alienation comes into play, where ultimately revolution will happen regardless of the capitalist venture. And he's not the only person to point this out, Thomas Jefferson too called for rolling frequent revolutions or at least citizen revolts and protests.

The issue a lot of people have with Marx and Engels is they never gave a solution, they just pointed out the problems, and the solution was a loose ended manifesto, which was revised several times depending on the conditions of where the 'revolution' should take place.

Another is people have is taking what Lenin, Mao, and other socialists wrote about and said and pinning their philosophy on Marx. A prime example is the 'useful idiot', which apparently Lenin said, but never really elaborated on what he meant.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: machineintelligence
This is not a Marxist theory as others have said because at least Marxism is an ideology that is recognizable. This is something new this is a racist theory being sold to the public as anti-racist but in fact, promotes a type of racism as though every ancestor of everyone who ever did anything bad to anyone else somehow is responsible for their ancestor's behavior which is absolute and complete stupidity in my opinion. From a strictly legal theory basis, it simply does not conform to any sort of logical critique. Now it is force-fed into the minds of young school children who can not understand the logical fallacy this theory represents. This is a serious situation with regard to the Republic of the United States of America.

You're right, but for the wrong reasons.

I'm am older member and I've lived under both a Marxist socialist government and a Marxist Communist government (Yes, I'm that old. Deal with it).

Marxism is a class based ideology. It's centered on the concept of class struggle and it recognizes class and class alone as the primary factor by which people should be differentiated.

Race, gender, gender identity, and all of the other modern obsessions are irrelevant to Marxism.

If you are a member of the laboring class it doesn't matter if you are a straight white man or a black lesbian. You are what your class is.

The same is true for management and aristocratic classes. You are your class. Nothing more, nothing less.

Critical race divides people based on race. So by its very definition it cannot be Marxist because it places race above class as the factor by which people are identified.

Under Marxism Donald Trump and Oprah Winfrey are both wealthy socialites who do not labor and do not produce, but who gain wealth off of the backs of those who do. They are both enemies people and targets of the struggle. That one is black and liberal and the other is white and conservative are irrelevant.

It's the same if you are poor. A poor liberal minority from the inner city is considered to be equal to a poor white conservative form a rural area because of their class.

Under Marxism the slave owner is considered bad not because he is white or because he is racist, he is considered bad because he profits from the labor of the slaves. Their race is irrelevant.

Critical class could be Marxist, but not critical race.

So what's the downside to Marxism?

a reply to: ketsuko

You have to ignore or dismiss one for the other. You can't pick and choose between the two.

is it racial division and systemic racism, or is it class division?

Either way do you agree or disagree that perhaps there IS a problem?

This is where Marxism comes into play to make you think and ask the question WHY is this happening. You can't just boil it all down to people want free stuff and are lazy. People get angry for a reason.

a reply to: strongfp
People can get angry for no reason. That is the purpose of propaganda. Make the mob angry for contrived reasons.

a reply to: strongfp

It happens because people are different with different abilities.

Not everyone can be a brain surgeon ... in fact, very, very few can, and because of that those skills are in high demand because they are necessary skills with a large pool of people needing them no matter how few people can actually do them.

Because of that, people tend to place a high value on the skills of the brain surgeon.

Contrast that with simple cleaning like cleaning toilets. It's a job just about everyone, even the brain surgeon can do. Because of that, toilet cleaners are not in high demand. Can't find a toilet cleaner? Fine. Do the job yourself. This toilet cleaner asking for too much money? OK. There are plenty more toilet cleaners and one of them will almost certainly do the work for what you want to pay ... even if it's you.

And there are jobs with all kinds of ranges of skills and scarcity in between.

Not everyone can learn to code, and if everyone did, then coding would be a worthless occupation like toilet cleaning. And it really wouldn't matter what sort of economy we're talking about, even in a perfectly command economy where jobs are assigned, if you refused to do it, they could simply ship you off to the gulag/forced labor camp and plug in the next person who won't be so reluctant to be a good little cog because anyone can do it.

But not everyone can do things like brain surgery, and even in those communist societies, you see them receive perks that reflect that status.

a reply to: ketsuko

People with different abilities earn different rewards based on the demand for those abilities, and if you were born with less abilities then obviously you deserve less rewards. Did I accurately summarize your position?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ketsuko

People with different abilities earn different rewards based on the demand for those abilities, and if you were born with less abilities then obviously you deserve less rewards. Did I accurately summarize your position?

It's not about "deserve".

It's about what others want and need and will give you for what you can do or provide. Some things not everyone can provide, so the ones who can will end up with more from those who need those things, even in command economies.

And the truth hurts, even in today's society where having hurt feelz is the ultimate sin.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes we fully understand what labor markets are. And how they work.
I have gathered from a lot of your posts that you fall in like with the likes of an objectivist, almost creepily like you just have a Ayn rand book right by your side.

The issue with over the top objectivist mindsets is that you are living in a society that needs others to work, a brain surgeon can't have a job if there's no brains to work on. Or a toilet cleaner can't have a job if there's no toilets to clean.
But, we do live in a collective society where the labor market dictates the direction of any economy.
Now lets address one elephant in the room, those who accumulate so much wealth and capital they can literally 'command' the economy to the point they can make toilet cleaners obsolete and even brain surgeons. It's not government that's doing it, it's someone or some people who have just, ya know worked reaaaallly hard to get to that point.
Furthermore, what do you do with people who cannot work, old people and disabled? Just tough luck?

In ten years when you go to buy a car, will you be happy with you choice of, electric truck, car, SUV, etc? And nothing else?

The subject at hand can go much deeper, to the point of a collective (non government run institutions) accumulating wealth to the point they indoctrinate entire populations into niche specialized jobs. That economy is called state capitalism.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ketsuko

People with different abilities earn different rewards based on the demand for those abilities, and if you were born with less abilities then obviously you deserve less rewards. Did I accurately summarize your position?

It's not about "deserve".

It's about what others want and need and will give you for what you can do or provide. Some things not everyone can provide, so the ones who can will end up with more from those who need those things, even in command economies.

And the truth hurts, even in today's society where having hurt feelz is the ultimate sin.

So basically what I said, but worded differently. Specifically this part:

Some things not everyone can provide, so the ones who can will end up with more from those who need those things

The key word here is "need". If you have limited ability to stimulate "need" then naturally your profit suffers and so does your reward. Aka your reward is dependent on consumer demand and if you can't compete then by definition you deserve to fail.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Sorry, but you are wrong. It is Marxist indoctrination being disguised as the only way to combat "systemic racism."

What's more, if it wasn't then why is critical race theory being used as an excuse to indoctrinate American children in democrat hell holes to embrace BLM's Marxist ideology?...

CRT is labeled as a " race-equity methodology that originated in legal studies and is grounded in social justice."
Critical Race Theory, Race Equity, and Public Health: Toward Antiracism Praxis

Even illegitimate China Biden has spoken about, and signed an executive order, "using deep equity to fight racism.' Systemic racism does not exist, but it is being used as an excuse to indoctrinate American children and young adults to embrace Marxism.



I made a thread about this proving that it is a way to indoctrinate American children and young adults to embrace Marxism and a violent permanent revolution.

Deep Equity. The Indoctrination of American Children to Embrace BLM's Marxist Ideology.

I even gave examples of democrat hell holes indoctrinating BLM's Marxist ideology on America's children and young adults.

Black Lives Matter Curriculum

Critical Race Theory is teaching people how to become racist.