A big accusation being thrown around liberal circles has been the claim of the existence of an Alt-Left. This term is used it demonise anyone who doesn’t tow a Democrat or identity politics line. A good example of the former has appeared in Vanity Fair. The latter has appeared in first worldist Marxism, particularly among Maoists. The vast majority of the accusations come out of first worldist camp accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with identity politics. If you don’t agree with it, then you’re responsible for the genocide of the LGBT community. That’s not an exaggeration they literally accuse you of prejudicial killings.
As Marxists, we’re supposed to reject identity politics and instead adhere to revolutionary science. Mao said “politics in command” – class analysis, not identity politics in command. Many groups will claim they’re doing revolutionary science, but in action, they’re just pushing a pro-LGBT line. They’ll call for armed uprisings of transgender people against the 99.9% of the population which is “cis”. In what way should we see this as a positive thing? Exactly how is attacking 99% of the population with firearms supposed to build revolutionary potential? Or even revolution itself? In fact, it merely divides the first world so-called ‘working class’ even further. It outright hinders the construction of a class identity by creating more divisions among the ‘workers’.
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
– Karl Marx
Marxism is the science of class struggle, the means by which to carry out the revolution to bring about the end of all oppressions. Class has been cast aside in the vast majority of first world Marxist groups in favour of identity politics. This fact simply cannot be denied. Marxism is predicated on the analysis of who produces surplus-value and who collects it. From there we understand the various classes and devise an understanding of it. Without class struggle, there can be no revolution.
Knowing this, why are so-called Marxists doing identity politics? Because there is no revolution. Groups have already recognised that first world ‘working class’ people are not interested in revolution, they only want nice soft democratic reforms to get all that they want. They don’t want a new world. They want a slightly modified one. They live comfortably off the spoils of imperialism just enough to keep them from wanting a revolution. Sure they face degrees of poverty, but it’s certainly not enough to make them desire a whole new system, let alone a whole new world.
First worldists are looking for a new proletariat to take the place of the ‘working class’ that has already rejected them. There can be no revolution with such reactionary politics. Identity politics is already a mainstay of the Democratic Party. If the mainstream politics is supporting it, it’s not radical. It can certainly be progressive and just, but not radical. To reject revolutionary science in favour of identity politics is nothing less than a rejection of Marxism.
This rejection of class analysis can only be for one reason: first world people are no longer the proletariat. They are parasites that leech value off of the global poor that keeps them pacified and unwilling to engage in real struggle.