Dispel some myths held by critics of Marxism

Oddly enough, today's post is meant to dispel some myths held by critics of Marxism. The purpose is to show how the Critical ideology behind Black Lives Matter, and the Black movement in America in general, has enabled it to go one step further than the Marxists when it comes to organized violence - by recruiting the lumpenproletariat.

It is common, among opponents of Marxism, to argue that it glorifies, normalizes or otherwise promotes criminals. We've all heard it, wherever we stand on the political spectrum - the criticism goes something like "those f*cking commies are nothing but thieves", and usually equates Communists to murderers, burglars or other common criminals. It simply is not true.

In their 1846 book "The German Ideology", Marx and Engels coined the term "lumpenploretariat" - from the German word "lumpen", which translates to "rags" - to refer to thieves, beggars, prostitutes, junkies, government bureaucrats, and other questionable types one might run into while strolling down a shady part of town at night. They explicitly state, multiple times, that these types have no historical significance, no class consciousness, no revolutionary spirit, and thus are completely useless, when not detrimental to the Communist cause.

A Marxist, thus, would NEVER welcome career criminals, violent mentally ill patients, and the sort of people we see stirring up violence in the BLM protests into their movement. The wickedness of Communism consists, not of mobilizing "the trash" of society into a violent revolution, but of turning workers and intellectuals - otherwise harmless and productive people - into violent revolutionaries. Only after decades of institutional decay would these types ascend to power, as they did in the Soviet Union and Venezuela.

And why is that relevant? Why on earth is this pro-Capitalism page highlighting the pros of Marxism?

Because Black Lives Matter, and the American Black movement in general, crosses that line - and that's really, really dangerous, as it speeds up political decay.

By pushing the narrative that "the US police, legal and prison systems are essentially racist", BLM and like-minded movements are also saying that black convicts are actually innocent, and should not be judged morally. Quite the contrary, they are, by nature of their crimes, revolutionary individuals who should be welcomed and praised by the movement - and that's how you get violent hoards of looters.

This strategy isn't new. The Black Panthers would already use it in the 60s and 70s, practicing the ideas of Critical thinker Frantz Fanon about the lumpenproletariat's revolutionary potential - the movement even had a funk band of its own, called "Lumpen". The result is the most vicious of symbiotic relationships. Opportunistic career criminals who care very little about ideology can engage in violence and go unpunished, using the BLM as a legal and moral shield - BLM, on the other hand, gains a political militia, which it's not held accountable for, yet can use to terrorize its adversaries.

Why aren't we talking about this as much as we should? Because while the Lumpenproletariat acts as BLM's shield, the notion of "place of speech", which I'll discuss tomorrow, acts as its shield.