Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

There is little I enjoy more than an ideological discussion, so I appreciate Joshua Hinnenkamp’s response to my last column. These are issues society needs to sort through and it’s important to do so. 

I was amused at Hinnenkamp’s dismissal of Black Lives Matter’s self-claimed Marxism as my own “conspiracy.” Perhaps he’s consumed more Marxist literature than the BLM founders, but the statement that BLM’s ideological structure is Marxist came directly from its founders, not from me. Their goal to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure” is listed plainly on their website (check under the “About” heading and then “What We Believe”). If Hinnenkamp wants to disagree with BLM over who’s a true Marxist, that’s a debate I’d be interested to watch. 

The left commonly states the right is motivated by racism and/or fear of change. I would argue the left actually has no idea what motivates the right. 

The truth is both ends of the U.S.’s political spectrum have changed quite a bit in recent years. If values and policies remained stable since the ’90s, or even early 2000s, I might still be voting blue. Instead, both parties have shifted, bringing conservatives into more of a moderate position and pushing parts of the left into the land of extremism.

Many are coming to agree.  As the now surging #WalkAway Campaign attracts former leftists, it has become very common (and fun) to watch newcomers’ initial surprise at how welcomed they are by the right. Society has been told that Republicans are the party of hatred, intolerance, authoritarianism and obsession with race — but those who dare question the narrative soon discover the opposite is true. 

Hinnenkamp ended his letter using his own definition of “collectivism,” a term I had previously criticized. It’s important to make sure we’re discussing the same concepts.  The proper definition of collectivism is an economic and political structure that prioritizes the rights of the collective over the rights of the individual.

The beauty of a free society with individual rights is that individuals are free to organize in groups as they see fit.  They can sing in a choir and shop at a co-op. Heck, they’re even free to set up their own commune with consenting friends, if they’re so inclined.  But in a collectivist society, individual freedoms and rights are sacrificed for the whole.  Members are defined by and limited to their assigned group. The means of production, and possibly even property, is controlled by the state.

With this understanding of collectivism, it almost appears Hinnenkamp and I agree in our stances. If he chooses to respond, perhaps he can clarify if free market individualism and capitalism is his true preference for the USA, or if he does, in fact, favor collectivism, Marxist or otherwise.

Angie Hoffman

Albert Lea