By Eric Kueffner
Alexander Dolitsky wants us to learn from history, but he first needs to work on his reading comprehension skills. “White privilege” is not a slogan or a doctrine. It is a description of historical reality that Dolitsky persists in willfully misunderstanding.
[Opinion: Neo-Marxism and utopian socialism in America today]
One can argue about how pervasive white privilege is or how powerful it is. One can even argue about whether Dolitsky has personally benefited from it. But one cannot deny that people culturally perceived as “white” have enjoyed centuries of advantages in the world and in this country and that they control more power, wealth and freedom than “Black, Indigenous, or people of color (BIPOC)” (also a descriptor and not a slogan). Saralyn Tabachnik, in her thoughtful and well-supported My Turn published in the Juneau Empire on July 22, 2020, explained all of this in response to Dolitsky’s initial essay on this very same issue, but instead of addressing her points, he now repeats and expands upon his original errors.
Dolitsky’s confusion about what a slogan is makes it hard to credit his tendentious claims about the links between progressive movements, Marxism, and present-day nationwide protests. It is especially goofy for Mr. Dolitsky to write that white privilege “is an ideological foundation and guidance for other neo-Marxist slogans of ‘systemic racism,’ BLM, BIPOC and ANTIFA.” One slogan is the foundation for another slogan? Systemic racism is a slogan? Black Lives Matter is neo-Marxist? This is a whirling mess of illogic, ignorance and unfounded insinuation.
Black Lives Matter may in fact be used as a slogan. It fits on a bumper sticker and is a punchy motto for a movement that seeks to bring attention to police oppression of Black people. But Dolitsky’s efforts to link BLM with Marxism are lazy and unconvincing. He seems to think that simply by mentioning communism and BLM in the same essay, he has somehow made a connection between them. That is not how persuasive argument works.
Furthermore, Dolitsky’s conclusion that the rhetoric of this popular and democratic movement is the main cause of violent unrest in our nation is ridiculous. We are currently suffering the abuse of a neo-fascist president who uses secret police to suppress peaceful protests and then lies about it. The rhetoric of Donald Trump inspires more violence than the three courageous Black women who started the Black Lives Matter movement in 2013 (without the help of Karl Marx, Charles Fourier, or other utopian socialists). Rather than belittling these brave women with his failure to even acknowledge them, Dolitsky should focus on the real threats to our democracy, which are in plain
We are at risk of losing our civil rights and our freedom because of an authoritarian assault on federal institutions and on private citizens. Trying to discredit BLM by labelling them as Marxists or socialists seems like an abuse of Dolitsky’s position as a teacher of history. If he wants to find analogies for our present situation, he would be better off looking at popular uprisings against authoritarian regimes, as in the Ukraine against Viktor Yanukovich in 2013, or in Belarus today.
• Eric A. Kueffner was an attorney in private practice at Faulkner Banfield in Juneau for 30 years before he retired in 2014. He graduated from Yale University with a B.A. in English and has a law degree and a master’s degree in English from the University of California at Berkeley. He has passed for white for 64 years.Columns, My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire. Have something to say? Here’s how to submit a letter to the editor or My Turn.
