Tag Archives: politics

Four Reasons the “Only 8 Unarmed Black Men Killed by Cops” Argument is Complete Garbage

Apologists for police brutality have a number of tricks up their sleeves for trying to justify the death and abuse suffered by their fellow citizens at the hands of police. They love to throw out half-baked and partially understood statistics in this attempt to shield criminal cops from ever being held accountable for their crimes.

At the current time with such energy behind a movement to reform the country’s corrupt police force, they have seized upon repeating in a mantra like fashion the line that “only 8 (or 14 or whatever) unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019.”

There is so much wrong with this statement that it’s almost hard to know where to begin addressing it all. USA Today published a decent article pointing out multiple flaws with this statement, but they missed some significant details that show the complete irrelevance of this claim and the questionable character of anyone spreading it.

I’m not really going to address the racial issue much, because to me it’s a secondary injustice that only matters because of the primary injustice of police unnecessarily brutalizing and killing people and rarely seeing any significant consequences. I’ll just say this: it is true that Native Americans and African Americans are more likely to be killed when interacting with police than are white people. However, whites get killed by police too because police kill, and racism makes this problem worse.

Below are four specific points that briefly explain how this “only eight” canard is dubious at best and furthermore reveal the lack of discernment being used by anyone repeating it.

1 – Is someone being “armed” in and of itself justification for a cop to kill or brutalize a person?

The people spreading the “only eight” canard are conflating the word “armed” with the idea of an violent criminal. They’re not the same thing at all. They seem to assume or at least want us to assume “armed” means the victim was actively shooting or otherwise threatening someone. But really, it doesn’t tell us much about what conspired at the scene of the killing at all.

I had a recent exchange with a cop who tried to justify a local killing by police of a teenager by telling me the victim was “armed” at the time. However, the victim was riding his bicycle home and was run over by the cop who perpetrated the crime with his car. The kid never brandished a weapon and never threatened anyone. They just happened to find a “weapon” on his body after killing him. He was “armed.”

This is the USA. We have this thing called the Second Amendment that recognizes Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. For this reason the United States is home to the most heavily armed population in the world. A significant number of law abiding citizens carry a weapon, also known as being “armed” on American streets.

A licensed concealed carry holder like Philando Castile could be murdered by police and be listed as “armed” at the time of their killing whether they were engaged in any crime or not.

So, if being “armed” in and of itself is not enough reason for police to kill then why make the point at all? Why not tell us how many people killed by police were actively shooting, pointing their weapon or in some way, ANY way presenting a GENUINE THREAT at the time of their killing? I suspect it’s because they would rather not have that conversation. It would require too much honesty.

2 – “Armed” with what?

What exactly does “armed” mean anyway? I get the idea they’d like us to assume it means the victim had a gun. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. A pocket knife or a beer bottle can be a deadly weapon. To a cop any number of mundane objects can be considered a weapon and a reason to shoot. Maybe it was nunchucks or a really sharp pencil. We just don’t know. All we know is they were “armed.” Or at least we know the police said they were.

Unless we know exactly what each person killed by police was “armed” with, we don’t even know what that statement means. Really, it doesn’t mean anything at all, at least as far as justifying a killing.

3 – Even if the victim was “armed” with some object, that does not preclude murder.

Simply put: A person can be murdered & the cop not even know they were “armed” until after searching their dead body or automobile and finding something they can consider a weapon. If a cop doesn’t even know a person is armed before killing them as it was with the young boy mentioned in point #1 above, it doesn’t even matter. It’s an irrelevant detail only discovered after the fact and then being used in an attempt to justify murder.

A detail like this doesn’t matter to the police brutality apologist. To them all that matters is the victim was “armed.”

4 – How do we even know the victim was “armed” in the first place?

To me, this might just be the most important point on this short list.

Who says the victim was “armed” in the first place? Were there any neutral witnesses or are we just going on the word of police involved in the killing? The “official” report is the police report as reported by the police involved.

Are we supposed to just listen and believe? Should we #BelieveAllCops, as if cops don’t lie and fabricate or plant evidence to cover their asses? Is that your fantasy world? I’ve got news for you. Cops lie and falsify evidence all the time, because they can get away with it.

A cop in Florida was recently caught planting illegal drugs on people for what seemed to be nothing more than his hobby. Dozens of people were sent to jail, and had their lives ruined. At least one person lost custody of their children because of this cop’s lies and this is just a single cop. Bottom line: cops lie. The “official” reports mean absolutely nothing on their own merit.

In conclusion, anyone pushing the “cops only kill a few unarmed people” are one of two things. At best they are naive.
Or they are something much worse; intentionally being deceptive, using meaningless statistics to justify the continued murder of the “undesirable classes.”

Maybe some people have chosen to believe in the myth of these angelic and honorable beings called police who are incapable of doing wrong. They should not be surprised when they are ridiculed for this naïveté because holding and perpetuating such ideas is harmful to a free society.

Opposition to the Redskins Name is About More than Being Offended

The Washington DC football team announced on Monday that it would be retiring it’s racist mascot causing nation-wide discussion. Yours truly has certainly been well into the fray.

A young lad has sought to question me on my stance and impugn the validity of Native American concerns on this subject. As is a standard practice of mine, if it takes more than a couple paragraphs to make my point online, it goes on the blog. So, here we go.

“Yeah that’s some who are offended, I know some indigenous people who aren’t. Aunt Jemaimahs family begged for the company to not issue a rebranding, apparently syrup is now racist too. I’ve never understood why anyone other than a white guy with a sunburn would be offend of the term “redskin”. OUR skin isn’t red. Who cares.”

 

It helps to have taken the time to learn the history of that term and Native Affairs in this country. One who has would be less likely to conflate different unrelated issues while repeating sound bites and talking points from conservative media.

It’s not simply “some who are offended.” It’s the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest and most representative Native organization in the country which has advocated for the interests of Indians for nearly a century. It’s the American Indian Movement, Idle No More, countless tribes, and nations and virtually every native activist movement in this country for 50 years who have recognized the ill social affects of caricatures being the dominant representation of native people in media while rich white people make millions of dollars from it, despite what your buddy on the street might think.

It’s not that the r-word is offensive as in it hurts little snowflake feelings. It is literally the Native American equivalent of the N-word. It is a word used historically as a means to dehumanize Indians.

Throughout the 19th century that term was used to designate Natives as wild savages who were only suited to be killed, hunted down like rabid animals. Bounties were paid for “redskins.” Often times scalps were taken as evidence for the number of “redskins” killed to fetch a higher payment. Be assured when someone called us redskins they were not “honoring” us. They were saying we were less than human and just in the fucking way.

Indians are not honored by a dehumanizing term historically used to encourage and promote our genocide. This is a genocide that continues today by definition as per the UN Council on Genocide, and Raphael Lempkin who coined the term. Natives are still fighting for basic rights and amenities as human beings while mostly white millionaires continue to get rich off the legacy of genocide and colonialism, portraying Indians as the things of their fantasies.

This all gets into media representation and how it impacts the quality of Native life. Indians are only about 1% of the US population. Most of those are concentrated in a few states and mostly in remote communities. So, the average American does not have any meaningful interaction with a Native American on a daily basis, much less a native community. These people get the majority of their perceptions of Indians from media and sports. This includes some natives as well who have been acculturated, are often urban and do not interact with a native community.

How Natives are represented in media affects how we are viewed by the majority of the population. How we are viewed by the majority of the population matters when we need our issues to be taken seriously and acted upon in an appropriate manner.

If we are viewed as impish caricatures, savage beasts, or even romanticized relics of a bygone era, we are not seen as real human beings. That affects the socio-political environment which we as 1% of the population are powerless to overcome on our own.

If we’re not viewed accurately as real, modern humans then our tribal sovereignty is not viewed as something to take seriously. Our land rights are at risk, our religious rights are at risk (did you know Indian religions were outlawed until 1978?), our very existence as Indian people is at risk. And when these harmful stereotypes infect our own youth it has been shown to negatively impact their self perception and limit their imagination as to what they’re capable of achieving in life. This has long-term negative implications for individuals as well as for tribes and nations.

There is far more at stake here than simple hurt feelings about the color of our skin.

The Media Lied about the Covington Kids Confrontation with Native American Protester

Unless you’ve been hiding in the woods the past few days you are probably aware of the hit job perpetrated by the mainstream media on the Covington Catholic High School teenagers.

“White Teens in Make America Great Again Hats Harass Elderly Native American Vietnam Veteran” was the headline run with by multiple media source from CNN to MSNBC. The problem with this narrative is that it’s 100% complete victim blaming bullshit. A simple viewing of the video footage available all over the internet reveals the exact opposite is true.

A lot happens at the nation’s capital on the weekend which is arguably the most productive time for activism, advocacy, and political demonstrations. On Saturday, January 19, 2019 in Washington DC there were multiple rallies taking place. Specifically there was an Indigenous People’s March, and a March for Life rally. Participants in these two events, a well-known Native American agitator named Nathan Phillips, and a teenage boy from Covington Catholic High School met face to face in an image that has been misconstrued to justify the vilest of threats, doxxing and campaign of harassment against innocent kids that I have ever seen.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

What can be observed by honestly watching the actual full video footage from different sources and angles reveals the truth. The primary video begins with a group of “Black Israelites” harassing everybody. They can be seen denigrating and insulting the Natives present, insulting their religions and being extremely confrontational and provocative.

When the “Black Israelites” spotted some teenagers from Covington Catholic wearing Make America Great Again hats waiting for their bus at the Lincoln Memorial, they begin hurling the vilest insults at them. They call the kids “crackers,” “racists,” and “faggots.” They accuse them of having lice and of being “dirty.” They insult the kids’ Catholic religion, and call their priests child molesters.

 

The video shows the Black Israelites going back and forth between antagonizing different people and then refocusing on the Convington kids, continually escalating their insults. Then they began a dehumanizing verbal attack on homosexual rights, and get this; the Catholic kids actually speak up in defense of gay rights.

After an hour of the non-stop verbal assault and vulgarity by the Black Israelites, the Covington kids begin singing and performing their school chants. One of the kids gets in front of his schoolmates and leads them in something that resembles a Maori Haka chant. Reports from the Covington students say they were trying to drown out the hateful insults from the Black Israelites.

Then, seemingly out of nowhere come Nathan Phillips and his crew strutting, marching and pounding drums as they walked between the two groups. They had left the Indigenous Peoples March and make their way up to the group of kids. You can see the students get pleasantly excited because as was stated later, they thought the Indians had come to sing and dance with them and so they joined in the song.

Then Phillips, a grown man starts getting in the faces of the kids, pounding his drum in what looks like an attempt to intimidate them. You can see a couple of the kids looking really uncomfortable with this invasion of their personal space. One child who we now know is Nick Sandmann can be seen standing near the center of the group wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat just before Phillips spots him, approaches him, gets uncomfortably close to his face while pounding his drum.

Let’s get this straight; Phillips, an adult man and reportedly a Vietnam Veteran approached the teenage boy and got in his face, banging on his drum.

Sandmann can be seen smiling uncomfortably, but not backing away or cowering, just standing silently. The rest of the kids continued to laugh and have fun with the situation. They’re kids and barely even know what’s happening. One of the students can be heard saying “I don’t even understand what’s going on right now,” because Phillips and his crew’s behavior was so odd and seemingly out of nowhere.

Another video from another angle close to the face-off shows a man from Phillips’ crew arguing with one of the students, telling the kids to “go back to Europe,” “this is not your land,” in an F-bomb laden diatribe. At this point Sandmann can be seen turning to his schoolmate, making a motion for him to stop debating with the vulgar racist and to pay attention to Phillips’ drumming.

 

Then the mainstream media publishes a deceptively edited version of the video and starts the false narrative: “White Teens in Make America Great Again Hats Harass Elderly Native American Vietnam Veteran.”

And they wonder why they are called Fake News.

Meanwhile, these students have had death threats and all form of vile and disgusting attacks, and calls from leftwing celebrities and verified bullies for their school to be shot up, for the kids to be “fired upon,” for the kids to be burned to death in a fire and on and on causing the school to remain closed on Tuesday due to safety concerns.

Of course once it became obvious that the story was a complete lie and some of the students began to look like they were lawyering up for the libel suit of the century, some of these celebrities retracted their statements, and published disingenuous, too little too late apologies. Many others have decided to double down because they need this story to be true so they can continue their fantasy that Trump supporters are all violent racists chomping at the bit to lynch a person of color.   

This, students is why we cannot and should not trust the media. We must always be skeptical of any outrage story that seems to fit a political narrative too perfectly until all the facts come out. Personally, I like to take 24 to 48 hours after the initial reports before speaking publicly on the matter.

 

US Veterans at Standing Rock Apologize for History of Genocide

standingrockvets

The demonstrations ongoing at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline have brought a wide assortment of passionate supporters committed to stand with them against the destruction of sacred and historical sites, and to protect the fresh water supply of the Missouri River.

It began with a small group of Lakota from the Standing Rock Reservation and eventually attracted supporters from many of the over five hundred federally recognized tribes in the US as well as countless members of the numerous state recognized tribes across the country. Grand entrances of delegations from the Oglala on horseback, processions of Hopi, and a fleet of canoes from various northwestern tribes just to name three were broadcast across the internet almost every day for weeks. They have been joined by a delegation of over 500 religious denominations, and the Redrum Motorcycle Club and Black Lives Matter. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein (for whom Morton County Sheriff’s Dept issued an arrest warrant), and actress Shailene Woodley (who was arrested and strip-searched by Morton County officers along with 26 others) also took part in direct action during the #NoDAPL opposition.

After months of abuses at the hands of DAPL private security who have assaulted the protectors with pepper spray and attack dogs, and by the Morton County Sheriff’s Department who has committed numerous human rights and treaty rights violations, shooting people with rubber bullets, mace, tear gas and using water cannons against them in freezing temperatures, targeting journalists and the press for arrest, it has become obvious that there is just a complete lack of humanity in the ranks of the MCSD and DAPL.

Then on the weekend of December 3 over 2,000 US military veterans arrived in an organized show of support, pledging to act as human shields for the protectors against the aggressiveness of the MCSD, to give a break to the people who have been there struggling for the past months, and to help draw mainstream media attention to the cause. On the first night of the arrival a small group of veterans engaged in an operation that returned the canoes that had been stolen from the people by Morton County deputies and DAPL personnel.

Then on Monday, December 5 in what has been dubbed a forgiveness ceremony at the Four Prairie Knights Casino & Resort on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, a large group of veterans led by Wesley Clark Jr. addressed Leonard Crow Dog, a Chief among the Oglala Sioux. Clark asked for forgiveness on behalf of the United States for the past centuries of genocide and abuse by US military. Clark led about a dozen others in the front of the congregation as they knelt in a penitent fashion, one man bowing all the way to the ground. Crow Dog accepted the apology, expressed forgiveness and then offered an apology for of all things the Sioux victory against the Americans at the Battle of Little Big Horn, popularly known as “Custer’s Last Stand. History is being made at Standing Rock right now.

To be certain, these veterans are doing a good thing, performing noble deeds, and maybe I’m just too much of a skeptic, but something doesn’t sit well with me about this forgiveness ceremony. For starters no one in the video seems old enough to be guilty of historical military crimes against Indians. I don’t believe that a son is guilty for the deeds of his father so I don’t hold today’s veterans accountable for events they had nothing to do with. Secondly, an apology on behalf of the United States only has any real merit if made by an elected and currently presiding Commander in Chief of the United States. Wesley Clark Jr. isn’t exactly of much consequence as a representative of the United States, and even if he was, an apology doesn’t guarantee the real needed reform in Indian affairs. Someone else might say “it’s a good start,” and I’d hope they are correct.

I get it. A lot of Americans feel guilty for the genocide against Native Americans that occurred in the past and continues through less direct methods into the present, and the United States as a corporate body is guilty of these crimes, but not every white American alive today is responsible. Certainly there are people, organizations, state and federal governments and departments who are guilty for various crimes and assaults against Indians today, but I can’t see any validity in holding today’s veterans responsible unless they themselves were engaged in these assaults. I don’t like this white-guilt approach to allying with Indian struggles. I don’t want to see white Americans prostrate themselves in a supplicating ritual for atrocities in which they did not take part. There is nothing that can be fixed about the past. The present is where we must make change for the future.

I think these veterans were already engaged in admirable acts of great compassion by showing up and putting their bodies on the front lines beside the Natives defending their land and their culture. For that, they should all be commended along with everyone else who put their body in the line of duty fighting against the Black Snake. From here we need to continue to make noise and make allies until Washington DC can’t ignore the movement any longer. The treaties must be restored and respected like the Supreme Laws of the Land they are. The Bureau of Indian Affairs needs to be reformed. Sovereignty must be respected on Indian land by state and federal authorities, and self-determination must be at all times the forefront of the cause. When this is accomplished, then the United States as a body will have atoned for her past misdeeds against the Indigenous of America. Then real healing can begin between our Nations.


Should Felons have the Right to Vote and to Bear Arms?

It’s been an issue of debate for decades, and recently it’s a hot topic once again: should felons be allowed to vote?  And what about their rights to keep and bear arms?

In most states citizens convicted of a felony lose their right to vote for a period of time.  In some states such as Florida, Iowa and Kentucky, this right is lost forever unless granted clemency that reinstates that right.  Under federal law a citizen convicted of a felony loses their 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.   I’ve heard and read the arguments from people who support these perpetual abridgements of citizens’ rights for felony convictions, and for the most part I’m simply not convinced.

To boil it down the argument seems to essentially be a matter of “they chose to commit the crime, so they can’t be trusted with these rights.”   While I am an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment (as well as the other 9 in the Bill of Rights), I can at least see a certain amount of logic regarding the right to own and carry a gun being restricted from a person who has been convicted of a violent crime in which the perpetrator used a firearm.  Similarly restricting the right to vote of a felon may be reasonable if the citizen was convicted of something like election fraud for voting multiple times in the same election.  But the majority of felons are convicted for outlawed activity nothing like those.

Consider for a moment that laws are made and unmade by humans, and the judicial system is not infallible.   In a lot of states felonies include behavior like driving on a suspended license more than twice, and the most commonly committed felonies include possession of a controlled substance like marijuana.  And more than a few times innocent people have been convicted of felonies.

But it begs the question: if these three rights: the right to vote, the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms can so easily be abridged by committing a felony, then what other rights should be taken away when you are convicted of a crime?  This gets even more interesting if we also apply the “once convicted, can’t be trusted with that right forever” argument.

Convicted of a felony involving a church scandal: lose your 1st Amendment freedom of religion

Convicted of fraud: lose your 1st Amendment freedom of speech

Was that fraud committed in written form and disseminated?: Lose your freedom of the press

Convicted of harboring a fugitive, or keeping some outlawed paraphernalia in your home, maybe an empty shell casing in Washington DC: Lose your 4th Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure

Convicted of a crime on your own private property: lose your 5th Amendment right to private property

Convicted of ANYTHING: lose your 5th, 6th, & 7th Amendment rights to a fair and speedy trial by jury (Why not? You’re a criminal.  You can’t be trusted to plead your case honestly anyway … right?)

This could go on and on.  We could have all sorts of fun finding reasons to restrict your 3rd Amendment rights against boarding soldiers.

One more disturbing argument I hear comes mostly from social conservatives who are afraid that the majority of felons would vote for social liberals and economic socialists if allowed.  While I might tend to share the second concern, that’s a bias that I can’t ethically support legislatively.

Many states have a treason law on the books.  Perhaps the current administration could reinstate some form of Sedition Act, thereby outlawing criticism of the government.  Then republicans, libertarians and disappointed democrats could be rounded up and charged with sedition, having their rights to vote and keep and bear arms removed.  Hey, it would be law; they would be guilty; and felons can’t be trusted right?

Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto: A Review

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1964 (orig. 1884), Washington Square Press, New York

Marxism is the bedrock and foundation of communism.  This tyrannical philosophy did not meet its end with the demise of the Soviet Union.  It is still very much an active threat to liberty today.  Proponents of Marxism seek to undermine capitalism at all points and they have learned to use the political system expertly to achieve their aims. What are those aims?  To centralize all authority over your life and finances in the hands of an all-powerful and uncompromising state, seeking global domination.

Marxism and the theory of communism are rooted in the essay Bourgeoisie and Proletarians by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, found in the Communist Manifesto, first published in 1884.

Class Warfare

The primary theme of Marxism is class warfare.  Marx opens his essay with the bold and all-encompassing  statement that the entire history of “all hitherto existing society” [later revised to exclude traditional “native” societies] is characterized by class struggles.  In short, there is always, in all situations class antagonism between an oppressor and an oppressed.  Modern “capitalist” society, he says is no different from medieval society. Instead of titles like “lord” and “serf,” we now have a dichotomous class distinction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.  The only solution, Marx says is open and “violentrevolution.

bourgeoisie

The bourgeoisie is initially defined as “the class of modern capitalists, owners of means of social production and employers of wage-labor” (57), but is eventually revealed to also include the middle class property owner. The bourgeoisie are driven by economic and technological development.  The historical development in these areas created “industrial millionaires”—the bourgeoisie, successful business people responsible for toppling Feudalism and creating a society where technology and education are available to all. Instead of creating a more liberated society however, Marx claims the bourgeoisie have only created “new forms of oppression.”  Marx believed that Representative government only serves to manage the affairs of the bourgeoisie.

                

proletariat

The proletariat is defined as “the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means of their own, are reduced to selling their labor in order to live” (57).  Marx presents the idea of an isolated working class, a people without hope of improving their lives.  Marx argues that workers are enslaved by the bourgeoisie, most especially the manufacturer.  Once the worker has been paid by his employer, “he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.” (70).

The proletariat is supposed to represent the “immense majority” who own no property and supposedly have no power or control over their lives.  Their mission in life is to enviously destroy the property and wealth of those who do.  Marx explains that as wealth becomes concentrated in fewer hands, the bourgeoisie is shrinking in number.  Those who washout of the bourgeoisie, become proletarians (since Marxist theory only allows for these two “classes”).  These washouts “boost the intellectual acumen” of the proletariat.  Marx also recognizes that the “social scum” may be absorbed into the movement as a “bribed tool.”

Luddism

The bourgeoisie constantly strive for progress, causing older, less efficient methods of production to be replaced by newer, more advance technologies. Marx denigrates this, claiming that the economic value of labor is decreased because technological advancement makes jobs easier to perform.  Marx complains that this has caused women’s labor in bourgeois society to be worth as much or more than a man’s. He decries the fact that industrialism has put people on equal economic footing despite age or sex.  He also complains that technology has caused the world to become more integrated with disparate countries now sharing in each other’s cultures.

Modern industry offers commodities at such inexpensive prices that demand is created by the people’s  desire to obtain these inexpensive goods.  With the increase in industry, the proletariat grows and becomes concentrated in greater numbers.  Due to competition in the workforce, wages fluctuate, requiring worker’s unions to develop in order to keep wages at a fixed minimum.  On occasion riots are necessary to further the proletarian cause.

Technological advancement in the traffic of information has allowed the proletariat to interact to the degree that they can now more quickly and efficiently organize themselves into a political party.  Since the bourgeoisie has created an environment in which technology and education are available to all, the proletariat must now use those benefits against them to destroy the very source of those benefits.

Violent Revolution

The ultimate goal of Marxism is violent communist revolution.  The first goal of the proletariat is to stage a successful revolution in their own countries, and then unite throughout the world in order to create a communist world order.  Marx explained that the score can only be settled when “that war breaks out into open revolution and where that violent  overthrow or the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat ” (p 77).  To accomplish this, the proletariat must first organize themselves into a class and “wrest all capital, by degrees, from the bourgeoisie,” and “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state” (p 93, emphasis added).

Statism

In order to support and maintain this statism, Marx planned to destroy the family by replacing home education with social education (p 89), and abolishing all personal property and inheritance.  He also planned to abolish countries,  nationality and all “eternal truths,” all religion, and all morality including Freedom and Justice (p 92, emphasis added).  In order to accomplish this goal: “Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things” (p 116).

Conclusion

This is Marxism at its core: class warfare based on the politics of envy.  It looks toward an omnipotent state to manage the affairs of the people.  Marxism’s long-term goal is global communism, and the abolition of national identity.  It is anti-freedom and scoffs at ideas like justice, and  morality.  It views technological advancement as a detriment to society and ignores any concept of personal responsibility for the proletariat. This ideology is covertly and sometimes naively promoted under various liberal pseudonyms, often uncited in order to avoid the stigma of the word “Marxist.”  It is quite possibly the most dangerous philosophy at work in society today, especially for people who value freedom, independence, and justice.

The Communist Manifesto ends with these words: “Working men of all countries unite!”