Earlier this week, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors was widely slammed as a hypocrite after the self-proclaimed “trained Marxist” went on a “real-estate buying binge,” purchasing “four homes with a price tag totaling upwards of $3 million” and “also eyeing a spot in an ‘ultra-exclusive’ resort in the Bahamas, where the likes of musician Justin Timberlake and iconic golfer Tiger Woods both have homes.”
“We are trained Marxists,” Cullors said in 2015, speaking of the Black Lives Matter co-founders. “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.”
If Cullors is, as she claims, a “trained Marxist” who is “super-versed” on Marxist theory, then it appears that she is intentionally ignoring the central tenants of her own ideology. What would Karl Marx, the father of Marxism and communism, say about her accumulation of private property and supposed focus on familial support?
Let’s have a look at the communist manifesto to find out.
Private property
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
Despite the clear call for the abolition of private property in the context of “modern bourgeois private property,” Cullors’ significant real-estate holdings are definitionally antithetical to her “Marxist” beliefs.
Investing in family
Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
…
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
During an interview with Marc Lamont Hill, Cullors defended her hypocritical accumulation of wealth and property by reframing it as an investment in her family.
“Sure, and I think that is a critique that is, um, wanting, and I say that because, um, the, the way that I live my life is in direct support to black people, including my black family members, first and foremost,” Cullors said.
“And, for so many black folks who are able to invest in themselves and their community, they choose to invest in their family, and that’s what I have chosen to do. I have a child, I have a brother that has severe mental illness who I take care of, I support my mother, and I support many other family members of mine,” Cullors continued.
“So, I see my money as not my own. I see it as my family’s money as well,” she concluded.
Such a direct association of family and wealth stands in opposition to Marx’s own writings.
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at @ighaworth.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.