Regardless if people, particularly Christians, are adopting critical race theory (CRT) while seeking to maintain their distance from and disdain for Marxism, the founders and leaders of CRT have made that disassociation impossible. They do this by explicit and implicit statements, promoting the same values as Marxists, whom they credit as the sources of their thoughts and methods.
I use CRT in its specific meaning of critical race theory, and I also use it, as it is commonly done, as a synecdoche. That is to say, as an umbrella term encompassing other ideas such as intersectionality and Marxist-based ideas like social justice.
Some explicit statements of dependence on Marxism
The CRT movement was officially launched and named at a meeting in 1989. In speaking of the significance of the meeting (workshop), which met in a convent[1] on July 8, 1989,[2] at the St. Benedict Center in Madison, Wisconsin,[3] Kimberlé Crenshaw (often referred to as the mother of CRT) says, “The key formative event was the founding of the Critical Race Theory workshop. Principally organized by Kimberlé Crenshaw, Neil Gotanda, and Stephanie Phillips, the workshop drew together thirty-five law scholars who responded to a call to synthesize a theory that, while grounded in critical theory, was responsive to the realities of racial politics in America. Indeed, the organizers coined the term ‘Critical Race Theory’ to make it clear that our work locates itself in [the] intersection of critical theory and race, racism and the law”[4] (emphasis added).
Critical Theory (CT) was developed by neo-Marxists Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno and is the mechanism by which Marxism deconstructs a society in order to replace it with Marxism. The crucial thing to see here is that there is no way to embrace CRT and not embrace the core mechanism of Marxism to destroy the existing culture, including all of the religions in the culture, and replace it with Marxism. Not only that, but they did that intentionally and wanted it to be known. It is no secret.
So why are there still some who dispute the Marxist connection to CRT? Only unbridled naïveté could excuse the Resolutions Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention for presenting Resolution 9, which promoted using CRT as an analytical tool when the lens through which CRT views the world is Marxist CT. Additionally, while I am concerned with how many people are unaware of or seem unconcerned with the Marxist-CRT alliance, I am startlingly alarmed by those who purport to have thoroughly studied CRT and remain untroubled with its presence in Christianity, our schools, and government.
Richard Delgado wrote one of the essays included in Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement and attended the meeting that launched the movement of CRT and adopted the name. Of that meeting, Delgado referred to those gathered as “Marxists.” In an interview with Delgado and Jean Stephancic, Delgado said, “I was a member of the founding conference. Two dozen of us gathered in Madison, Wisconsin to see what we had in common and whether we could plan a joint action in the future, whether we had a scholarly agenda we could share, and perhaps a name for the organization. I had taught at the University of Wisconsin, and Kim Crenshaw later joined the faculty as well . . . So we gathered at that convent for two and a half days, around a table in an austere room with stained glass windows and crucifixes here and there—an odd place for a bunch of Marxists—and worked out a set of principles. Then we went our separate ways. Most of us who were there have gone on to become prominent critical race theorists, including Kim Crenshaw, who spoke at the Iowa conference, as well as Mari Matsuda and Charles Lawrence, who both are here in spirit. Derrick Bell, who was doing critical race theory long before it had a name, was at the Madison workshop and has been something of an intellectual godfather for the movement. So we were off and running”[5] (emphasis added).
Robin DiAngelo, the scholar and author of the popular CRT book and workshop called White Fragility clearly proclaims that social justice is built on Marxism. She writes, “Our analysis of social justice is based on a school of thought known as Critical Theory. Critical Theory refers to a body of scholarship that examines how society works, and is a tradition that emerged in the early part of the 20th century from a group of scholars at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany (because of this, the body of scholarship is sometimes also called ‘the Frankfurt School’). These theorists offered an examination and critique of society and engaged with questions about social change. Their work was guided by the belief that society should work toward the ideals of equality and social betterment. Many influential scholars worked at the Institute, and many other influential scholars came later but worked in the Frankfurt School tradition . . . such as Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno . . . and Herbert Marcuse.
Their scholarship is important because it is part of a body of knowledge that builds on other social scientists’ work: . . . Karl Marx’s analyses of capitalism and social stratification, and Max Weber’s analyses of capitalism and ideology.”[6] The people she mentioned are some of the leading neo-Marxists, and they were a part of the Frankfurt School, either physically or ideologically, like Antonio Gramsci, who was imprisoned in Italy under Mussolini during that time.
Crenshaw admittedly draws on Gramscian ideas and concepts and calls him by name. She says, “Critical scholars derive their vision of legal ideology in part from the work of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian neo-Marxist theorist who developed an approach to understanding domination which transcends some of the limitations of traditional Marxist accounts.”[7] While she appears to understand the Marxist understanding of domination and liberation, she seems to prefer the new cultural Marxism of Gramsci—also known as critical Marxism. It is common to find most Marxists today are not committed to what is known as orthodox, traditional, or vulgar Marxism—the latter is used of Marxism under Lenin and Stalin. Some today are known as cultural Marxists, critical Marxists, and other adjectivally defined Marxists, but they are still Marxist. This should not surprise us given that Marxism has always been committed to dialectical theory, which enables Marxism to continually refashion itself. Even Stalin referred to himself as a creative Marxist.
Delgado employs several Marxist concepts in his explanation of CRT when he says, “Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It tries not only to understand our social situation but to change it, setting out to not only to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and hierarchies but to transform it for the better.”[8] This is precisely CT developed by Horkheimer and Adorno. It reflects the essential difference between CT and traditional social theory, as articulated by Horkheimer. Traditional social theories seek to understand and explain society, whereas, CT seeks change society. The change CT seeks is from capitalism to socialism and ultimately communism. It does not mean a change within capitalism to improve it or a change within America’s republic form of government and religious freedom.
Instead, CT seeks to problematize everything about America in order to destroy her and replace her with Marxism. Thus, Delgado correctly distinguishes between CT academics and other disciplines because CT has an “activist dimension.” Two other Marxist ideas are embedded in Delgado’s explanation of CRT; they both relate to and strengthen the idea of change in CT. First is what Gramsci calls the organic intellectual. In contrast with the organic intellectual, the traditional intellectual pursues academics and scholarly interests, which she teaches and writes about, whereas the organic intellectual is a part of the Marxist movement, seeking to change society from capitalism to socialism. The organic intellectual either comes out of the movement (the militants of the 1960s who later went into academia are good examples of this) or joins the movement and, thereby, has solidarity with the people on the street, the movement, and fighting for change.
Second, we see the idea known as praxis. The Marxists’ and critical race theorists’ use of praxis signifies they are activists, but not merely activists. According to the Brazilian Marxist Paulo Freire, praxis is activism based on theory (CT) and reflection.[9] Marxist-based academics are unlike academics who use traditional social theory to understand and explain; critical race theorists are activists who employ CT. In other words, they teach and recruit CRT Marxian activists to help in their battle—revolution.
Regarding praxis, the early twentieth-century Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs referenced and quoted Marx saying, “Marx clearly defined the conditions in which a relation between theory and practice becomes possible . . . [then quoting Marx] ‘It will then be realised [sic] that the world has long since possessed something in the form of a dream which it need only take possession of consciously, in order to possess it in reality.’ Only when consciousness stands in such a relation to reality can theory and practice be united. But for this to happen the emergence of consciousness must become the decisive step which the historical process must take towards its proper end . . . The historical function of theory is to make this step a practical possibility.”[10]
I need to unpack Marx a little so that what Lukacs and Delgado are saying is clear. The “dream” (the stuff of and for the revolution to get to utopia) is in the world. Accordingly, the ingredients for a Marxist revolution exist in America today. But the Marxian-socialists must take possession of the dream (activism) by moving from a state of false consciousness—not knowing you are oppressed or an oppressor in capitalism to consciousness, knowing that you are—then the utopia can be brought about in history. It is in this relationship between consciousness and reality that theory and practice can be united, which is the meaning of praxis.
This consciousness becomes the “decisive step” in real history, which reaches its proper end of a Marxist utopia; it is theory (CT) that makes this a real possibility and not just a dream (Orthodox Marxism believes that history is headed toward a communist utopia end; it is very deterministic whereas neo-Marxism is not). Resultantly, once we unpack their particular usage of terms, we can see Delgado’s dependence on praxis, as is true of all Marxists and critical race theorists. It is difficult, if not impossible, to overestimate the significance of praxis in Marxism and CRT.
Exploitation
An important term in Marxism, communism, is exploitation, which is also an important term in critical legal theory, critical race theory, and social justice. Of course, many writers use the same terms, and, therefore, one can make logical errors by associating groups merely because they use some of the same terms. But when you consider CRT’s reliance on CT, leading Marxists, and use of the term exploitation in exactly the same way and context as Marxism, and communism, it becomes glaringly obvious that the connection is philosophical and intentional rather than accidental; consequently, the connection is worthy of mention.
The Marxists use it in their depiction of the evil of capitalism (which can include America’s republic form of government), which in their way of thinking, exists only because the rich bourgeoisie make money by exploiting the working class—what used to be known as the proletariat. It is used quotidianly in portraying capitalism as evil, and the progenitor of evil, while in the same context presenting Marxian-socialism as good.[11] This is how critical race theorists use it. One may read thousands of pages of the writings of Marxists and critical race theorists and never see capitalism referred to positively.
In speaking about the need to change the nature of man so he can thrive in communism, neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse refers to the damage done by the domination and exploitation of capitalism. He writes,
“Now external nature as the object of domination. And there we see it today, especially as the object of capitalist domination through the violent and profitable commercial exploitation of nature through which the life environment of man is transformed in accordance with the laws of profit. Thus, in this two-fold sense, nature has become the extended arm of society. And we can imagine no liberation of man, no emancipation of man, without literally a revolution in the sensibility of man and in his relation to external nature. The revolutionary sensibility of man, meaning that without the radical transformation not only of his consciousness but also of his modes of perceiving feeling, healing, touching, and smelling things, without this radical transformation, there can be no real radical change in our society”[12](emphasis added).
Speaking about the role of critical research in education, neo-Marxist Michael Apple says, “In general, there are nine tasks in which critical analysis (and the critical analyst) in education must engage.”[13] The first one he mentions is, “It must ‘bear witness to negativity.’ That is, one of its primary functions is to illuminate the ways in which educational policy and practice are connected to the relations of exploitation and domination—and to struggles against relations—in the larger society”[14] (italics added); thus, he argues that our education system is a part of capitalist exploitation and domination. Two of the reasons they view our education system as oppressive and exploitative is because, in theory, it upholds capitalism, our system of government, and the freedom of religion as intended. Today the reality of this theory has been diminished because of the influence of progressivism and now Marxism in public education, although it is still strong in conservative Christian institutions. And they view the teacher-student relationship, where the teacher has acquired knowledge to impart to the student, as oppressive and exploitative.
In an interview, Derrick Bell said, “We live in this capitalist society, let’s call it what it is, that by definition means that some people are going to make a whole lot of money, gain a whole lot of power, by the exploitation, if you want to use that word, of a whole lot of other people.”[15]
Socialism
Marxists and critical race theorists believe socialism is the answer to the problem of capitalism’s exploitation of people. Crenshaw, arguing for the redistribution of wealth (Marxian-socialism), says, “Yet economic exploitation and poverty have been central features of racial domination, and poverty is its long-term result. A legal strategy that does not include redistribution of wealth cannot remedy one of the most significant aspects of racial domination. Similarly, the myths of ‘vested rights’ and ‘equality of opportunity’ were necessary to protect the legitimacy of the dominant order, thus they constituted insuperable barriers to the quest for significant redistributive reform”[16] (italics added). Vested rights are claims enforceable by law; they speak of something that belongs to a person, like property.[17] Accordingly, rather than vested rights and equality of opportunity being something great, she presents them as merely reproachful. Of course, anything can be used at times for a dreadful end, but that does not mean it is not a good thing. But she presents them as mere tools for the bourgeoise to maintain their power; this is Gramsci’s cultural hegemony.
While I believe Martin Luther King (MLK) was right on the color-blind principle and following the peaceful path in the fight for civil rights, I strongly disagree with him on his theology, his view of the Vietnam War, and his immoral behavior with women.[18] I also disagree with his favorable view of socialism and the unfavorable view of capitalism that he sometimes expressed. For example, in an essay dated November 2, 1953, written in preparation for his doctoral dissertation at Boston University,[19] MLK said, “There are three evils in our nation. It’s not only racism, but economic exploitation and poverty would be one, and then militarism. And I think, in a sense, and in a very real sense, these three are tied inextricably together, and we aren’t going to get rid of one without getting rid of the other”[20] (italics added). Many black leaders in social reform dating back to W.E.B. Du Bois favored socialism and even Marxism. But here again, we find the word exploitation used in precisely the Marxian way.
What they value and why they use Critical Theory (CT)
In response to the question, “What is Critical Race Theory?” Delgado says, “The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power . . . Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”[21]
This is Marxism 101. CRT is not just about racism or race relations, but it is about rejecting and replacing the very ideals upon which America was founded and exists; he mentions a few here and other critical race theorists mention others in their writings. When he speaks of the liberal order, that is not liberal vs. conservative as in politics, but, rather, it is the rejection of such ideas as individual rights, the rule of law, equality before the law, law can be neutral, and the existence of objective right and wrong on which objective laws can be based. This at the heart of Marxism’s conflict theory—the destruction of any culture or society that is not built on Marxian-socialism.
Again, we must ask, how can the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and other Christians use CRT as an analytical tool, or in any sense for that matter, when the founders and leaders of CRT candidly proclaim their appreciation of, adherence to, and dependence on Marxism? Neo-Marxism and CRT have advanced Marxian-socialism to the degree that Marxism now permeates public education and has infiltrated conservative evangelicalism and the SBC.
[1] Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Living History Interview with Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, 19 TRANSNAT’L L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 225 (2011), found online at https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=faculty, accessed 11/26/2021.
[2] Angela Onwuachi-Willig, “Celebrating Critical Race Theory at 20,” July 2009, para. 1, https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/320/ , accessed 8/3/22.
[3] Angela Harris, “Foreword,” in Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 2017),xv.
[4] “Introduction,” Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement, edited by Kimberlé Crenshaw, et. al. (New York: New Press, 1995), xxvii.
[5] Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Living History Interview with Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, 19 TRANSNAT’L L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 225 (2011), found online at https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=faculty, accessed 11/26/2021.
[6] Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo, Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 2017), 25–26.
[7] Kimberlé Crenshaw, “Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law,” in Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement, edited by Kimberlé Crenshaw et. al. (New York: New Press, 1995), 108.
[8] Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 2017), 8.
[9] For the full development of this definition, see Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, translated by Myra Bergman Ramos (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017), 87–88.
[10] Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness (reprint text retrieved from marxists.org, 1923–2021), 3.
[11] I often use Marxian-socialism because both socialism and communism believe in socialism and are working toward establishing socialism. The difference is that socialists see socialism as a final state, whereas communists see it as a transitional state in order to get to communist utopia.
[12] Biophily2, “Herbert Marcuse – The New Sensibility (1970),” 9:10-10:55, YouTube, October 2, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBWiiFtqq84; accessed 10/26/21.
[13] Michael W. Apple, Can Education Change Society? (New York: Routledge, 2013), 41.
[14] Michael W. Apple, Can Education Change Society? (New York: Routledge, 2013), 41.
[15] CUNY TV, “City Talk: Derrick Bell, Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University of Law,” YouTube, March 14, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7zYD1q8B30, 4:36–5:37, accessed 7/19/21.
[16] Kimberlé Crenshaw, “Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law,” in Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement, edited by Kimberlé Crenshaw, et. al. (New York: New Press, 1995), 109.
[17] Legally it is, “A right belonging completely and unconditionally to a person as a property interest which cannot be impaired or taken away (as through retroactive legislation) without the consent of the owner” https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/vested%20right accessed 6/7/22
[18] MLK denied the resurrection, biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth, and more. https://jamesattebury.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/the-theological-beliefs-of-martin-luther-king-jr/comment-page-1/ accessed 8/20/22.
[19] Martin Luther King, Jr., The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Rediscovering Precious Values, edited by Clayborne Carson, et. al., (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 209.
[20] NBCNews “MLK Talks ‘New Phase’ of Civil Rights Struggle, 11 Months before His Assassination,” YouTube, April 1, 2018, 21:08–21:24, https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=2xsbt3a7K-8, accessed 10/23/21.
[21] Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 2017),3.
