Well, Marx famously wrote he himself wasn't a Marxist ("je ne suis pas marxiste"), but putting that aside, Marx was himself a bourgeois intellectual (as were Lenin and Trotsky, Che Guevara, and many other famous revolutionaries). Read Lukas' History and Class Consciousness if you want to understand the relationship between bourgeois intellectuals and Marx's revolutionary politics.
I made no claims for any One True Marxism when I described Identity Politics as "a Marxist revolutionary movement" but I would agree that Identity Politics is consistent with what Marx actually wrote. Consider Marx's third Thesis on Feuerbach:
"The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice."
The part of society that is "superior to society" is just those bourgeois intellectuals who are able to transcend their place in their own culture, who have a view of History and can execute its logic ("The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."). These are the Revolutionary Vanguard, as Lenin described in What is to Be Done? Moreover, the materialist doctrine forgets, according to Marx, that circumstances are changed by man and "self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice", which i would argue is the essence identity politics and consistent with the centrality of 'homo faber' to all of Marx's philosophy.
To understand Marx, you must understand that, first and foremost, he was a revolutionary. The failure of the actual Marxist revolution to arise from the proles as Marx predicted or to produce the kind of society most people would chose to inhabit (in fact, the opposite, in the form of Bolshevik and Nazi totalitarianism), was instrumental in the thinking of later Marxist theorists, Weimar bourgeoisie though some may have been. I would not count Gramsci as a Weimar bourgeois but he was instrumental in shifting the interpretation of Marxist revolutionary politics to the commanding heights of culture, rather than industry per Lenin. In that, he was 100% predicting the take-over of our education and media systems by revolutionary politics. Gender theory and identity politics are self-professedly Marxist ideologies. There's no real debate about what they think they're about, it's pretty well-documented.
I wonder why you think you have a better claim to interpreting Marx correctly than 150 years of dedicated scholar-activists have been able to do. If you've slogged your way through Kapital vol III, I'm impressed and a bit mystified as to why you might think Marx's important thinking about political economy isn't consistent with identity politics, which, if it's about anything, is about deconstructing the legal and political superstructures that create power. What's more Marxist than that?
I made no claims for any One True Marxism when I described Identity Politics as "a Marxist revolutionary movement" but I would agree that Identity Politics is consistent with what Marx actually wrote. Consider Marx's third Thesis on Feuerbach:
"The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice."
The part of society that is "superior to society" is just those bourgeois intellectuals who are able to transcend their place in their own culture, who have a view of History and can execute its logic ("The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."). These are the Revolutionary Vanguard, as Lenin described in What is to Be Done? Moreover, the materialist doctrine forgets, according to Marx, that circumstances are changed by man and "self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice", which i would argue is the essence identity politics and consistent with the centrality of 'homo faber' to all of Marx's philosophy.
To understand Marx, you must understand that, first and foremost, he was a revolutionary. The failure of the actual Marxist revolution to arise from the proles as Marx predicted or to produce the kind of society most people would chose to inhabit (in fact, the opposite, in the form of Bolshevik and Nazi totalitarianism), was instrumental in the thinking of later Marxist theorists, Weimar bourgeoisie though some may have been. I would not count Gramsci as a Weimar bourgeois but he was instrumental in shifting the interpretation of Marxist revolutionary politics to the commanding heights of culture, rather than industry per Lenin. In that, he was 100% predicting the take-over of our education and media systems by revolutionary politics. Gender theory and identity politics are self-professedly Marxist ideologies. There's no real debate about what they think they're about, it's pretty well-documented.
I wonder why you think you have a better claim to interpreting Marx correctly than 150 years of dedicated scholar-activists have been able to do. If you've slogged your way through Kapital vol III, I'm impressed and a bit mystified as to why you might think Marx's important thinking about political economy isn't consistent with identity politics, which, if it's about anything, is about deconstructing the legal and political superstructures that create power. What's more Marxist than that?