What is the Problem with the Critical Race Theory
We have to ask ourselves why President Trump thought it was important to ban teaching of the Critical Race Theory in federal agencies and paid for by federal money. When we compare the Critical Race Theory to primitive Marxism we see a distinct parallel between the two no one can deny.
Critical race theory (CRT) is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power. Developed out of postmodern philosophy, it is based on critical theory, a social philosophy that argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. It began as a theoretical movement within American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal studies on race issues, and is loosely unified by two common themes. Firstly, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Secondly, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, as well as pursuing a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly.
By 2002, over 20 American law schools, and at least 3 law schools in other countries, offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally. In addition to law, critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women’s studies, ethnic studies, communication, sociology, and American studies. Important scholars to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Camara Phyllis Jones, and Mari Matsuda.
Critics of CRT, including Richard Posner and Alex Kozinski, take issue with its foundations in postmodernism and reliance on moral relativism, social constructionism, and other tenets contrary to classical liberalism.
Marxism seeks to explain social phenomena within any given society by analyzing the material conditions and economic activities required to fulfill human material needs. It assumes that the form of economic organization, or mode of production, influences all other social phenomena including wider social relations, political institutions, legal systems, cultural systems, aesthetics and ideologies. These social relations, together with the economic system, form a base and superstructure. As forces of production (i.e. technology) improve, existing forms of organizing production become obsolete and hinder further progress. As Karl Marx observed:
At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution.
These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society which are, in turn, fought out at the level of class struggle. Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority who own the means of production (the bourgeoisie) and the vast majority of the population who produce goods and services (the proletariat). Starting with the conjectural premise that social change occurs as result of the struggle between different classes within society who contradict one another, a Marxist would conclude that capitalism exploits and oppresses the proletariat, therefore capitalism will inevitably lead to a proletarian revolution. In a socialist society, private property—as the means of production—would be replaced by co-operative ownership. A socialist economy would not base production on the creation of private profits, but on the criteria of satisfying human needs—that is, production for use. As Friedrich Engels explains:
Then the capitalist mode of appropriation, in which the product enslaves first the producer, and then the appropriator, is replaced by the mode of appropriation of the products that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production; upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, as means to the maintenance and extension of production — on the other, direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and of enjoyment.
Marxian economics and its proponents view capitalism as economically unsustainable and incapable of improving the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rate of profit by cutting employees’ wages and social benefits while pursuing military aggression. The socialist mode of production would succeed capitalism as humanity’s mode of production through revolution by workers. According to Marxian crisis theory, socialism is not an inevitability, but an economic necessity.
When we look at the two, we see a distinct parallel. Both CRT and Marxism attack capitalism. They both blame basic social structures for all the world’s problems. A constructive look at both those theories suggests, those who do not succeed are not to blame, society is to blame. Critical Race theories and Marxism remove responsibility from the individual and both are aimed at destroying motivation, pride, will power, and in fact attempt to cast a shadow and guilt on success. Although both theories attempt to make one believe they take an objective look at race, ethnic back ground, and other factors making up an individual, they are designed to remove all traces of individuality and place every living soul in two categories, those who lead, and those who follow. When we take a look at the definition of, “critical,” we find the motive behind both those theories.
Definition of critical
1a: inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably
His critical temperament cost him several friends.
b: consisting of or involving criticism
also : of or relating to the judgment of critics
The play was a critical success.
c: exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation
a critical commentary on the mayor’s proposal
d: including variant readings and scholarly emendations
a critical edition
: of, relating to, or being a turning point or specially important juncture
a critical phase
: such as
(1): relating to or being the stage of a disease at which an abrupt change for better or worse may be expected
also : being or relating to an illness or condition involving danger of death
a patient listed in critical condition
(2): relating to or being a state in which or a measurement or point at which some quality, property, or phenomenon suffers a definite change
b: INDISPENSABLE, VITAL
a critical waterfowl habitat
a component critical to the operation of a machine
c: being in or approaching a state of crisis
a critical shortage
a critical situation
d: CRUCIAL, DECISIVE
a critical test
3a: of sufficient size to sustain a chain reaction —used of a mass of fissionable material
a critical mass
b: sustaining a nuclear chain reaction
The reactor went critical.
The word critical points to nothing short of a change. The problem with CRT is, the authors developed a theory or solution, then searched history to gather evidence supporting their views. As with most critical studies, they focus on tearing down a person, idea, concept, and replacing it with something they perceive as the only solution. Seeing CRT is rooted in Marxism, it is rather easy to estimate its ultimate goal.