Nothing… absolutely nothing, including the welfare of blacks or the poor or anyone else, is important in the context of the grand scheme of communism.

I’m sure you are right, but there was one who thought it was a good idea:

Although modern American capitalism had greatly reduced the gap through social reforms, there was still need for a better distribution of wealth. M.L. King Jr.

King himself talked about how Marx’s point on this issue made sense to him.

The problem was not wealth distribution, it was denied opportunity for blacks during that time as you so pointed out in your comment.

50 years ago, there was no CNN or FOX to show just how miserable people in Communist countries were, so the only idea people in this country had to go by was the utopia depicted Communist theory Karl Marx and Lenin described in their books. King, and others who embraced some aspects of Communism did not know of the gulags, starvation of millions, or an existance of an upperclass populated primarily with members of the government and military since they held all of the wealth.

Blacks in this country were not only legally and customarily the object of hostility, we were also held to a place of “non-advancement” or progression from our current situation. And while we did have somewhat of a black middleclass/upperclass, it was in relation to other blacks, not in relation to the white middle/upper class. It was trully seperate, but not equal. Kind of like me telling you, that you can have your own glass of water, but I give you a full 8 oz. glass of water, while I possess a full 12 – 16 oz. of water. Jn my eyes, we both have full glasses of water.

This is the source of the appeal of Communism to Blacks during that time. And while liberlaism sought to remove the barriers to advancement of class and race, it sought to do so on a humanist level, and not on a moral or principled level. Remember, Blacks during Kings time didn’t want wealth redistribution. The just wanted an opportunity to advance from their current marginalized position.

The only problem is, without principles or order, chaos soon results. As Blacks and white women advanced, the focus of complaints became more out of the mainstream. Liberalism today is not about removing barriers of advancement. Most of the liberals I know are middle class, AT THE VERY LEAST. I exclude poor blacks from this group because most are subject to influence by others, and have never been instructed in how to advance by those that hold that influence.

Liberalism today is about dismantling social principles to allow everyone to do as they please without moral consequences. This is how the argument has progressed from equal rights for Blacks, to ones of abortion on demand, gay marriage, wealth redistribution, transgender rights, NAMBLA, etc. And while most civil rights leaders and icons often stand next to some of these groups in identification of a “struggle” for equality, they do so not from a moral standpoint, but for political expediency.