A glance at Neo-Marxism, Capitalism and DEI in America

To the Editor:

Neo-Marxism, although fundamentally socialist/anticapitalist in nature, is not simply an economic system, but an extension or expansion of classical Marxism, the ideological framework upon which the implementation, governance or power structure of communism is based. As opposed to traditional Marxist orthodoxy focused on class struggle, Neo-Marxism is characterized by a strategic focus upon a myriad of social, cultural, racial and ethnic issues among groups of people regarded as “the community”.  In theory, it is a philosophy purportedly driven by human compassion, pressed into the public consciousness in recent years by means of a “sacred verbal formula” identified and promoted as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). It seems to have rather quickly become less of a desired outcome or state of being and more of a mechanism through which to achieve societal transformation to anti-capitalist Neo-Marxism. In theory, it speaks of compassion and fairness in rather cleverly crafted pseudo-moral terms that function as its own armor, rendering it difficult to challenge on almost any basis, at least under superficial scrutiny. In practice however, DEI has revealed itself to be perhaps the most divisive and controversial political concept of its time. Whether objectively deliberate or not, the architects of DEI could not have done better to wedge and fracture society based on the concept of “divide and  conquer”, weaponized to upend traditional values, unity, patriotism and individual liberty; while inviting and promoting tribalism, globalism, conflict, crime, societal unrest and government tyranny, all of which emerged and advanced from the background to the forefront of the public eye in the course of the pandemic. A society in conflict, especially in a battle with itself,  is easier to control, calls for ever-increasing government power; and greater taxation, less for the purpose of achieving societal objectives and more-so, to fund ideological political goals. A fundamental Neo-Marxist strategy advanced by political science professors and democratic socialist leaders Cloward and Piven, is to create one crisis after another, overwhelm the system, then eventually, government authority previously tenuous, steps in to crush and control the resulting chaos as a means to trigger transformative societal reset. Unfortunately, it summons the “false profit” posture that “tyrannical power of the few is the legitimate solution to benefit the many.”  Once that power is attained and secure, that same power will be used to maintain itself in perpetuity. 

There is a reason for the unattributed adage, “You only vote socialism in once. Your grandchildren will have to shoot their way out”. 

Certain fundamental tools of Neo-Marxism can be found in the strategic glorification of one or more human groups, with the simultaneous demonization of others; weaponizing a corrupt and aggressive two-tiered justice system; and, destruction of liberty, due process, individual rights, public security and private property ownership. All such measures are a profound totalitarian threat to democracy, anywhere democracies exist.  Ironically, measures of this nature occur as the perpetrators accuse their adversaries of being “a threat to democracy” and being guilty of conduct in which they themselves engage. Simultaneously, the propagators assert that empowering them and other such radical elites will serve to make societal conditions “fair and equitable . . . You will own nothing and be happy,”  while mandating a socialist redistribution of wealth. The mechanism for achievement is a heavy taxation-based transfer of that wealth “from the hands of those who produce, to the hands of those who don’t,” assuming that those in oversight resist stealing the proceeds. One side creates supply while the other mostly creates demand; the consummate and dependent welfare state, in which resources are granted or denied at the discretion of autocratic government authority. Socialism, according to Reisman, is by nature, totalitarian.

As in every Marxist society, the individuals within the masses are essentially “equal”; but in reality and practice, equally impoverished; except the power-elite, who benefit from the imposition of their corrupt and destructive ideological outline.  In the U.S.,  they see the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, not an asset to be preserved; justified by some flimsy, distorted and dismissive theory that it is outdated and the product of “racist old white men.” 

Racism of course is rejected by just about everybody, yet old and accused white men are the primary group targeted for demonization, which perpetuates at least one component of the societal divide. 

The social justice mantra of DEI seems to be the basis for a new constitutional direction; though the reality and practice of DEI is more accurately, Discrimination, Exclusion and Indoctrination; all deeply at odds with our Constitution and intent of the founding fathers. 

These conditions are beneficial to corrupt governments, who, on the one hand, are in a position to virtue-signal in their support for designated human groups who they deceptively glorify for purposes of political exploitation, while fanning the flames of racism or some other societal malady, against their political adversaries, who they demonize and falsely blame for every conceivable inequity. The enabling strategy here is government collusion with big business, big tech and the mainstream media. Propagandizing their position while punishing or censoring the opposition are perhaps the strongest tools with the greatest effect. During the summer of 2020, the protesters and rioters among the street mobs across the country, loudly characterized their actions as a pro-forma mandate for “revolution!”, as it was described by participants who relied upon a variety of falsehoods to justify their conduct. Paraphrasing Vladimir Lenin, leader of the 1917 Marxist/Communist Revolution in Europe, “Lying is acceptable and essential in the furtherance of a revolution.” 

As part of the communist party blueprint for world domination, one among the series of strategic steps is to “Neutralize the Opposition”.  Accordingly, Lenin wrote, “We can and must write in a language which sews among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” Years later, in accordance with that blueprint, a communist party directive dated 1943 states, “Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist or Nazi or antisemitic. Constantly associate those who oppose us with those names that already have a bad smell.  The association will, after enough repetition, become fact in the public mind.”

In such an environment, which undoubtedly has a loud and familiar ring today, objective truth is a major threat to the Neo-Marxist narrative, and is not simply an inconvenient subject for future adversarial debate. As a consequence,  propaganda, censorship and violence are seen as justified and appropriate remedial action toward opposition of most any kind. 

There is a reason that fundamental public education has for decades been dramatically deficient and progressively worse, especially in large urban areas where massive numbers of young people are technically considered “functionally illiterate”, which impacts a disproportionately greater number of people of color. To the Marxist, this is not an unfortunate or accidental outcome, it’s a deliberate strategy; not subtle, but obvious; not for resolution, but rather exploitation. It is exemplified by a fairly common Marxist adage, “We’re not after you, we’re after your children.” Wherever Marxism has succeeded, the lead-up to it has been the “dumbing down” of the target society, redirecting education away from traditional utilitarian academics necessary for societal assimilation and economic prosperity, rather toward activist subjects and behavior, political propaganda, ideological idiom and often nonsensical and useless pursuits, encouraging stagnation over success. This then purportedly stands as proof of discriminatory and bigoted practice or treatment. Public education in a capitalist society is seen by Neo-Marxists as “perpetuating social inequality and maintaining the capitalist system.” From a practical standpoint, to those on a quest for perpetual power, a naive, uninformed and uneducated society is easier to control.  Ideally, that society would ultimately not have the insight, the analytical skills or intellectual acumen to challenge the veracity of what they’re told, apply common sense or recognize the difference between manipulative government disinformation or falsehood vs. objective fact or truth. 

Although Karl Marx himself wrote of and directed his disdain toward what he saw as “the capitalistic exploitation of the working class” and characterized it as the struggle between the “bourgeoisie and the proletariat,” he actually identified “racism” as likely the most divisive tool toward political ends; but, did not actually exploit the subject to assemble his own ideological war on capitalism. The Neo- Marxist however, has used it in every conceivable manner to accomplish a devisive and destructive political agenda, targeting among other things, environment, people, history, family, faith, Christianity and culture.  Circa 2019, Senator Bernie Sanders angrily asserted as a presidential candidate that America is “racist from top to bottom.” The solution to the alleged problem is to “burn America to the ground”, in the words of BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors, who in 2020, self-identified as “Marxist trained” and as being “obsessed [as a group] with property damage,” enthusiastically characterizing it as “the epitome of destruction and violence.”  The stated goal is to destroy then rebuild America under the ambiguous Marxist ideal of a “socialist utopia”, as seen in China, Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.  Dystopia would be a more accurate description. Important questions at this political juncture are “With whom do voters in the U.S. tend to identify?”; “Are they capable of recognizing for themselves, the Neo-Marxist co-optive spell over the Democrat Party?”; and, “Are they cognizant of the deceptive demonization of their political opponents, to achieve ideological victory before, during and beyond the 2024 presidential (and down-ballot) election?” Fundamentally, it would appear that the electoral choice to be made is between one’s individual preference for outcome-equity under Neo-Marxist totalitarian socialism; or, equal opportunity toward “the American dream” under capitalism, freedom and individual liberty.

Bud Corbett

Rhinelander