# Why do I say DEI is Marxist?

I can totally understand why you would think I was just throwing the term "Marxist" around haphazardly. Especially when I haven't elaborated on any of my views thus far. But I actually wasn't using it that way. I'll be open and honest about my perspective, which I can almost guarantee is not what you expect and is probably different than anything you've ever heard before. As I said a while ago, we probably DO agree on most issues (assuming you're coming from a liberal perspective). I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

I'll be honest and summarize my view right up front:

Marxism was evolved well beyond Karl Marx's original writings and well after his death. The people who continue to advance this ideology are well aware that it is unpopular, and so they embed it along the fault lines of the deepest wounds in our culture. This allows them to appear as fellow travelers to liberals and regular well-meaning people on the left who are (rightly) concerned about issues of discrimination, prejudice, and inequality as they relate to marginalized groups. This also allows Marxists to use these groups as a human shield against anyone who tries to expose what they're doing. Marxists are not fellow travelers with liberals; their goals are entirely different. Whereas liberals desire to eliminate obstacles that perpetuate inequality and unfairly discriminate, the goal of a Marxist is revolution. Unfortunately this plan has largely succeeded thus far and they now wield enormous influence over left-wing politics.

> Marxism is an analytical framework for Capitalism

You refer to classical Marxism. I refer to **Critical Marxism**. Everything that is deeply influenced by [Critical Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory). Quoting that wiki:

> Specifically, Critical Theory (capitalized) is a school of thought practiced by the Frankfurt School theoreticians [Herbert Marcuse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse), [Theodor Adorno](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno), [Walter Benjamin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benjamin), [Erich Fromm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm), and [Max Horkheimer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Horkheimer).
> In addition to its roots in the first-generation Frankfurt School, critical theory has also been influenced by [György Lukács](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gy%C3%B6rgy_Luk%C3%A1cs) and [Antonio Gramsci](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci). Additionally, second-generation Frankfurt School scholars have been influential, notably [Jürgen Habermas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas).

If you click those links, you will see that every single person in this list was a Marxist. The Critical Theorists were dismayed by the failure of the Soviet Union and other Communist revolutions in the 20th century. They concluded that these revolutions failed because the cultural soil of these nations had not been prepared for a Marxist revolution beforehand. Thus they shifted their focus from economic issues to cultural issues and generalized their theory. They shifted from [Dialectical Materialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism) to [Dialectical Structuralism](https://www.socialworkin.com/2023/03/understanding-conflictdialectical.html). The main difference between classical Marxism and **Critical** Marxism is the **type of property** being redistributed. In the **critical** version, they redistribute social and cultural capital in addition to material capital. I think this is best illustrated by this diagram:


Again, the property is different (capital vs. whiteness, male privilege, normalcy) but the structure of the theory is exactly the same. This list isn't exhaustive either, it leaves out [Postcolonial Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcolonialism), [Critical Petagogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy), [Critical Disability Theory](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disability-critical/), [Intersectionality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality), and many others.

Critical Theory continued to expand well past the death of the original Frankfurt School theorists and is still being actively developed and funded by our universities. The infiltration of the universities was done strategically following a plan laid out by [Rudi Dutschke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudi_Dutschke) (who, incidentally, Ansgar's father apparently debated) called the [long march through the institutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_institutions). By any measure, this plan has been a resounding success by today. It has succeeded to such an extent that the **third most cited work in the social sciences** is [Paulo Freire's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Freire) [Pedagogy of the Oppressed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed). This work is largely responsible for the development of [Critical Petagogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy), a Marxist theory of education. And by that I don't mean that they teach Marxism. I mean they *marxified* education itself. Educated/literate people are the oppressive class that marginalize and oppress the illiterate/uneducated. It follows the same structure as the diagram illustrates.

If you have no reference point for how deeply corrupted the scholarship in these fields has become, I highly recommend [this podcast](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4H5SKpubfylmMroqgDnM0X) by the people who orchestrated the [Grievance studies affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair). tl;dw - they secretly published a series of academic articles which were accepted to distinguished peer reviewed journals across various disciplines. Among other things, they plagiarized Hitler's Mein Kampf, claimed that women should anally penetrate their boyfriends to cure them of transphobia, claimed that White students should be chained to their desks and abused to better understand their privilege, and claimed to have inspected the genitals of random people's dogs at dog parks and then interrogated their owners about their own homophobia. The reviewers didn't have a problem with this.

I want to highlight an excerpt from this [2021 Paper published by Alison Bailey](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3212011&fbclid=IwAR3i8OTU2xn7T4ogcW6wgRRycZoCHF1DmUi8iXglUFu6FYh_Fo_tfqvnDQg) just to drive the point home:

# So what does all of this have to do with DEI?

Quite simply, these departments are almost always staffed with people ensconced in this ideology (whether they know what it is or not). They are "woke", which means [**critically conscious**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_consciousness). This means they see the **structural** nature of reality, that our lives are determined and contoured by systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. They understand that the world is organized according to these systemic power dynamics. They understand themselves to be an agent of history who can change the course of history, and that they have a moral/ethical obligation to call out and denounce every aspect of those structures where they exist.

You don't have to read Herbert Marcuse to adopt this belief system.

The first google result for DEI returns [Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion 101](https://www.ucdenver.edu/offices/equity/education-training/self-guided-learning/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-101) from UC Denver.

> We are all functions of the system that we live in; a system that has taught us how to think about ourselves and others, how to interact with others, and how to understand what is expected of us. These thought processes and expectations are based on the specific set of social identities we were born into that predispose us to unequal roles that allow us to access (or deny access) to resources.

This is very clearly describing [structural determinism](https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-structural-determinism/), a core tenant of Critical Race Theory.

> This is because all the components of your authentic self (your "ingredients"), interact together within an oppressive system that influences/cultivates your lived experience. A white, cisgender woman will have a very different lived experience than a Black*, trans woman; while both may share similar experiences/understandings of oppressive systems as women there are many experiences that each woman will not share based on additional oppression a Black, trans woman will experience

which is clearly a reference to intersectionality. You could simply look at the operating goal of these departments: **Equity**. This is NOT the same as equality [something they are quite explicit about](https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/what-is-social-equity/).

> The term **equality refers to equal opportunity**, equal access, equal treatment, equal sharing and division of resources, keeping everyone at the same level regardless of the tools they already do or don’t have access to. Social equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an **equal outcome**.

You could actually read this paragraph as a restatement of the difference between liberals and Marxists that I described earlier. The only thing that's missing is the statement of about wanting revolution but [I can just reference the University of Texas assistant DEI Dean](https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1654154804942258177?t=PLKsvBx-W1gCe76pf8Rl8Q&s=19) for that one.

# Finally to your second question

> How can you prove that an organization is making decisions based on merit?

You can't, but it doesn't matter to these activists. They will make decisions based on Theorized power-dynamics according to their Critical Marxist lens. And they [say explicitly that they WILL discriminate along these lines](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10316292-the-only-remedy-to-racist-discrimination-is-antiracist-discrimination-the). They don't even **believe** in meritocracy as a laudable goal. They believe [meritocracy is a tool of White Supremacy to maintain Whiteness](https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116).

> How do you prove the absence of bias?

Under Critical Race Theory, it is [impossible for a white person](https://www.kqed.org/news/11825805/people-will-insist-that-they-are-not-racist-robin-diangelo-on-white-fragility-and-the-way-forward) to not be racist/biased. According to them, the bias operates in my unconscious mind, [invisible to me](https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/white-privilege) because of my privilege. The only solution (according to them) is to give them power over any organization or person they deem racist. I reject this completely.

> What if there are people who exploit an org's bias to the detriment of others?

This is obviously bad, I just don't think the solution is to hand over control to Marxists & grifters. I'll say plainly that any organization is corrupt to the extent that it is *NOT* a blind meritocracy.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily saying that Daphne (or other members of Blue3DAO) are Marxists / are aware of any of this. Maybe Daphne's only vaguely acting out the politics of her peer group. Maybe she's read some of the more approachable material like [White Fragility](https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/0807047414). Maybe she's just a purely self-interested grifter who has recognized (like so many other opportunists) that this is the most griftable ideology in the world. Or maybe she went to university and majored in one of these fields and thus she might be well aware of a lot of this.

It hardly matters. **None of these options** are good for addressing any of the inequalities that marginalized groups face. As I said in the beginning, they only use these issues as a disguise and shield.

There's a lot more to this, but this post is long enough, and good enough for a summary. I wasn't kidding when I [tweeted this out a while back](https://twitter.com/EthDreamer/status/1582118134957293568?t=KmGGOsY371kaG1C080saNw&s=19). I did actually end up having that conversation with Parker. When I asked her how aware her Professors were of the Marxist roots of this scholarship she said:

> "They're definitely very aware, but they don't advertise it"