that being said, i can understand that the primary concern of marxists, and socialists more broadly is revolution of some kind or another and there is a danger with this way of thinking slipping into counter-revolutionary territory. one can become so bogged down in the "infinitely complex" mode of thought that they fail to take any meaningful political action. i myself am guilty of this.

what i think it comes down to is, some realization has to occur that we need a robust, multipronged approach to how we deal with societal and political change. a grand banner of the worker is not a bad place to start and direct action is invaluable, but reform and cultural pressure are not altogether worthless and merely standing counter to capitalism doesn't encompass the complexity of human flourishing.

one can imagine a society that is nominally socialist, but retains the sort of rigidity of social organization that we attribute to the current formulation of capitalism. that's not the society i want to fight for. i think most of the marxist orthodoxy would agree, but would have a different view of how to avoid it. there is a segment who thinks so-called identity politics is a trap. i think they fundamentally missunderstand something.

what they miss is that intersectionality is meant to be a solve for a brand of left politics that becomes alienating to individuals who don't see their material concerns being addressed fully enough. the anti-idpol left can point to certain failures of an intersectionality that doesn't fully embrace a thuroughgoing critique of capitalism, and that's all well and good, but i'd propose that it's not a pitched battle on the subject we need.

what i think we need is a clear synthesis. it's the same thing we need with regard to the problem of individualism vs collectivism, which is a related, but different problem. there, we need to see that the ideas are not truly at odds. there are no individuals without the collective and the collective has no content without individuals. it's only the false front of our society that alienates one conception from the other.

there are, in my estimation, no true "individualists" or "collectivists." there is merely alienation of the concerns of person from society that creates a kind of deep confusion which is not parseable by the means provided by the system under which we go about our daily lives. and when i consider the idea that socialism is counter to intersectionality, i think we can look to the same culprit. the two are not in oposition. the oposition is illusory.

the society i want to fight for is one in which the smoke and mirrors of false dichotomy fall away to reveal a humanity truly prosperous and free, in harmony wherever harmony is possible and constantly learning how to harmonize with greater complexity and richness. for this goal, i think we need all maner of strategies and all maner of theoretical frameworks. this does not mean no idea is excluded.

what it means is that the only ideas excluded are those which fail to synthesize. what i think we will find some day is that some ideas do not work because on a truly deep level they are nonsense. and not the fun kind of nonsense. one day we will have a better word for just what kind of nonsense they are.

addendum: i imagine some will read this as a call for centrism, like just take two ideas and find the middle and there you go. not what i mean at all. unfortunately i haven't developed the idea far enough to explain exactly what the parameters are. honestly, if you poke around in the literature, i'm sure someone else smarter has explained the exat sort of thing i'm talking about independently and done a better job to boot.

and if anyone knows where that's been done, point me that way. i haven't read nearly enough.