The Modern Civil Rights Movement And The Path To Socialism
By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
Before beginning, let me make clear what is not my point: I am not arguing that Martin Luther King, if he had not been killed, would be an opponent of the civil rights movement of today. There is no way of knowing that. If anything, the case can be made that he would have evolved politically in the same manner that former allies of his in the 1960s evolved.
I am thinking of people like Elijah Cummings, John Conyers, and Maxine Waters. They are ardent supporters of the government-enforced racial preferences and wealth redistribution programs that are central to the modern civil rights movement. There is not a dime’s worth of difference between their views and Al Sharpton’s.
What I am saying is something different: that the goals King championed in the 1960s have been achieved, and that the modern civil rights movement is taking his agenda to an extreme King never advocated during his life. At least in public. It may well be the case that in private discussions King understood his call for Americans to be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character as a temporary stage in a longer battle. We don’t know what we don’t know.
Am I saying that black Americans are now judged solely by the content of their character? Yes; or at least something close to that. I submit that in the America of today the odds are overwhelmingly favorable that a young black man or woman who finishes high school, who does not have a criminal record, who is drug-free, who is not covered with anti-social tattoos and body piercings, who is responsible and conscientious, and who does not have one or more children born out of wedlock to care for — will get a job that leads to a reasonably comfortable position in life. If this young black person gets a college degree with a major that enhances his or her appeal to a prospective employer, the odds are even greater.
I am not saying he will get a dream job, or not be passed over in favor of applicants less accomplished. But job seekers of every race and nationality face that circumstance. Nor am I saying that this young black person will not encounter owners of small businesses who will not hire him on the basis of his race. Such companies exist. But larger companies, certainly major corporations, know they cannot get away with discrimination against minority job applicants. The full force of the law will be brought to bear against them if they act in that manner.
Indeed, most of these corporations actively seek minority job applicants to demonstrate their commitment to diversity and to avoid legal entanglements over charges of racism.
The bottom line: With some exceptions, of course, a reasonably accomplished young black person, perhaps after spending some time pounding the pavement, will secure gainful employment in the America of today.
Then why is the unemployment rate for young blacks so much higher than for other races? Everyone knows the answer, even if political correctness discourages it from being said in public. The young blacks who cannot secure work today are those who cannot pass King’s test of being judged by the content of their character.
One has only to think back to the crowds of angry young blacks in the streets protesting the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. Whatever one thinks of Brown’s killing, these young people are largely unemployable, young men and women whose disdain for “acting white” when they were in school has led to a lack of academic accomplishments, who affect a style of dress, speech, and mannerisms self-selected to depict an anger against the “establishment.” The free market will not hire “gang-banger” wannabes. Prospective employers are the establishment.
A command economy, however, socialism in one form or another, is a different matter. It can force employers to hire. In a fully socialized economy, the government is the only employer. It does not matter if hiring workers with less than exemplary skills and a flawed work ethic will do damage to the bottom line. Profits are not the primary concern in socialism, at least on paper. Providing work for the people of the country is the goal, even if they are not exemplary employees.
It does not matter to the proponents of a command economy that there is no example of a socialist economy doing this successfully. Socialists cling to the hope that socialism will work once the right people are in charge of implementing it. This is what lures the leaders of the modern civil rights movement to advocate policies which, if not openly socialist, push dramatically in that direction.
If someone were to suggest to members of the Black Congressional Caucus that an expanding free market will put their constituents to work, it would be met with a mixture of laughter and disdain. Modern civil rights leaders see the same thing that everyone else sees among their constituents: People who are unemployable. This leads them to the conclusion that meaningful employment for the black lower class can be achieved only when employers are forced to hire them. Only a command economy has the power to do that.
There isn’t an unemployment problem in Castro’s Cuba or the People’s Republic of China. Jobs are created in those countries by government mandate. Indeed, people are not permitted to be “slackers,” “social parasites” who do not work and contribute to the betterment of the community. If one protests that they are low-paying jobs with little chance of advancement, the socialist answer is always the same: We can’t point to the flaws in individual socialist economies as an excuse to do nothing to help the disadvantaged; that we can do a better job in the United States.
Beyond that, the proponents of a planned economy argue that once jobs are created for those on the lower rungs of society, the deficiencies in their character that make them unemployable in a capitalist economy will be corrected; that free-market capitalists do little more than moan and groan about the deficiencies of lower-class blacks, while socialists propose to use the workplace to elevate their character and marketable skills.
Would I go so far as to join those who make the case that there has been a scheme concocted by leftists to encourage social dissipation in the black community as a way to promote socialism? Well, some of that is going on. Do an Internet search of “Cloward and Piven.” You will get many passages from the writings of two professors at Columbia University School of Social Work in the 1960s that called for precisely that.
But let us not get sidetracked: The push by modern civil rights activists for a command economy has many roots. Maxine Waters did not have to read Cloward and Piven to develop her fondness for the Cuban economy. What is important is for the rest of us to come to grips with why the objective of the civil rights movement is no longer a color-blind society, but one where equality of results matters more than equality of opportunity. It is a goal that cannot be achieved in a free society.
