No joke. This is her actual explanation for why buying up properties around L.A., including a “mini-compound” in Topanga Canyon, isn’t inconsistent with Marxism: “I see my money as not my own. I see it as my family’s money as well.”

If Marxism means making bank and sharing the riches with your kids and siblings, then you know what? I guess I’m okay with Marxism.

As Marx himself said, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to whether they’re kin to a politburo member and have their eye on a four-bedroom.”

In a fantastic interview with @marclamonthill #patricecullors explains how her home ownership and income don’t betray her marxist principles. It’s all for her family. pic.twitter.com/MPAo3ZE7JK

— #1 #SNOWFALLFX FAN IN LIFE (free Melody) (@VanLathan) April 16, 2021

As others have noted today about this clip, it really is in keeping with socialism as it’s actually practiced for its leaders to get rich while the proles struggle. Cullors is a good Marxist after all.

Alex Griswold is right too that her swelling bank account isn’t her only betrayal of what she allegedly stands for. This statement, which has since been scrubbed from BLM’s website, got lots of attention last year:

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

That last sentence is often cited by critics in truncated form — “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure” — to suggest that BLM is against nuclear families in all circumstances. That’s not what they said in context; their point was that the nuclear family shouldn’t be society’s only template for family organization. But … it does seem to be Cullors’s template, right? If she’s all about viewing the wider community as an “extended family” then close relatives shouldn’t be privileged beneficiaries of her largesse. Spread that wealth around, comrade. Disrupt the western nuclear family structure by treating a friend’s kid to a condo somewhere.

She was asked in this same interview about why BLM isn’t handing out money to people who need it and was unapologetic, of course:

She responded to claims that Black Lives Matter should distribute funds to the black community by noting that while the was sympathetic, the organization was not a “charity” and was not the government.

“I do understand why people expect that from us,” she said, “But I think it’s important that people recognize there are other places they can also get grants. There are other places they can also get resources. And, most importantly, our target should be the United States government. Our target should be calling on Congress to pass reparations.”

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need — unless there are “other places they can also get resources,” in which case go bother those people. BLM isn’t giving up its gravy train for anything as trivial as helping members of the black community.

By the way, if you’re a Facebook user and you missed the initial reporting on Cullors’s L.A. real-estate binge, there’s a reason for that. The New York Post’s original story about it was suppressed:

On Thursday, Facebook decided its users should not be able to share a New York Post article about the property buying habits of one of the founders of Black Lives Matter…

Our article features some pictures of the properties she bought, but includes no addresses, in fact doesn’t even say the city in some cases. Our reporter compiled the information from public records…

This decision is so arbitrary as to be laughable. Does Facebook know how many newspapers, magazine and websites highlight the real estate purchases of the rich and famous? The next time People magazine covers Kim Kardashian’s latest mansion purchase, will it violate any community standards? How about running a picture of the resort Ted Cruz is staying at?

According to Facebook, the Post report amounted to doxxing, a violation of the site’s rules. But as other reporters noted last night, tons of stories about famous people routinely supply clues about where they live. Gossip rags sometimes run photos of celebrities’ homes and identify the city:

Facebook on why it blocked a NY Post article. This all applies to lots of articles on news sites. pic.twitter.com/oEdzX0Hy72

— Ben Smith (@benyt) April 16, 2021

Special rules for woke activists. That should have been Cullors’s actual explanation for why she felt no pressure to reconcile her Marxism with extensive property ownership. And since she knows she’ll face no consequences from supporters for it, it kind of is.