I doubt the left will be ever marching to a marxist utopia.

And, academic terms like marxism are a wank.

It is a pity that debate cannot simply be about issues.

Political theory, in my opinion, is the biggest load of rubbish I had to endure at university.

I really don't get why anyone is labelled a marxist in 2020.

Are such terms ever used in the real world?

Do even the right wing extremists on Sky even use the term marxist?

Perhaps they do

Hi ChirsLewis,
Thanks for reading. Even the left and right spectrum are a legacy of political theorists that set up the systems that we live in today. The good and the evil of history is all about the good and bad ideas. 60 million dead in WW2 has complex origins but generally its from bad ideas enacted. Marxism now bears little relation to the ideas of Karl Marx but it is a system of ideas, cultural, political and philosophically that we group under the banner. It is not a wank but very useful in seeing the end from the beginning in political trends. The ideas modern progressives have didn't come out of the ground, they come from a history of thought and Marxism is one element of that thought.
Thanks again, Edie

"Intersectionality (from Google):
The interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage."
"Through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us"

From the Author - Edie:
"Since progressives control the bulk of cultural production in the western world, we are all becoming accustomed to the simplistic answers that are required for the complex questions that women face"

By 'progressives', I very much doubt the author is singling-out 'the Left' (Labor in our Aus context), but rather she is aiming at groups like 'progressive feminists' or 'the rainbow movement', which tend to try to put everyone with any resemblance to them 'in the same basket'.
Now, that may be convenient, but it is not accurate, and it can, and does, act to the detriment of so many dragged under the all-embracing umbrella, by diverting attention away from the basic specific 'issues' confronting many of the individuals so 'cloaked'.
The 'generalization' clouds and conceals, rather than reveal.

Examples: Trans will surely have many different problems and concerns to macho or sweetie lesbians, or to hard-hitting feminists on the road to the boardroom, or to a woman with kids in a bad marriage who is regularly assaulted by her drunken good-for-nothing 'other half'.

Similarly, how do the concerns of a physically disabled person, male or female, really compare with those having dysphoria or body dysmorphia, or even the concerns of any adolescent going through puberty?

Now, I'm not trying to be sexist or racist, homophobic or any other 'ic' or 'ist', just trying to clarify why 'jumbo-bagging' any and all who may share only one facet of their personality, physicality or mentality in the 'glad-bag' convenience of 'we're all this, or that, or the other', is wrong, is detrimental and is in so many instances so very counterproductive to the quest to generate genuine equality of worth, wellbeing and opportunity.
TBC)

Continued:

BLM in Aus similarly fails to identify and proclaim the genuine issues and root foundations of disadvantage - and of 'genuine' discontent facing so many of the 'followers', the 'group' it purports to represent.
Instead, it attempts to focus attention on the most obvious 'symptoms' of dysfunction - and really does not represent or even act 'on behalf of' those in greatest need. Spurious, ill-advised and a self-serving facade perpetrated by and for 'townies' wanting an even better deal.

Of course I stand to be corrected in all this.
The world is indeed a complex place, even here in our Aus micro-commune, and getting more complex and demanding by the minute - and by the minutiae.

"What I didn't see coming, is that with the joining of the alphabet letters (LGBTIQ), lesbian feminists are being told that they are not worthy of their political ground if they refuse to accept a lover who is a trans-woman. To sexually preference a biological woman is a rejection of the alphabet narrative, and this would make one a TERF."

The only way to bring the system down on our heads was for minorities to unite and claim themselves as the majority.

You know I'm actually really glad you posted this article Edie,
I can laugh at the sillyness of the situation you've gotten into.

- You only have freedom of speech within a narrow band.
If you step off the reservation, you'll be eaten by your own.

I don't want to be mean, but this is what happens when you join a gang.

I find it all kind of ironic, because I'm on the other side.
You progressives have been so busy attacking everyone else that:

I can't complain about immigration without being called racist.
I can't whinge about the bs climate change without people calling for me to be locked up.
I can't have a free opinion on social media or other more liberal websites without getting censored because I don't parrot their established beliefs and narratives.

Because of the likes of your alphabet mob, my freedom of speech also now only exists in a narrow band, just like yours.

- Neither of us are going to get what we want in the end, do you understand that?

Honestly though I have to thank you for sticking up for 'Not all Men'.
You've got courage for doing that, (speaking the truth) in today's climate.
Good way to get yourself instantly sidelined.
- I'll take my hat off to you for that.