Episode 58. The Unintended Consequence of the BLM Marxist Allegation of “White Supremacy.”

Podbean audio introduction:

Vimeo video introduction

https://vimeo.com/citizenslibertyparty/review/462688535/711c8eccd8

Rumble video

The Unintended Consequence of the BLM Marxist Allegation of “White Supremacy.”
Introduction.
Our podcast today is titled “The Unintended Consequence of the BLM Marxist Allegation of “White Supremacy.” I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the Citizens Liberty Party News Network, for September 28, 2020.
Our podcast examines the use of the allegation of “white supremacy” by BLM Marxists, and its unintended consequence of instigating a class consciousness among White citizens.
We argue that the allegation of “white supremacy” today, plays the same type of political propaganda purpose for Black Marxists as the issue of slavery played during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and then 70 years later, in the first Civil War.
In the early history of the Nation, the term “sectional animosity” was used to describe the two irreconcilable cultures between the commercial North and the agrarian South.
Today, the term sectional animosity between two alien cultures has a historical continuity with the ideological animosity between Marxists and conservatives, not over the credibility of the allegation, but over the stark difference in the mission of America, much like the issue of slavery did then, in the sectional animosity between the North and the South
Slavery, then, served as a convenient ground of dispute between the two alien cultures, in the same way that Marxist white supremacy plays today between the alien cultures of Marxists and natural rights conservatives.
Something real, slavery, then, acted as the precursor agent to solve the historical animosity between North and South, in the same way, today, that something real, racism, acts as the agent to impose Marxism on natural rights conservatives.
Madison attempted to combine two alien cultures under one government, and now, Madison’s flawed arrangement is allowing two distinct ideologies to, once again clash, over the future of the nation.
We argue that Madison did not get the right institutional framework in place to ameliorate the sectional animosity. His grand compromises over slavery, in order to get the new constitution ratified, left the issue of slavery to fester, before the start of the Civil War, and after the Civil War ended.
When the 38 elites (one delegate signed twice, once for himself, and once for his buddy, who could not make it to Philadelphia that day), walked out of the Convention, on September 17, 1787, they knew that their compromises on slavery would lead to Civil War.
We agree with Ta Nehisi Coates, a Black Marxist writer at The Atlantic, who claims that the Civil War did not solve the issues of sectional or ideological animosity.
Coates argues that the Civil War solved nothing, and, therefore, that reparations are due to Black people for the ensuing racism, after the War ended.
In contrast to Coates’ conclusion about reparations, we argue that the conclusion of the Civil War did not provide the common cultural or moral values that bound the citizens together into a shared national mission of individual liberty because Madison’s constitution was not a moral document, but rather a legal framework of economic and financial civil rules of procedure.
We argue that the genesis of modern racism in America is not 1619, and that the ensuing racism is not due to white supremacy.
The modern version of racism began with the globalism of the large corporations, around 1985. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, The Origins of Modern Racism in the United States and Black Economic Dysphoria Under Global Corporate Crony Capitalism and the COVID Economic Lockdown Shock (June 11, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3625160).
As in 1787, and later in 1860, there are now two distinct cultures, and two different nations in America.
As the British observer in America noted, in 1860, there were two nations operating under one government. The British observer stated:
“In order to master the difficulties of American politics, it will be very important to realize the fact that we have to consider, not the action of rival political parties, or opposing interests within the limits of one body politic, but practically that of two distinct communities or peoples, speaking indeed a common language, and united by a federal bond, but opposed in principles and interests, alienated in feeling and jealous rivals in the pursuit of political power.”
Further, we argue that today’s conflict cannot be solved peacefully under Madison’s flawed document because its civil rules of procedure permanently elevated the power of the natural aristocracy over the howling masses.
The ongoing racial hatred in America is due to a defect in the Preamble of Madison’s constitution, which failed to link his constitution to Jefferson’s Declaration, that all men are created equal.
For Madison, a “more perfect union” was a union that corrected the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation by permanently placing men who had “virtue” in unchecked economic power.
“A more perfect union,” said Thomas Paine, about Madison’s flawed Preamble, “meant a nominal nothing without principles.”
For BLM Marxists, a more perfect union means a communist tyranny.
Madison’s flawed, vacuous Preamble can mean anything to whoever happens to control the U. S. Supreme Court at that moment in time.
Madison’s two-class arrangement makes the constitution vulnerable to the ascendancy of the elite Marxists, who assume the authority and functions previously reserved by Madison for the natural aristocracy.
We raise the same issue about a future civil war that Edward Pollard raised in 1866, in his book, The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates.
Pollard wrote,
“It is obvious that the controversy is no narrow one of party, that it involves the traditions and spirit of government, and goes to the ultimate contest of constitutional liberty in America. Regarding these issues, the question comes forcefully to mind: Has the past war merely laid the foundation of another? The pregnant lesson of human experience is that few nations have had their first civil war without having their second.”

The essence of the ideological division today is over the difference between a society founded on individual freedoms, and a society organized under Marxist collectivism.
No force on earth will make the BLM Marxists suddenly decide to become individualist patriotic citizens, and give up their dream of imposing Marxism on the citizens. The ideological conflict between Marxist collectivism and conservative individualism is permanent and irreconcilable.
That Marxist ideological recalcitrance will lead to a second civil war, unless a peaceful civil dissolution occurs first.
In its relationship to Marxist class theory, the term white supremacy is used by BLM Marxists to describe the dynamics of the American social class of white capitalists who exploit the disadvantaged under classes.
In the logic of BLM Marxists, the white capitalist ruling class has an objectively verified, identifiable class consciousness that allows the Marxists to target the White capitalist class as a collectivist group.
The term white supremacy of the capitalist class has been broadened by BLM Marxists to include all White people, not just the capitalist class, who benefit from white privilege.
In contrast to the objectively verified class consciousness that the BLM Marxists project onto all White people, all White people do not identify themselves by race.
White people, as a collectivist entity, do not possess a class consciousness in the same way as the term is used by Marxists to identify the ruling capitalist class.
In other words, White people in America do not think of themselves as a collectivist social class, and do not think of themselves as a part of a white supremacist nation.
Following Madison’s idea about economic and commercial factions, between the natural aristocracy and the common citizens, White people today think of themselves in terms of economic and social status, and vote for either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party to represent their financial interests.
White people, applying Marxian analysis, do not have class consciousness.
However, one of the unintended consequences of the continued invocation of the term “white supremacist” by BLM Marxists, is that the Marxist ideology will cause the formation of racial class consciousness among White people, who had never before identified their common political and economic interests with other White people.
The media and cultural agencies will continually reinforce the message that all White people are racists, leading to the realization by White people that BLM Marxists consider White people to be an identifiable collective social group.
There is nothing in Marxist theory that suggests that the outcome of a new White class consciousness will lead to a pre-determined communist state.
A more plausible outcome of emerging White class consciousness is a revolutionary ideology of radical egalitarianism, based upon an individualistic entrepreneurial society.
The historical antecedent of that radical egalitarianism is found in the agrarian populist philosophy of North Carolina, as described by Cecil-Fronsman, in his book, Common Whites: Class and Culture In Antebellum North Carolina.
Cecil-Fronsman quotes an observer traveling through the South in the early 1800’s.
“The observer remarked that common whites, in North Carolina, were “…extremely tenacious of the rights and liberties of republicanism. They consider themselves on equal footing with the best people in the country, and upon the principles of equality, they intrude themselves into every company.”
The feelings of social and political equality of common North Carolina White people arose from the priority they attached to attaining self-respect and economic independence from the Southern plantation elite.
They believed that their own moral worth as individuals did not derive either from their initial endowment of labor, or from their accumulation of property from market transactions.
Paul Escott notes, in Many Excellent People, that
“North Carolina’s yeomen were, in reality, a self-directed, stubborn and independent group. Theirs was a traditional way of life based upon subsistence farming. It was neither luxurious not easy, but it offered self-reliance and self-respect.”
Escott goes on to write, that from the eyes of the plantation elite, the (White) yeomen were not respectable, and tended to view them as unreliable and in the same class as free blacks and slaves.
In other words, it is more likely that the nascent white class consciousness will not be built upon the existing dialectics of the Marxist antagonistic relations between workers and the capitalist class, but will be built upon the social class awareness that Hobbes and Locke were correct that the best social welfare outcomes are achieved under a regime of private property and individual initiative.
The philosophical mistake made by BLM Marxists is to substitute the concept of “white supremacy” of all White people for the more cogent Marxist economic theory of ruling class exploitation.
The white supremacy of all White people, as a social class, does not fit into the Marxist ideology, but the categorization of the American ruling class does have a collectivist class consciousness that fits neatly into the Marxist two-class theory.
The American white ruling class is now busy undermining the Marxists with the tools of co-option and collaboration. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, BLM Marxism and the Emerging Alliance With Global Corporate Crony Capitalism. (July 25, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3660493).
BLM Marxists would probably have attracted more middle class White citizens if the Marxists had stuck with Marx’s original two-class distinction between the ruling class and the proletariat.
Following the ruling class theory of American history, promoted by Angelo Codevilla, most White citizens can easily see the unelected power of the ruling class, and realize that the two track justice system generates unfair, unearned, advantages for the ruling class.
The common name of this current political condition is “the swamp.”
Our term for Codevilla’s American ruling class is a kleptocracy of global crony corporations, which is composed of the senior executives of the 1500 large global corporations who favor a one-world government.
We call that system global crony corporate capitalism.
We argue that the only peaceful solution to the ideological divisions between BLM Marxists and natural rights conservatives is a civil dissolution of the current 50 states into two new nations, one of which embraces the philosophical roots of individualism of Hobbes and Locke.
The other new nation is founded on the collectivist Marxist principles of social justice envisioned by the Black BLM Marxists, and funded by the insane “open society” globalism of George Soros.
The ultimate consequence of the market branding of the BLM allegation of “white supremacy” and the end goal of BLM Marxism, for the second new nation is a totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat, with an unspecified economic system, and untested ideas of a communist, one-class society, ruled by Marxist elites.
We predict that the on-going invocation of “white supremacy” will create a white consciousness among working class and middle class citizens, commonly called the petty bourgeois by Marx.
Marxist theory is defective in its treatment of the middle class because Marx only identified conflict between the working class and the ruling class.
We conclude that the solution for liberty lies in the direction of more individualism, and less central government, in a state sovereignty economic commonwealth of independent entrepreneurial producers of the American petty bourgeois.
This podcast is the introduction of a much longer article, available at clpnewsnetwork.com.
The other sections of the longer article include:
Section 1. Sectional Animosity As The Historical Antecedent of BLM Marxist White Supremacy Animosity.
Section 2. A Second Civil War Over White Supremacy or the Second Revolution Over Individual Liberty?
Section 3. Radical Egalitarianism as the Unexpected Outcome of the Unintended Consequence of the BLM Allegation of White Supremacy.
Conclusion: The Restoration of Jefferson’s Natural Rights Republic.

The full text and audio of the most recent podcast is available for free at clpnewsnetwork.com. The entire text and audio archive of all the CLP News Network podcasts are available for an annual subscription of $30.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.
Section 1. Sectional Animosity As The Historical Antecedent of BLM Marxist White Supremacy Animosity.
By broadening Marxist two class theory to the classification of the capitalist class to all White people, BLM Marxists lost the explanatory power of Marxist theory.
The Marxist two social class theory provided an easy to understand classification, based upon the class relationship to the means of production.
Marx defined the two classes on the basis of the specific source of income that each category of people (class) obtained in the capitalist economy.
Marx wrote his theory, in the 1850s, at the time of the dominant classical economic analysis, and his theory used the existing paradigm of classical labor value theory, in conjunction with his own theory of class exploitation of the laboring class by the capitalist class.
The classical economic component of Marx’s theory of exploitation was based upon the dominant paradigm of Ricardian labor theory of value.
In Ricardo’s theory, the price value of market exchange was based upon the total labor which is expended for its production.
Ricardo explained that,
“the natural price of labour is that price which is necessary to enable the labourers…to subsist and to perpetuate their race” and it, therefore, “depends on the price of the food, necessities, and conveniences required for the support of the labourer and his family.”
Marx modified the Ricardian labor value theory by adding his idea that the profit in market exchange, was a surplus value that was exploited by the capitalist class.
All of the grievances and all of the hate of the current BLM white supremacist allegation flows from this single idea that the profit, although produced by the workers, is acquired by the capitalists.
In the BLM rendition, all White people steal the labor value of all Black people.
According to BLM Marxists, the capitalist system is fundamentally unequal and that those who are wealthy do not deserve their wealth. Someone else created that wealth, and the capitalists stole the unearned wealth, through legal exploitation and oppression.
For BLM Marxist, the American rule of law is simply a front used by the capitalist class to maintain the power structure that allows the capitalists to exploit the surplus labor value.
In contrast to the American rule of law, the Marxists promote critical legal theory, based upon the starting premise that America is a racist nation. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, Chapter 4. Justice and the Rule of Law (Excerpt) (January 30, 2019). A Civil Dissolution: Solving America’s Intractable Problem of Socialism., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3325901).
The Marxist economic theory of exploitation broke away from conventional classical economics, in the mid-1800s, by substituting the sociological concept of collectivism for individualism.
The classical tradition of economic theory gave way to the neo-classical tradition, in the late 1800s, after Jeremy Bentham, the philosopher who developed the beginning of marginal utility theory stated that,
“individual interests are the only real interests in economics.”
Marxist theory never made the transition from classical to individualist neo classical economic theory.
When the BLM Marxists substituted the allegation of white supremacy for Marxist class analysis, the BLM Marxists lost the economic explanation of how the ruling class exploits the working class, because all White people do not exploit all Black people.
The great predictive power of Marxist theory was based on its insight that the capitalist class was always able to re-shape, and re-form itself to co-opt the underclass, without the underclass ever realizing that they were being co-opted.
We argue that the oppression of racism and sexism of the BLM framework is grounded in political mechanisms, other than simply their possible functions in the economic system of crony capitalism.
Whatever else the list of grievances and oppressions of BLM Marxists may be, they are not part of Marxist labor value theory, and they do not lead to a coherent Marxist theory of economics.
Rather, we argue that the BLM Marxist allegation of white supremacy is based on the historical animosity of class envy between people who have succeeded financially in America, and people who have not, similar to the cultural animosity between the commercial aristocracy of the North and the non-propertied common citizens of the South, in 1787.
Social class envy is not the same type of explanatory variable as economic class exploitation, and does not fit into the Marxist theory of exploitation.
In contrast to the observable, empirically verified class consciousness of the ruling class, Marx described the inability of the underclass to realize their oppression as “false consciousness.”
Marx explained that false consciousness was a product of an unequal economic system controlled by a powerful minority of capitalist elites. In his explanation, false class consciousness only applied to the working class, not to his concept of the petty bourgeois.
Marx argued that when workers came to understand the totality of their oppression, they would achieve class consciousness, and this, in turn, would lead to a workers’ revolution that would overthrow the exploitative system of capitalism.
In the BLM Marxist adaptation of Marx, they apply the term false consciousness to all White people, not exclusively to the working class.
In other words, in the BLM Marxist rendition, White people do not see themselves as a part of an exploited class within the American economic order and social system.
According to BLM Marxists, White people have false consciousness because they do not realize they are being exploited.
We agree that White people labor under the burden of false consciousness, but the cause of the false consciousness is not ruling class economic exploitation.
The false consciousness of White people is a political exploitation because Madison’s representative republic truncated democratic citizen participation in order to favor the elite natural aristocracy.
The BLM Marxists invocation of white supremacy will clarify for White people the nature of the political exploitation because it will cause the White population to gain an understanding of the nature of the ideological conflict with BLM Marxists.
We agree with part of the BLM Marxist theory that there will be a revolution, just not the type of revolution that the BLM Marxists expect.
We use Marx to describe why the continued invocation of white supremacy will lead to white class consciousness. Marx explained that the “superstructure” of society, which is composed of the schools, the media, the Democrat party, produces a consensus about justice for socialists.
That same type of consensus will form among White people who are continually subjected to the false allegation of white supremacy by the dominant cultural institutions.
This white class awareness today is similar to the growing realization of the outcome of sectional animosity between the North and South in 1858, when Southerners finally realized that they could no longer live together, under the existing constitution, with the North.
White class consciousness will form when middle class White people realize that BLM Marxists are in a co-dependency relationship with the crony capitalist ruling class.
BLM Marxists must allow crony capitalism to remain viable as a social system of production so that capitalists can make a profit and capital investment continues to create economic growth.
BLM Marxists must have the tax revenue from taxing the surplus profits to manage the communist one-class society.
Marxists cannot function in the future dictatorship of the proletariat without taxing the profits of the large corporations.
Large corporations cannot function in a global economy unless Black citizens hate white citizens more than they hate large corporations.
The economic system being described is the symbiotic relationship between large American global corporations and the Chinese Communist Party.
The emerging white class consciousness will eventually lead to a recognition that both BLM Marxism and crony capitalism are twin enemies of radical egalitarianism.
Section 2. A Second Civil War Over White Supremacy or the Second Revolution Over Individual Liberty?
The modern origins of the BLM allegation of white supremacy is found in an article in Ebony Magazine, when Lerone Bennett shifted the debate about American racism from the Negro Problem to the White Problem.
Bennett stated,
“The problem of race in America, insofar as that problem is related to packets of melanin in men’s skins, is a white problem, not a Black one, And in order to solve that problem we must seek its source, not in the Negro but in the white American in the process by which he was educated, in the needs and complexes he expresses through racism and in the structure of the white community in the power arrangements and the illicit uses of racism in the scramble for scarce values: power, prestige, income.”
The effect of Bennett’s reformulation of racism as the “white problem,” ushered in a new theory about “systemic racism” that was only loosely linked to Marxist economic class theory.
By disconnecting the BLM movement from Marxism, the BLM Marxists have inadvertently replaced the Marxist ideology with an ideology of Black social class envy, whose ultimate end goal is a revolution to redistribute the unequal and unfair wealth outcomes.
The core ideology advanced by the BLM Marxists is that the American justice and economic system is designed to perpetuate racial inequality. Their language for perpetual inequality is “systemic racism.”
In the rendition BLM of systemic racism, there is no upward occupational mobility for Black people, and there is no equal application of the law to Black people.
Those two concepts are considered by BLM Marxists as ruling class propaganda that keeps the false consciousness of White people in tact.
Wesley Lowery, a Marxist writer for the Atlantic, explains the ideology of systemic racism in his article, Why Minneapolis Was the Breaking Point.
Lowery explains,
“America is systemically racist, and a white-supremacist project from the start. The justice system, in fact, the entire American experiment was from its inception designed to perpetuate racial inequality.”
In substituting white supremacy for Marxist class theory, Black Marxists adopted a bastardized version of social class envy that allows BLM to use the Marxist framework of conflict theory, without actually being Marxists.
The leader of the BLM Marxist movement is Derrick Bell, a Black Marxist law professor at Harvard.
Lowery cites Bell’s theoretical contributions, by writing,
“Bell made important theoretical contributions, such as arguing that the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education was a result of the self-interest of elite whites instead of a desire to desegregate schools and improve education for black children. However, Bell also critiqued the field of law itself, highlighting the exclusionary practices at elite schools such as Harvard Law School, where he was on faculty. He even resigned from his position to protest Harvard’s failure to hire female faculty of color.”
Bell adopts part of the Marxist theory of co-option by claiming that the Brown v Board of Education decision is best seen as a white supremacist self-interest response.
Bell would have been more accurate about the Brown Supreme Court decision if he had placed the decision into the Marxist framework of co-option by the corporate crony capitalist system.
Lowery also cites another Marxist, Joe Feagin, a professor at Texas A & M, as a leader of the systemic racism school.
Lowery cites Feagin’s book, “Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations.”
Feagin writes,
“Systemic racism includes the complex array of antiblack practices, the unjustly gained political-economic power of whites, the continuing economic and other resource inequalities along racial lines, and the white racist ideologies and attitudes created to maintain and rationalize white privilege and power. Systemic here means that the core racist realities are manifested in each of society’s major parts … each major part of U.S. society—the economy, politics, education, religion, the family—reflects the fundamental reality of systemic racism.”
Feagin’s thin theoretical link to Marxist theory consists of this single line:
“In the U.S. this includes the role that the enslavement of Black people played in creating an unjust wealth for white people, their businesses, and their families. It also includes the way white people exploited labor throughout the European colonies prior to the founding of the United States.”
In summary, both Feagin and Bell mouth the right Marxist phrases about capitalist exploitation, without actually citing Marx.
Rather, they cite a non-Marxian theory of critical race theory, where everything and every person who does not accept their starting false premise, can easily be dismissed as a “white supremacist.”
Nicole Hannah-Jones, the author of the New York Times 1619 Project, goes a step beyond calling white people systemically racist. She reaches back in history to state that the American founding is no different than the Nazi philosophy of the Aryan race.
Hannah-Jones writes,
“Christopher Columbus is “no different” from Adolf Hitler and the “white race” as the true “savages” and “bloodsuckers.”
Eventually, White people will tire of hearing themselves described as savages and bloodsuckers. That slowly-dawning realization will usher in the era of white class consciousness.
The outcome of critical race theory of BLM Marxists is a civil war, where the victors impose their ideology on the losers, similar in concept to how the Northern commercial forces imposed their ideology on the defeated Southern agrarian society.
David Atkins, in his Washington Monthly article, White Supremacists Invading Cities to Incite Civil War, writes,
“We are a nation on the edge of an increasingly hot civil war, one in which white supremacists are invading American cities, fomenting violence, and the overtly racist president they support. Americans won’t be safe as long as a white supremacist president is leading a movement of bigots to incite a civil war, and attempting to ensure that the majority of Americans with cosmopolitan, egalitarian values remain politically disenfranchised and under the thumb of those who fear and despise them.”
Ta Nehisi Coates, cited earlier about reparations, states,
“For while the Confederacy, as a political entity, was certainly defeated, and chattel slavery outlawed, the racist hierarchy which Lee and Davis sought to erect, lives on. It had to. The terms of the white South’s defeat were gentle. Having inaugurated a war which killed more Americans than all other American wars combined, the Confederacy’s leaders were back in the country’s political leadership within a decade. Within two, they had effectively retaken control of the South.”
Another Black Marxist writer for the Atlantic, Ibram X. Kendi, describes why the eventual outcome of white supremacy will be a second civil war.
In his September 2020 article in The Atlantic, Kendi compared Donald Trump’s presidency to the 1850s, the decade leading up to the Civil War. He suggested that Trump has proved that America is still racist and that he has inspired a backlash of mass protests, “an anti-racist revolution.”
Kendi’s point supports Coates, that the Civil War solved nothing, and that a second civil war is required to eradicate white supremacy.
Kendi writes,
“But on racial matters, the U.S. could just as accurately be described as a land in denial. It has been a massacring nation that said it cherished life, a slaveholding nation that claimed it valued liberty, a hierarchal nation that declared it valued equality, a disenfranchising nation that branded itself a democracy, a segregated nation that styled itself separate but equal, an excluding nation that boasted of opportunity for all. A nation is what it does, not what it originally claimed it would be. Often, a nation is precisely what it denies itself to be.”
The left’s continuing violent rhetoric of a coming civil war is acting as a type of self-fulfilling prophesy.
In their new website, A New Civil War, (https://www.anewcivilwar.com/), Clifford Humphrey and Juan Davalos, archive recent news and articles about the coming civil war.
They have found a 100% increase in news stories, in one month, about the second war, most of which are based upon the BLM Marxist allegation of white supremacy.
They ask,
“In what way is there a religious character to our disagreements? Are we already two different peoples living among one another? If so, how and to what degree is this division repairable?”
The short answer to their question, is “yes” Marxists and conservatives are two different people, living in the same nation, just as the citizens in the North were different than the citizens in the South in 1787 and 1860.
And, “no” the ideological differences between BLM Marxists and natural rights conservatives are unsolvable and irreconcilable.
The main difference between then and now is that all White citizens do not yet have a class consciousness, like the citizens of the South had in 1858, when Southerners finally came to the conclusion that secession was the only answer.
This time, the unintended consequence of the continued invocation of “white supremacy” will lead to White class consciousness, and that outcome will not be a civil war.
It will be a revolution to restore individual liberty, in order to fulfill Jefferson’s promise that all citizens are created equal.

Section 3. Radical Egalitarianism as the Unexpected Outcome of the Unintended Consequence of the BLM Allegation of White Supremacy
In his interview, “Reflections on Marxism, Class and Politics,” Erik Olin Wright, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explained that while Marx believed that worker class consciousness would spark a revolution between workers and the capitalist class, Marx did not describe the type of economic system that would emerge after the revolution.
Wright explains,
“Marx was vague about what type of political system would materialize after a socialist revolution. He imagined the gradual emergence of a type of egalitarian utopia communism that would witness the elimination of elitism and the homogenization of the masses along economic and political lines. Indeed, Marx believed that as this communism emerged, it would gradually eliminate the very need for a state, government, or economic system altogether.”
The BLM Marxists are equally vague about how their idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat will operate. For BLM Marxists, it is sufficient to continually describe America as racist, without adding the solution to the racism.
Wright continues that Marx had no concept of citizen participation in a democracy, after the revolution.
Wright states,
“If Marx had no theory of revolution, he equally had no theory of democracy, and certainly felt no commitment to use “democratic” and “constitutional” methods. With his mixture of contempt and distrust for bourgeois democracy, his bias on the side of revolutions is a clear one.”
The BLM Marxists are equally vague and contemptuous of citizen participatory democracy.
In summary, the BLM Marxists today have no coherent economic theory, and have no concept of citizen participation because they have no concept of the “individual.”
While they call themselves “trained Marxists,” their philosophy is not Marxists, but racial class envy.
The only thing BLM Marxists have going for them is the repeated allegation of white supremacy.
We conclude that a more realistic outcome of the unintended consequence of a white class consciousness is the unexpected restoration of Jefferson’s natural rights republic. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, The Restoration of the American Natural Rights Republic, GabbyPress, 2017, https://bit.ly/33XcPC9).
As an alternative to Marxist theory of American history and economics, we cite the growing body of work on the American ruling class, and place that work into the framework of contemporary marginal economic theory, which posits human behavior as individual survival and self-preservation.
We cite a more realistic and truthful analysis of American society beginning with V. O. Key’s book, Southern Politics in State and Nation, (1949). Key explains how the modern Democrat Party used racism to bind Southern white citizens to the political machine, and do the bidding of elites, “without prompting.”
C. Wright Mills, (1956), expanded on Keys work in The Power Elite by linking the existing power structure to Madison’s constitution, to the elevation of the natural aristocracy over common citizens.
Mills writes,
“From this point of view, and broadly speaking, the American power elite has gone through four epochs, and is now well into a fifth. In so far as the structural clue to the power elite today lies in the economic order, that clue is the fact that the economy is at once a permanent- war economy and a private-corporation economy. American capitalism is now in considerable part a military capitalism, and the most important relation of the big corporation to the state rests on the coincidence of interests between military and corporate needs, as defined by warlords and corporate rich. Within the elite as a whole, this coincidence of interest between the high military and the corporate chieftains strengthens both of them and further subordinates he role of the merely political men. Not politicians, but corporate executives, sit with the military and plan the organization of war effort.
Building upon the analysis of Keys, in 1961, President Eisenhower described the American political and economic system as a military-industrial complex.
Eisenhower stated,
“[while] we recognize the imperative need for (economic growth) and development…We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence…The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
Angelo Codevilla, in 2010, in his book, The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It,” correctly identified the military-industrial complex as the “Ruling Class.”
In our reformulation of Codevilla’s ruling class, we call the economic and political system in America the crony corporate global capitalist system, because the most recent iteration of the ruling class is global.
We borrow from Marx the idea that when the white class consciousness finally arrives, there will be a revolution.
Conclusion: The Restoration of Jefferson’s Natural Rights Republic.
The natural rights revolution will seek to connect the constitution of the new nation to Jefferson’s concept of a democratic republic. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, After the Collapse of America: The Democratic Republic of America, GabbyPress, 2019).
Unlike the vacuous racist philosophy of BLM Marxists, the democratic republic is built upon individual initiative.
Jefferson wrote that when citizens leave the state of nature to create their government,
“all men are created equal… in nature all humans are equal…not subject to the rightful authority of any other human being…in a state of nature no rightful authority exists in nature. No man is subjected to the will or authority of any other man.”
What Madison succeeded in creating in 1787, was a government by, and for, the natural aristocracy, because Madison feared the political power of common white citizens.
Or, as James Dickson, one of the 38 self-selected elite “Framers” stated at the convention in 1787, the new constitution must protect “the worthy against the licentious.”
Dickson explained that Madison’s new Federal constitution placed the remedy,
“in the hands (well born) which feel the disorder of democracy, whereas the antifederalists placed the remedy in the hands of citizens (the common people), who cause the disorder, by not paying their taxes and debts in gold and silver.”
In other words, Madison’s flawed arrangement unleashed perpetual class warfare in America, exactly as citizens see today with the rhetoric of the BLM Marxists.
When Thomas Paine commented on Madison’s constitution, he said,
“it is an ill-advised attempt to replicate the British form of mixed constitution…their basis for justice becomes the balancing of particular class interests….they make it difficult for citizens to participate…it deprives citizens of private manners and public principles, and is driven by power and not consent, by coercive force and not the choices of citizens.”
Thomas Paine explained that when Madison and Hamilton said in their Federalist Papers, that the central government needs more energy, “what they want is energy over the citizens.”
This outcome is exactly what BLM Marxists want, more energy and control over the citizens to redistribute wealth according to their own moral authority to correct the flawed and systemically racist white supremacist American society.
The unintended consequence of the BLM Marxist allegation of “White Supremacy,” is the unexpected outcome that the future of America is in the direction of more individualism and greater democratic citizen participation in government decisions, which arises after the white population realizes their emerging class consciousness of individual liberty.
We believe that the differences between BLM Marxists and conservatives are irreconcilable and unsolvable, under the current Constitution.
On every single principle of a natural rights republic, the BLM Marxists have an alien, subversive, view of America.
Today, nothing binds the two factions together in a common national mission. The Marxists will never voluntarily obey the unwritten American rule of law because they will never share the cultural belief that all persons, institutions, and entities are subject to the equal application of the law.
The only peaceful, non-violent solution to the nation’s conflict is to dissolve the nation.
We advocate the creation of a new constitution, based upon on the state sovereignty framework of the Articles of Confederation, which changes the representative republic to a democratic republic.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.