What is the Marxist Critique of Identity Politics?

The Marxist framework views society as divided along the vertical axis of exploiters and exploited, typically referred to as the bourgeoisie and proletariat, respectively. In contrast, Identity Politics segments society based on privileged identities defined by race and gender. It is clear, therefore, that these two modes of categorization are fundamentally incompatible.

The Communist Manifesto and the Call to Action

One key piece of evidence for this incompatibility is the rallying cry for workers in the Communist Manifesto: “Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!” Identity politics, on the other hand, serves to divide and weaken the working class by focusing on individual identities.

Challenging Claims of Intersectionality

Many Marxists argue that identity politics is inherently divisive and serves to undermine the broader class struggle. Right-wing identitarianism calls for the supremacy of one identity over another, while center-left identity politics often lacks a comprehensive class consciousness. Marxists hold that while it is necessary to dismantle all forms of inequality, this cannot be achieved at the expense of overlooking class conflict.

Historical Context and Criticism

It is often cited that being gay was illegal in many socialist countries, which seems to counter the notion of support for identity politics. This historical reality brings to light the complex relationship between identity politics and Marxist thought. Critics argue that the reduction of all forms of oppression to economic oppression is oversimplified and misses the nuanced nature of identity struggles.

However, the left has not always ignored issues of gender and race. In fact, throughout the first half of the 20th century, progressive movements took significant stances in opposition to racial oppression. Yet, the question of how to support these issues without fragmentation remained a complex and contentious issue. Some advocated for separate organizations to address specific identities, while others saw this as a divisive tactic that undermined the potential for a unified working-class movement.

Class-Based Reform vs. Identity-Based Campaigns

Later, there was a division on the nature of reform. Some argued that reforms should be based on class struggle, while others believed in broader, universal-based demands. The challenge was that identity-based interests often created divisions within the working class, reinforcing the racial and social hierarchies promoted by the ruling class. This tension often led to debates over whether separate organizations or collective action could be more effective in achieving social and economic justice.

Internal Rifts and Critiques

Ironically, many prominent Marxists have openly criticized identity politics, viewing it as a bourgeois perversion of genuine class struggle. The relationship between Marxist theory and identity politics is thus fraught with historical and theoretical contradictions. Advocates and critics of identity politics within the left tend to have diametrically opposed viewpoints, further complicating the issue.

In conclusion, the critique of identity politics by Marxists highlights the tension between unfettered class struggle and the pursuit of individual identities as forms of social and political organization. For Marxist proponents, the unity of the working class, rather than the fragmentation caused by identity politics, is crucial to achieving a truly revolutionary change in society.