This post is neither left, right or even in the middle. It is only what it is. And, to inform whatever checklist you may have when reading this post, I am most assuredly not on one extreme or the other. Also, this is only a fragment of a larger jumbled thought that I can’t coherently spit out, this is my best start.
What exactly is “change” a term that can mean many things to many people. 
“Change” is both the tool and the goal, but it is rarely defined in any way that is not strictly local and economic; better housing for the poor, better economic opportunity, better wages, better municipal services, etc. However, at the national level “change” is left undefined. In fact it seems, the process of change itself, not the implementation of “change,” is the goal.
Political agitation that appears to be about something positive but is really about deconstruction. Once the institutions of “oppression” that require “change” are destroyed, there is no plan delineated as to what will replace them. The goal apparently is “people power”. However, the concept of destroying the institutions of society specifically to “empower” people is foundational, is merely a rallying cry to cause maximum social disruption to delegitimize our institutions. Calling everything racist is a good start.
MS13 an international drug gang with significant presence in the United States, Black Lives Matter and the KKK are hideously aligned in an open sourced insurgency. A loose decentralized network with one organizing principle: disrupt the status quo. They will lever the politics of identity to establish moral authority. Their battles big and small are won in the moral sphere, destroying moral bonds that allows the organic whole to exist.
“…Who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which…” (Saul Alinsky, interview) Without a knowable historical record there can be no learning from past events, and no trust in previous knowledge. The result of the denial of history is the denial of learning, because no existing knowledge can be trusted. Denial of the capability of people to attain knowledge and understanding from existing sources of information is a component of nihilism. This leaves the future open to radicals and deconstructionists who have make a definitive break with the past.
The institutions of society, the old institutions upon which society and morality are built, are therefore illegitimate and are to be brought down. This distrust in the idea of knowledge itself is a totalitarian, anti-intellectual concept. The world view is then built on ‘new’ knowledge only and experience as the old cannot be known or trusted. This shattering of old orders is completely revolutionary and destructive as the past is therefore inherently unworthy because it cannot be trusted (myth and history are the same).
There can be no place for morality and ethics when the world must be transformed to a Utopia – for adherents of Antifa, Black Lives Matter and the other assorted well branded insurgencies, this purpose is superior even to any “supreme being” and the morality and ethics which may have originated from such a being.
The rejection of accepted morality means that anything goes: any action is acceptable if it destroys or undermines the status quo and brings change. This is radical anti-stability for the sake of Utopianism.
Utopians believe themselves above morality and ethics because there can be no greater purpose than theirs – the creation of Utopia. Utopians therefore consider their opponents evil.
If the radicals utopia were actually possible, it would be criminal not to deceive, lie, and murder to advance the radical cause which is, in effect, a redemption of mankind. If it were possible to provide every man, woman, and child on the planet with food, shelter and clothing as a right, if it were possible to end bigotry and human conflict, what sacrifice would not be worth it?
Q. Why they would want to destroy a society that compared to others is tolerant, inclusive and open, and treats all people with a dignity and respect that is the envy of the world.
A. Radicals are not comparing America to other real world societies. They are comparing America to the heaven on earth – the kingdom of social justice and freedom – they think they are building. And compared to this heaven even America is hell.
The open sourced insurgents have no goal but endless strife, their struggle is the victory itself. Institutions must be brought down because stability is seen as immoral in this amoral worldview.
Groucho Marx sang it best…
I don’t know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I’m against it
No matter what it is
Or who commenced it
I’m against it
Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I’m against it
And even when you’ve changed it
Or condensed it
I’m against it
I’m opposed to it
On general principles
I’m opposed to it
(He’s opposed to it)
(In fact, he says he’s opposed to it)
For months before my son was born
I used to yell from night to morn
“Whatever it is, I’m against it”
And I’ve kept yelling
Since I first commenced it
“I’m against it”