PDF Summary:American Marxism, by Mark R. Levin

In American Marxism, Mark Levin argues that Democrats and leftist organizations are fueling a Marxist revolution against American culture and society. They’re indoctrinating the public with radical Marxist ideologies like Critical Race Theory through public education; reinforcing these ideas through the media and entertainment; and censoring opposition with “cancel culture.” Levin asserts that if American patriots fail to expose this left-wing brainwashing, Democrats will gain dominion over the American government and society. Ultimately, they’ll create a totalitarian regime in which American values like freedom of speech, free-market capitalism, and private property rights are non-existent.

This guide will relay Levin’s exposé of the rise of Marxism in America by discussing who the American Marxists are, the ideologies they’re pushing, how they’re indoctrinating the public, and what American patriots can do to maintain their freedom. Throughout the guide, we’ll contextualize Levin’s argument with information from economists, scientists, and other experts.

(continued)...

And while Levin doesn’t fully elaborate on how the GND would impact private property rights, some experts explain that it may require households to rely more on green energy and make climate-resilient upgrades to minimize their carbon footprint, like installing window shades or painting rooftops with light-reflecting paint.

The Science Behind the Environmental Justice Movement Is Faulty

Levin continues to argue that the “climate science” that EJ movements are based on isn’t real science, but rather is political ideology framed as science. Levin argues this point by seeking to debase the two most prominent arguments that point to human-induced climate change—the depletion of natural resources and increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

Regarding the depletion of resources, Levin argues that humans haven’t even scratched the surface of the natural resources available on the earth. Therefore, we don’t need to worry about depleting them. He elaborates that the earth is made entirely of natural resources and that human intelligence and innovation will continue to develop new ways to access these resources.

(Shortform note: Experts who argue that we do need to worry about our use of resources say that humans are using up the earth’s resources at an unsustainable rate, roughly 1.7 times faster than the earth can regenerate them. Not only does our use of resources increase carbon emissions that lead to global warming, they say, but it also contributes to 90% of biodiversity loss and water loss. Biodiversity—the variety of different plants and animals on earth—is essentially what allows humans to thrive. If even one species goes extinct (decreasing biodiversity), it can have an outsized impact on the ecosystem, threatening the loss of clean air, fresh water, high-quality soil for growing crops, and so on.)

Regarding carbon dioxide emissions, Levin argues that carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant and that the science linking it to global warming isn’t credible. He elaborates that carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant because it’s necessary for life—plants absorb it and create more oxygen for humans. And while leftist scientists claim that carbon emissions are unnaturally warming the planet, Levin says scientists haven't reached a consensus on the matter. He adds that the evidence linking human carbon emissions to unnatural climate change isn’t credible because scientists start with a predetermined conclusion and ignore contradictory evidence to prove their claim.

Ultimately, Levin says that the entire climate emergency and environmental movement is a ruse meant to sway the public toward the political left, sow discontent, and ultimately overthrow American society as we know it.

Evidence for Anthropogenic Carbon-Induced Climate Change

Levin's right that there isn’t 100% consensus among scientists about anthropogenic climate change. That said, surveys indicate that the majority of active climate scientists (97%) agree that climate change is happening and that it’s human-induced.

Further, some experts say that Levin’s belief that carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant is common because it's not a pollutant in many situations. They elaborate that CO2 that’s naturally respirated (from humans, animals, volcanoes, and so on) isn’t a pollutant, but that industrially-generated CO2 is, by definition—the word “pollutant” refers to all man-made waste.

Experts add that most claims against anthropogenic climate change stem from misunderstandings about the methods and evidence used by climate scientists.

For example, critics claim that human-produced carbon can’t be causing climate change because it only makes up about 5% of the total carbon that’s being released into the atmosphere—the remaining 95% is naturally-respirated carbon.

However, climate experts say that this claim is invalid because it’s only seeing a small part of the total process. While naturally-respirated carbon does make up the majority of released carbon, natural processes like plant growth absorb almost all of it before it has the chance to accumulate in the atmosphere. Humans have tipped this delicate balance, producing more CO2 than the plants on earth can absorb, which over time has caused a dramatic net increase in atmospheric CO2. Since 1832, human activity has increased atmospheric CO2 by 45%.

Another common claim is that the earth’s warming and cooling periods are natural phenomena and that our present circumstances are a natural fluctuation, not a human-induced crisis. Critics support their claim by pointing to a warming period around A.D. 1000 and a “Little Ice Age” that took place between 1400 and 1700.

In response, experts claim that previous climate fluctuations were due to measurable natural phenomena that aren’t taking place today, such as shifts in solar radiance. Therefore, they can’t be compared to our current situation. Additionally, the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age may have been local, not global, phenomena. Ultimately, they argue, historical instances of global or local warming and cooling have nothing to do with the evidence showing that the current climate crisis is unnatural and human-induced.

The Indoctrination Machine

Social justice and environmental justice movements are pushing Marxist ideas into mainstream culture and politics, but Levin claims that indoctrination is taking place on an individual level as well. He argues that leftists have created a well-oiled indoctrination machine in the US that teaches young Americans to hate the nation and rebel to achieve justice. He argues that first, schools educate the youth with Marxist ideologies that encourage hatred and distrust of America. Then the media instructs them on how to act and what to believe. And finally, censorship and cancel culture scare them into submission and uniformity.

This section will discuss the three steps of Marxist indoctrination that Levin claims takes place in America.

Indoctrination Step #1: Public Education

Levin argues that the first step of Marxist indoctrination in America involves the education system. These institutions are led by leftist professors who encourage students to engage in mass movements and rebellions against America.

Levin explains that many of the lessons currently taught in schools center around leftist ideologies and perspectives that are framed as moral truths, like Critical Theory and Social Movement Theory. He believes that these ideologies are dangerous because they encourage discontentment with the American government, society, economy, and overall way of life. They teach students that American society and history are inherently unjust and evil and that social activism and rebellion are the only remedies.

(Shortform note: Supporting Levin's point, there's evidence that some educators are teaching lessons inspired by CRT. Experts specifically note one lesson that was taught in a Greenwich, Connecticut middle school classroom that used a “white bias” survey as part of the lessons. Further, on one occasion, third graders in Cupertino, California were instructed to make an “identity map” listing their race, class, and gender. That said, there’s little evidence that CRT is being taught outright in K-12 schools.)

We’ll explain these theories and why Levin believes they threaten American society in the following sections.

Marxist Theory #1: Critical Theories

Levin argues that because Critical Theory and its offshoots like CRT are being taught in schools as facts rather than ideologies, American youths are taught to believe that their nation is a structurally unjust and racist society.

Levin specifically references The 1619 Project curriculum, which has been adopted in numerous schools and reframes American history based on Critical Race Theory. The new curriculum positions American history, culture, values, and institutions as inherently unjust because the nation was founded alongside the institution of slavery. It teaches that precedents set during slavery have impacted almost all US institutions and have led to a massive inequality gap between Black (and other minority) Americans and white Americans. Levin claims that the curriculum is shameless Marxist indoctrination—it’s based on false scholarship by left-wing Marxists, and it’s a ploy to disguise CRT as history.

(Shortform note: Levin notes that the 1619 Project curriculum is being taught in numerous classrooms throughout America. This is true: Some outlets report that the curriculum has been implemented in roughly 4,500 classrooms across the entire country. While this is a substantial number, it's still just a drop in the pond: There are approximately 131,000 schools in America, containing numerous classrooms. So even if each school only has one classroom per grade, totaling 13 classrooms per school, that would translate to the curriculum being taught in 0.26% of American classrooms. The precise percentage is likely much smaller.)

Ultimately, Levin argues that teaching Critical Theory and its offshoots in schools is disastrous because (1) it gives youths an inaccurate and negative outlook on the world, and (2) it adds to the list of reasons why youths should rebel, eradicate society, and transform the country.

Is The 1619 Project Credible Scholarship for Classrooms?

Levin says that The 1619 Project curriculum shouldn’t be taught in schools because it twists American history into a Marxist narrative and uses false scholarship to support its claims. Historians and economists have fact-checked the work, and there’s one major point of contention.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the creator and editor of the Project, claims in her opening essay that colonists fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery. When slavery was abolished in Britain, the colonists sought independence to avoid the same laws being imposed on them.

However, many historians say there isn’t credible historical evidence to substantiate Hannah-Jones’s claim—discussions about abolition in British colonies didn’t begin until 60 years after the American Revolution, so it wouldn’t make sense for the colonists to fear immediate abolition being imposed on them. Ultimately, historians feel that Hannah-Jones and the New York Times were pushing an agenda by including this unsubstantiated claim.

Levin also claims that The 1619 Project pushes a Marxist agenda. While many of the Project’s arguments reflect tenets of Critical Race Theory, CRT is not generally viewed as a Marxist theory, as discussed in previous commentary. And the project itself doesn’t advocate for communism or a reconstruction of society as Marxism does—rather, it calls for reparations to be made that will improve equity and equality in America.

Specifically, the Project suggests that the government (1) commit to strongly enforcing civil rights prohibitions against housing, employment, and educational discrimination, (2) make targeted investments in Black communities that have been historically segregated through government policies, and (3) make independent cash payments to descendants of enslaved people to close the wealth gap between Blacks and whites that resulted from slavery.

Marxist Theory #2: Social Movement Theory

Social movement theory explores why social movements form, how they develop, and their effects on society, culture, and politics. However, Levin claims that the theory is more actionable and incentivizing than it is educational—it paints mass movements and revolutions as an honorable and virtuous response to “oppressive” societies.

Drawing on the 1992 book Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, Levin claims that the theory encourages and teaches students how to rise up against the wealthy elite in protest and revolution. Not only does it instruct students on how to organize and execute a revolution, but it also glamorizes these events. The theory presents revolution as a righteous means to weaken and eventually abolish the structures of political and social domination that are to blame for inequality and injustice. And Levin argues that while the theory claims to encourage peaceful protests, it’s also the basis for violence, riots, and revolution.

So while Critical Theory provides youths with societal grievances to rebel over, Levin says that social movement theory is essentially the rulebook that encourages and instructs youths on exactly how to revolt—not only is the American education system indoctrinating students with left-wing ideology, but it’s encouraging revolution.

New Social Movement Theory

Levin cites the 1992 book Frontiers in Social Movement Theory to support his belief that SMT is dangerous because it glamorizes revolution and teaches students how to overthrow social and political structures. A new social movement theory has dominated the field in the 30 years between Frontiers's publication and the publication of American Marxism. This new theory, called “new social movement theory,” contests older theories contained in Frontiers that take a primarily Marxist standpoint, like resource mobilization theory.

Resource mobilization theory suggests that the success of movements is fundamentally connected to class and economic factors. It claims that the more resources (money, supplies, social connections, and political power) organizations have, the more likely their movements are to succeed. New social movement theory (NSMT) suggests that this approach no longer applies to postmodern movements. NSMT claims that rather than struggling against access to resources, postmodern movements struggle against non-economic factors like social inequality (including racial inequality), the dominance of mass media, and other elements of post-industrial capitalism and the welfare state.

Since Levin only addresses older SM thought contained within Frontiers, it’s unclear whether or not he would maintain that NSMT also glamorizes and encourages students to overthrow social and political institutions—especially since NSMT resists the primarily Marxist view that social movements struggle against power structures like class and economic control.

Indoctrination Step #2: Media Propaganda

Levin argues that the news media reinforces the Marxist indoctrination that’s taught in schools through propagandized reporting. He explains that major American news outlets—such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, and CNN—use leftist ideologies such as CRT as a factual standpoint to analyze and report on situations. Rather than giving the public an unbiased report of events and letting them decide for themselves what’s right and wrong, they strategically frame the news with rhetoric and selective reporting to support their leftist perspective.

Levin explains that this propagandizing of news is evident in how the left-wing media refers to certain groups of people and events. For example, scientists who present information that disproves climate change are labeled “climate change deniers.” And Americans who publicly voice disagreement with organizations like Black Lives Matter or Antifa are called “racists” or “white supremacists.”

Levin explains that this inaccurate reporting makes people view American society from a leftist perspective. It also teaches them to support Marxist ideologies and groups, like the Democratic party, social and environmental justice organizations, and left-wing activists.

New Media Bias

Levin explains that the left-wing news media is a biased source of information that uses rhetoric and selective reporting to indoctrinate the public with a leftist point of view. Many experts and academics agree with Levin, adding that left-wing news outlets aren’t the only culprits—conservative news outlets like Fox News (Levin’s own employer) and Newsmax are just as guilty of biased reporting. Ultimately, very few mainstream media sources are entirely credible and bias-free.

Experts say there are ways to ensure you’re receiving accurate news with as little bias as possible:

• Consider the sources used. Where did this reporter get their information? Who is being quoted and at what length? What makes them an expert on the subject? Are they a credible source to speak on the given issue?

• Who’s telling the story? What is this specific reporter’s demographic, religion, political standpoint, and so on? How might this impact their bias?

• Where does their funding come from? Journalism that’s being funded by a particular organization might be influenced to report with a bias that will benefit their funder.

• Does the story include loaded language? As Levin explains, biased news sources tend to use loaded language like “white supremacists” that will evoke an emotional reaction from viewers to keep them watching and convince them of a certain perspective. Slow down and consider how the specific language of a news article is affecting your judgment.

There are a number of credible sites you can use to help measure the above criteria: for example, AllSides, FactCheck.org, or MediaBias/FactCheck.

Indoctrination Step #3: Censorship and Cancel Culture

Not only does the media reinforce Marxist indoctrination, but it’s also beginning to silence opposition through censorship and cancel culture.

Levin explains that leftist media has begun to endorse and practice the social media trend of “cancel culture” that has taken off over the last few years. This new trend seeks to debase any person of power or influence who opposes or offends leftist agendas and ideologies. These opposers are “canceled,” or in other words, deemed no longer relevant or credible.

Cancel Culture: Censorship or Accountability?

Opinions about cancel culture seem to diverge across the political divide—one survey reports that of those familiar with cancel culture, conservative Republicans tend to hold the most negative perceptions of it, while liberal Democrats tend to hold the most positive perceptions. More than half of moderate/liberal Republicans, conservative/moderate Democrats, and liberal Democrats view cancel culture positively—as actions that hold people accountable. The majority of conservative Republicans (64%) disagree with this statement.

On the other side of the argument, roughly a quarter of conservative Republicans see cancel culture as a form of censorship, as Levin claims. 85% of moderate/liberal Republicans and almost all Democrats disagree. And conservative Republicans (13% of them) were the most likely group to agree with Levin’s belief that cancel culture is an attack on traditional American society.

As this trend of cancel culture grows, Big Tech companies like Google and Twitter are censoring and banning people of their own will. These companies are even blatantly removing articles and profiles that oppose left-wing ideologies. Whereas social media used to be a place for people with different points of view to converse, posts are now becoming streamlined into a single leftist voice.

Divided Conservative Perspectives on Big Tech Censorship

Levin and many other Americans agree that cancel culture and Big Tech censorship are getting out of hand. Most of Big Tech’s censorship is of right-wing voices, so naturally, most people who oppose these practices are right-wingers like Levin. Their primary argument is that Big Tech’s censorship is an infringement on their freedom of speech. However, some conservatives, like the Kochs, believe that denying Big Tech this right is actually antithetical to the GOP’s values, which emphasize the free market and oppose regulatory intervention—two values Levin advocates for throughout American Marxism.

This split in perspective has divided conservative thinkers on what to do about Big Tech censorship. Some GOP legislators have partnered with Democrats to develop bills to end this censorship. Others, like Koch-backed groups and the US Chamber of Commerce, openly oppose any and all legislation that will regulate Big Tech. And a third group, including right-wingers like Levin, deplores what Big Tech is doing but don’t recommend any legal action to end it. According to the Kochs’ argument, Levin’s ideals seem to indicate that he would oppose legislation ending Big Tech censorship, although Levin never mentions this legislative debate or his standpoint on it.

How to Save America

To close, Levin calls American patriots to action, explaining that the only way to combat the rise of Marxism in America is by boycotting, speaking up, and taking legal and administrative action. The following sections will lay out Levin’s advice for how American patriots can fight back against Marxist education systems, corporations, politics, and advocates.

Strategy #1: Stop Marxist “Social Justice” Movements

Levin says that social justice movements like Antifa and BLM are dangerous Marxist groups that incite violent riots and must be held accountable. To combat these groups, patriots can urge lawmakers to pass laws that make the punishment for violent protests more severe.

Citizens can also sue organizations and individuals that took part in riots for damages. Levin says this will hopefully diminish the finances of these groups while reimbursing victims.

(Shortform note: Many people have taken Levin’s advice, pushing for what some call “anti-protest bills.” A Florida bill has been proposed that would (1) give law enforcement broad discretion to deem a protest or gathering a “riot” and charge participants with felonies; (2) make it harder for cities to decrease police funding; and (3) prevent protestors from suing for damages if they’re harmed. Similar bills are being considered in 21 other states.)

Strategy #2: Fight Degrowth, Save Capitalism

Levin argues that the environmental justice movement is an attack on capitalism, property rights, liberty, and the American way of life. Patriots must combat legislation that caters to this agenda with legal and administrative action.

Levin says that you must know your rights and use anti-Marxist state attorneys general to file lawsuits, when appropriate, against organizations that interfere with your use of your property or the value of your property—for example, new “green” policies that may prevent the development or free use of private land.

(Shortform note: Levin recommends filing lawsuits when appropriate to combat degrowth and anti-capitalist activities. Filing a lawsuit can be a confusing, complicated, and expensive process. Experts recommend considering a number of factors before deciding to go through with the process. For example, make sure your opponent is solvent before filing a lawsuit, determine whether you should file in a state or federal court, and understand the statutes of limitations.)

Strategy #3: Fix The Education System

Levin explains that patriots must fight against Marxist indoctrination in the education system by (1) educating their children on American values, and (2) getting involved in school curricula and the Board of Education.

Levin elaborates that, above all, it’s a parent’s responsibility to educate their children on the glory of America and the dangers of Marxism. He instructs patriots to teach their children about the merits and values of American history, the constitution, and capitalism.

(Shortform note: Levin recommends that parents teach their children important lessons about America at home that may not be included in their school curriculum. This can be daunting for many parents who might struggle to hold their child's attention or organize a lesson plan. To ensure that your child is effectively absorbing information when teaching at-home lessons, experts recommend incorporating strategies such as designating a “learning zone” in your home, gathering the necessary materials beforehand, and researching lesson plans online that cover the topics you have in mind. These techniques will minimize distractions, help your child stay engaged, and help you organize your lessons.)

Levin also emphasizes the need to get involved in the school board to end Marxist indoctrination. Patriots should ensure that curricula, textbooks, and teacher training are free from Marxist influences like CRT. Urge legislators and governors to enact laws that protect against indoctrination in schools. Get local lawyers or attorneys involved if necessary.

(Shortform note: Some point out that getting involved with the school board isn’t possible for all parents—to become a school board member, you must be a registered voter and not be employed by the district your child attends school in. Further, school board members are required to serve two- to six-year terms, which can be a large commitment for parents who have a career. If becoming a school board member isn’t an option for you, experts provide further details on how you can change policy at school, like encouraging your children to get involved in student government or filing a formal complaint.)

Strategy #4: Fight Marxist Corporations

Levin argues that patriots should fight Marxist corporations like Google or Amazon and support nonpartisan and local companies instead. There are three ways in which he recommends doing this:

1. Stop supporting large corporations that engage in Marxist indoctrination. Stop using social media apps like Twitter and Facebook and instead turn to platforms like Parler. Stop shopping at chain grocery stores and shop at local grocers instead. Extend this practice to all big corporations.

(Shortform note: The practice of removing support from organizations you disagree with, called boycotting, has been a common and easy-to-implement form of protest for centuries. However, Parler may not be the most reliable alternative for someone looking to boycott mainstream social media apps. Parler is a “free speech” site that was removed from app stores for failing to regulate posts intended to incite violence. It was also the app used to plan the 2021 riot on the US Capitol. Parler is still banned from the Google Play store, but it has returned to the Apple app store.)

2. Start campaigns to encourage banks, religious institutions, corporations, governments, pensions funds, and so on to withdraw investments and financial support from Marxist organizations and movements.

(Shortform note: Some experts say that it’s a complicated and sometimes detrimental process for organizations to divest from causes such as Marxism, as Levin suggests. So if you’re going to start a campaign to encourage organizations to do so, it’s a good idea to present them with a plan that will make the process easier. For example, experts recommend that organizations looking to divest establish a team of experts dedicated to the process; outline the specific necessary steps for de-integration; and clearly communicate the logic behind the divestment with stakeholders like buyers and employees.)

3. Campaign for local and state governments to (1) end their support, like taxpayer subsidies, for institutions that are linked to Marxist ideologies or movements; and (2) ban Marxist indoctrination, like teaching CRT, in public schools.

(Shortform note: Levin recommends that you campaign for governments to enact sanctions against Marxist organizations and institutions and work to pass legislation that bans Marxist indoctrination. However, it can be difficult for the average person to have their voice heard in policy development. Experts explain that there are concrete actions you can take to ensure equitable engagement and representation. For example, you can encourage local governments to revise public participation laws so that more meaningful forms of civic engagement (like face-to-face meetings between policymakers and citizens) are supported.)