Is BLM a Marxist Organization? Do All Black Lives Matter to Them?

Disclaimer: My view expressed here does not necessarily represent the respective views of other AMI pastors.  
 
Is BLM a Marxist outfit? Perhaps so, since Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of BLM, said in a 2015 interview: “Myself and Alicia [also a co-founder of BLM] . . . are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.” But Cullors might regret having given that interview five years ago because BLM’s link to Marxism does not exactly bode well for the spirit of the organization. While BLM certainly has cherrypicked certain Marxist ideas and adopted them to advance its movement, BLM may not want to ostensibly claim its Marxist ties, as evidenced by no mentioning of it on its website, because it could hurt BLM’s image. How so?
 
First, the security guards at the National Zoological Park (Washington D.C), where a white bust of Marx is displayed, should be on the lookout for the “woke” crowds looking for racist statues to remove. Why? Marx, both a materialist and an atheist, would also be considered a racist today. According to Richard Wurmbrand, the famed Romanian pastor who was greatly persecuted under communist rule, “Marx identified Black people with ‘idiot’ and constantly used the offensive term ‘N-word’ in private correspondence. Marx even championed slavery in North America. For this, he even quarreled with his friend Proudhon, who had advocated the emancipation of slaves in the U.S.” How embarrassing then that BLM would have a tie to such a racist!
 
Second, anyone studying Marx will soon discover that, in general, his theory relates to class struggle, not race, for equitable distribution of wealth among all people, that no one would be richer or poorer than the other. Marx therefore insisted that two events must occur: first, that capitalism, blamed for creating inequality, must first be supplanted by socialism followed by communism; and second, the bourgeoisie (middle class), whose gains are made at the expense of the proletariat’s labor must yield to the workers. The latter’s triumph will end the historic class struggle and usher in a utopia in which the workers “work according to their ability and receive according to their output” (Greer 1983:449).
 
But BLM would probably rather not focus on class because the moment it does, their assertation that systemic racism is the biggest hurdle standing in the way of the economic success of Black Americans would suffer. Consider what the Oscar winning actor Morgan Freeman said to CNN personality Don Lemon in 2014 when the latter asked him, “Do you think race plays a part in wealth distribution?” Morgan said, “Today? No, I don’t. You and I, we are proof. Why would race has anything to do with it? Put your mind to what you want to do and go for that . . . [Race] is a good excuse for not getting it.”
 
While Freeman was quick to dismiss racism as playing any role in the advancement of Black people in America, Black sociologist William Julius Wilson, a professor at Harvard since 1996, offered a more nuanced response. Explaining why, in his words, “the Black underclass is in a hopeless state of economic stagnation, falling further and further behind the rest of society” already in the 1970s, Wilson said: "In the economic sphere class has become more important than race in determining black access to privilege and power. It is clearly evident in this connection that many talented and educated [Black people] are now entering positions of prestige and influences at a rate comparable to or, in some situations, exceed that of [White people] with equivalents qualifications.” So, if Freeman and Wilson are to be believed, this would suggest that, to the extent that systemic racism still exists in America, its effect may not be so robust that it cannot be overcome by seizing the opportunity available (Freeman) and education (Wilson). This would be anathema to BLM who, therefore, would rather talk about race than class.
 
The third reason BLM would not want to tout its connection to Marxism is this: If the primary goal of Marxism—a classless society—is extracted and then applied to race, then BLM’s goal should be Martin Luther King’s color-blind society marked by the absence of race struggle. (“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin.”) But all indicators suggest that a color-blind America is not what BLM has in mind.
 
Let’s consider now in what ways BLM has adopted some tenets of Marxism.
 
One idea adopted from Marxism is the means advocated by Marx to bring about societal change: revolution. While criticizing Jacobins, the instigators of French Revolution, for only representing the interest of the bourgeois, Marx nevertheless admired their systemic teardown of French society borne through violence. Thus, Marx agreed that since “the ruling class was unlikely to surrender its property through democratic processes”, writes historian Thomas H. Greer, “resort to violence was ultimately expected.” Apparently, that aspect of Marxism was captured when Greater New York Black Lives Matter president Hawk Newsome declared, “If U.S. doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system.”
 
Another key idea borrowed from Marxism is dissolving the state, including the police, once the society has become classless. Consider what Cullors, who supports dissolving existing police department, said when asked what the U.S. would look like without police, particularly in situations involving domestic disturbance that often turn violent:  “The hope is that the world that I live in, our neighbors know each other, and they are familiar with each other and each other’s conditions. So perhaps, the person in the home has a safety plan that actually identifies the neighbor down the way to help support that person if they hear domestic harm and violence happening in the household.”
 
Apparently, this kind of idealistic thinking stems from Marx, who naively believed that, according to Greer, “in the absence of the class struggle there would be no reason for [the state’s] existence . . . [Subsequently] private persuasion and restraint would supplant police, prisons, and war.” Ostensibly, then, defunding/abolishing the police has Marxist roots.
Cullors’ thought highlights another key Marxist belief that BLM has adopted: humans behave badly because of unjust societal structures; but they will act benevolently once society becomes classless. Who wouldn’t want to live in a world where there is no need for police and prison?
 
Yet our world is fallen, and as a result, there is sin and corruption; the human “heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure” (Jer. 17:9). And it manifests among some policemen (who are, therefore, given to brutality) and neighbors as well (who, therefore, don’t care). Who would intervene when the problem is with your next-door neighbor? That’s what the police are for, although some of its members have long forgotten that they are civil servants.
 
Notwithstanding Marxist influences on BLM, we ought to agree with its claim that black lives matter since every human being bears God’s image, including Secoriea Turner, an eight-year-old Black girl recently gunned down in Atlanta. For that reason, I break with Don Lemon’s version of BLM. To his guest Terry Crews who believes that all Black lives matter, Lemon said, “Black lives matter is only about police brutality and injustice in that manner, not about what’s happening in black neighborhoods . . . . Start [your] own movement if [you are] so concerned with ‘Black-on-Black’ gun violence.” This is sheer callousness. I am so grateful, therefore, to congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee who, in reference to another Black child recently gun downed in New York City, said with a heavy heart, “Black lives do matter in every category we are speaking of.”
 
Marxism or not, we lament for our Black neighbors: “May [the Lord's] mercy come quickly to meet us, for we are in desperate need'” (Ps. 79:8b).