One of the most basic challenges in organizing for the Revolution is the divisions that have been created between the many distinct groups of people that make up this nation. Whether divided by culture, sexuality, gender, and any other distinction (including specific Marxist sect), I argue that such separations are false constructions that aren’t relevant to our ultimate goal of working class liberation.
The problem with such an argument has always been that removing the consideration of such distinctions often unintentionally quiets the diverse voices and contributions those groups may have, and thereby lessening the cause itself to one that follows only the majority, mostly white[1], opinions (although if that is still the majority by the time this is read is debatable[2]). We already have enough political forces that advocate for that group, and we certainly don’t need more. Contrasting that argument is that appealing to specific groups might at times divert our focus from our explicit goals of economic or class liberation, leading us to fights for things that while important, are secondary to our main goal and reducing our limited resources further while getting us no closer to that objective.
The further charge of class reductionism is also one that we often hear any time a Marxist raises the argument that we should maintain our focus on fighting capitalism, rather than the specific issues of oppression that capitalism creates among minority groups. This argument is so often used by other Left sections and Marxists (including those in major organizations) that one must almost applaud the effectiveness our opponents have had in getting people to adopt the slogans and accusations of their ideological enemies[3]. This argument is deliberately constructed to silence the opinions of leftists that think maybe we should focus more on class warfare than cultural war. This realization is in no way new, as critics have pointed out the dangers of the argument for decades, and been vindicated in their so often ignored cries[4].
Identity Politics
When you’re being drawn in to a losing battle, it is best to avoid it completely, and the fight of Identity Politics (IDPOL) is a losing battle for all sides (but the oligarchs). Even when brought forth under the cover of intersectionality[5] by those who don’t truly understand the term, it creates yet another false division among the ranks of people who would otherwise be philosophically unified against their opponents, and creates a hierarchy of the voices of those people based on intrinsic traits not related to actual abilities or knowledge. No intrinsic trait makes one any more or less susceptible to ignorance or corruption[6], even if those with racial privilege can often escape true justice for longer based on their societal position. Furthermore, as anyone who sees the fight play out from the sidelines may notice, engaging in this battle only continues it longer and gives your opponents more philosophical ammunition to use against you. Organizations such as the American Communist Party (ACP) and the Communist Party U.S.A. (CPUSA) have engaged in this fight from different sides, and have achieved nothing but further divides in the left movements and wasted ink. By engaging in it, we make ourselves no better than U.S. congress people kneeling in kente cloth in the capitol rotunda[7] before voting to give the police more money[8], or openly gay GOP candidates and influencers[9] legitimizing big-tent conservatism[10].
The example of the Log Cabin Republicans also demonstrates a glaring weakness that occurs when your focus is reduced to identity, in that your opponents might at some point allow you to claim a victory in the cultural war that ultimately turns out meaningless in the wider scheme of things[11]. Our opponents may at any time simply decide to adopt principals of equality as just another segment of society that they can divide up with the democrats (who, in typical fashion, refuse to stop fighting a fight they have already pretty much won, so often by methods that are sure to lose[12]).
Perhaps the most insidious thing about how much importance is placed on identity politics is how it reduces unique individuals to members of a group, often by enforcing stereotypes and relying on polling data. The same polling data that shows that members of all groups have much in common in the way they view the rich and the politicians ruling them. The leftist tendency to focus on idpol has allowed us the sensation of victory while achieving nothing, and the worst thing might be that this realization isn’t in any way new. Sidney Tarrow asserted that “identity politics can produce insular, sectarian, and divisive movements incapable of expanding membership, broadening appeals, and negotiating with prospective allies”[13] more than a decade ago.
We’re seeing just such a problem by the many divisions in the worker liberation movement. Instead of recognizing that working class people of all groups are our natural allies and the ones that we specifically seek to liberate, we engage in ridiculous fights for the different segments of the working class. This problem was also recognized by greatest of our predecessors, who saw class as the way we could unify the working class against our common enemies[14], rather than as a focus for their own fight[15].
Perhaps the root of this problem may be found in the way that Constitutional rights in the U.S. are decided based on classes of people.
Protected Classes Doctrine
Because the courts have adopted the current methods of division used to isolate different social groups, the solution may be found in the reinvigorating of a debate that occurred in the legal fields at the time that the civil rights movement was taking shape. The courts currently consider the individual level of protection deserved by any group under the Protected Classes[16] theory of Constitutional law. Under this idea, any time a specific group is found to have less actual rights than others, the courts decide what level of constitutional protections that group deserves, rather than simply deciding that all people deserve to have the same rights. Examples of this are reflected in the groups themselves, as each group receives a different level or category of protection (normally codified into law[17]), with the highest being uncategorized due to not having ever been persecuted (white male Christian Nationals). The most important recognized groups are: Race; Religion, National Origin, Age, Gender, and Disability.
Each of these groups has been categorized by the system and given their own levels of level protections based on the level of scrutiny a potential violation receives by the court[18]. The highest level, Strict Scrutiny[19], is applied to race, national origin, and alienage, holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a “compelling state interest“, is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the “least restrictive means” to achieve that purpose.
The second highest level is Intermediate Scrutiny[20], which applies most often to laws concerning biological gender or age, requires the government to prove that: there is a compelling state interest behind the challenged policy, and the law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve its result. This obviously allows for quite a bit of leeway in regards to how a state may construct their laws, as we have recently seen with the conservative crusade against Trans people.
Often applied to all laws or regulations which are challenged as irrational or arbitrary as well as discrimination based on age, disability, wealth, political party, or felony status the lowest level is Rational Basis[21], in which person challenging the law (not the government) must prove either: the government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy; or that there is no reasonable, rational link between that interest and the challenged law.
To determine whether a group or individual member of that group is being discriminated against and deserves the strict scrutiny protections of a suspect class[22], the court will take considerations such as whether or not a group[23]:
- Has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.
- Possess an immutable or highly visible trait.
- Are powerless to protect themselves via the political process and is a “discrete” and “insular” minority; and
- If the group’s distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.
Other groups are categorized under Quasi-suspect Class or left not specifically grouped (for those facing a rational basis test). This allows the court to give them lesser real protections by the law even if it’s demonstrated that they are experiencing discrimination.
Initially, these would all seem as being well crafted considerations in determining whether discrimination exists, but on closer examination, each of these classifications creates independent and uniquely interested subgroups within the whole. The very purpose of this system is allow courts to decide whether one group is more deserving of protections than another, and we have seen them determine that legitimately oppressed groups are either not deserving of that protection or aren’t actually being oppressed[24], at the same time we see powerful groups being given legal status[25] and the protections that affords[26], most often by leaving such decisions to the individual states.
For a long time, we have had another way to protect individuals (rather than groups).
Colorblindness Revisited
The theory of colorblindness arose out of a dissenting opinion written in the landmark Plessy v. Fergusson[27] case, where the infamous concept of “separate but equal” was first concocted. Justice John Marshall Harlon wrote that the idea of creating separate classes, as was done then, and as we see being done now, goes against the very idea of society of equal people with equal rights. In his argument, he considered the Constitution to be blind to distinctions of race or privilege, and instead intended to grant equal rights and protections for all people, regardless of individual distinctions or differences.
A with most things concerning the U.S. Supreme Court, the concept has historically been fraught with bitter debates on a number of different grounds, but mostly as concerns race in the U.S.[28]. Although conservative ideologues have become attached to the idea of judicial colorblindness for use in arguing against things such as affirmative action[29]&[30], it has its foundation in progressive attempts at evoking a better reading of the constitution[31].
For us, we need go beyond the limitations of use for classifications based on race, and instead apply it as it was originally intended, in that all people, regardless of group or identity, deserve the same protections from discrimination owed all others. This would involve simplifying the court’s analysis to whether or not any discrimination has occurred based on an immutable characteristic of a person. If such discrimination is found, it would find the law or application of a law invalid. We would also need to disregard the distinction made by the courts as to whether the discrimination was done by an act of government or by private individuals or companies (a distinction being asserted more now that the Court has chipped away at the power of the Commerce Clause[32] or otherwise making it easier for private groups to discriminate, even if against traditionally protected classes[33].
If we applied the principle of colorblindness, as an understanding that the Constitution does not recognize distinct and separate groups of people (even if it originally did[34]), we would remove any falsely constructed distinctions between individuals as well as any arguments used to justify oppression or discrimination of grounds such as religion or personal beliefs. Instead, only special types of “discrimination”, such as having age requirements for certain responsibilities or jobs, would be permitted[35]. Courts would be forced to defer more to experts for analysis of the present issues, such as determining whether or not a characteristic is intrinsic to a person, rather than adopted, in determining whether a person is being discriminated against. For example, rather than a court creating a category for Trans people and then determining what level of rights they would receive (as is done currently), it would instead consider prima face discrimination to have occurred, and on deferring to subject matter experts determine that it was directed against people with an unchangeable characteristic[36]. The Court would then conclude that those responsible (whether private or government) were in error and subject to penalties.
Small Victories
Another reason for the focus on IDPOL can be attributed to the success allied movements have had when they have fought for specific groups interests, such as the LGBTQ Movement or the fight for recognition of Trans Rights[37]. These victories have galvanized both sides of the political divide each time they are fought, but that they are constantly in need of being fought for does not seem to alert anyone to the nature of that fight. It is often tempting to focus on the victories one achieves, even when you are still losing the overall war. These battles, while crucially important, are not the ones we should be fighting[38], for a number of reasons.
The first reason that we should maintain a focus on class politics is that many, if not all, of the issues raised is because any victory for them does nothing to eliminate the root capitalist causes of oppression. Especially as these causes are adopted and coopted by international capital through their control of corporations. Remember well that even the cops or companies involved with the Military Industrial Complex now march in Gay Pride parades[39], having much of their media predictably taking their side in the interests of “inclusion”[40]. This example perfectly encapsulates the problem with focusing on such issues. Communism cannot be coopted by those who uphold capitalism without revealing the game they are trying to play.
The second reason is that our cause is not advanced simply because one group or another has achieved success in getting something they should have already had. For decades, each “victory” has been the result of the ruling class handing over rights, rather than the oppressed classes taking them via the overthrow of their oppressors.
Balancing
For any theory of rights to be effective, it must be understood in terms of balance between extremes. But because of the required nuance and changing difficulty of such analysis, due in no small part to evolving concepts concerning the makeup of individuals in any society, most educational programs have focused on a simpler all-or-none approach when instructing their associated cadres in an organizations party line.
We see the approach result in two extremes of political thought. At one end we see groups like the “MAGA Communist” movement decrying any reference to identity and the struggles faced by certain minority groups as “liberalism” or otherwise the result of capitalist cultural indoctrination. At the other extreme we see groups confining their campaigns to those concerning the specific minority groups at the cost of the wider working class movements.
IDPOL & Colorblindness
The most damning argument against any focus on identity is the fact that our opponents and their pawns do not seem to really care about anything but class. Sure, Capitalists may as individuals be startlingly racist[41], but as a system, it has welcomed any such people that can afford to get in or push their message[42]&[43]. Capitalists do this because wealth is the defining feature of whether or not someone is worthy[44]. For them, it proves the intelligence and resourcefulness with which Capitalists define themselves[45]. Furthermore, they are easily able to avoid claims of racism by simply pointing out the POC’s which they associate with or they have placed in power[46], or by deflecting to their support for the different causes which they support (and which they create the need for).
As our enemies have class consciousness and are unified by their relations to their economic peers, so too does the world proletariat need to understand and classify ourselves by that same system, irrespective of individual differences. Class Reductionism is only a danger to our cause if we fail to consider the intersectionality of the different struggles that arise due to capitalism, as those in the ACP are guilty of, or place those different struggles as primary over the cause of working class liberation, as the CPUSA does. The class struggle must be our primary consideration above all others, and the cadres should be educated in the meaning and history of that struggle.
That education should highlight the balancing perspectives[47]&[48] nature of the issue, rather than the all-or-none approach that makes up most educational work done by organizations, which leads to the political drift we see in many groups either by pursuing too much focus on smaller issues (and drifting into liberalism) or by condemning any acknowledgment of those issues (and drifting into reactionism). This educational perspective can be achieved by adopting a colorblind understanding of individual rights, as it was originally intended. Doing so will allow groups to both appreciate the class struggle from an institutional perspective while maintaining a more egalitarian and inclusive party line.
Failing this, we will find that after the cultural battle is fought and the battlefield is sown with the metaphorical dead, we will be no closer to defeating the monster of capitalism, our true enemy that looms large in the distance. We will have exhausted ourselves for pieces that our enemies were always willing to sacrifice.
Works Cited
[1] U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States (accessed 2025)
[2] Is the white population decreasing? – Geographic Pedia, Nicolas Wilcox, 02/27/2025 (accessed 2025)
[3] See: The Myth of Class Reductionism | The New Republic, Adolph Reed Jr., 09/25/2019 (accessed 2025)
[4] Socialism and the Argument against Race Reductionism, Adolph Reed Jr., 14/05/2020 (accessed 2025)
[5] “Intersectionality” – Wikipedia (accessed 2025)
[6] James Clyburn’s betrayal leaves all of us more cynical. The State, Issac Bailey, 05/07/2023 5:00 (accessed 2025)
[7] Congressional Democrats criticized for wearing Kente cloth at event honoring George Floyd. CNN Politics, Alicia Lee, June 8, 2020 (accessed 2025)
[8] Democrats Unveil Policing Reform Bill. Reason Magazine, C.J. Ciaramella | 6/8/2020 (accessed 2025)
[9] Christian Walker Is a Rising Conservative Star on TikTok, Intelligencer, Brock Colyar, 3/31/2021 (accessed 2025)
[10] Log Cabin Republicans – Building A More Inclusive GOP (accessed 2025)
[11] Chavs : the demonization of the working class. Owen Jones (Owen Peter), 2011 (accessed 2025)
[12] Democrats Reintroduce Equality Act for LGBTQ rights, The Hill, Brooke Migdon – 04/29/25 (accessed 2025)
[13] Power in Movement, Cambridge University Press. Sidney Tarrow, June 2012 (accessed 2025)
[14] “We Know What the Pigs Don’t Like”: the Formation and Solidarity of the Original Rainbow Coalition. JSTOR. Antonio R. López, December 2019 (accessed 2025)
[15] “We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we’re going to fight it with socialism.” ~ Fred Hampton
[16] See: Protected group – Wikipedia. (accessed 2025)
[17] See example: Civil Rights Act of 1964. See also: Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Wikipedia. (accessed 2025)
[18] See: Reevaluating Suspect Classifications. Marcy Strauss. Seattle Univ. Law Review, Vol 35.135 (2012)
[19] Strict Scrutiny | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. (accessed 2025)
[20] Intermediate Scrutiny | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. (accessed 2025)
[21] Rational Basis Test | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. (accessed 2025)
[22] Suspect Classification | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. (accessed 2025)
[23] Under “Criteria” in Suspect classification – Wikipedia. (accessed 2025)
[24] Supreme Court Rules Transgender People Are Not a Protected Class Under Equal Protection Clause. Jacob Dressler | Estate Planning Lawyer (2025), citing United States v. Skrmetti 23-477 (06/18/2025)
[25] See: Corporate personhood – Wikipedia (accessed 2025)
[26] When Did Companies Become People? Excavating The Legal Evolution: NPR, Nina Totenberg (2014), citing Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. | 573 U.S. 682 (2014).
[27] Plessy v. Ferguson | 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
[28] Affirmative Action and the Myth of Colorblindness: Constitutional Tensions in Race and Law | Black Pre-Law Society. Genesis Dacosta (04/29/2025)
[29] ‘Colorblind Constitution’: Supreme Court wrangles over the future of race in the law. NBC News. Lawrence Hurley (07/01/2023)
[30] I will be writing about Affirmative action as being an issue of contracts, rather than civil rights, at another time.
[31]How the ‘Color-Blind Constitution’ Got Weaponized – The Atlantic. Theodore R. Johnson (11/19/2019)
[32] See: Supreme Court Narrows Dormant Commerce. Congressional Research Center. 05/31/2023 (accessed 2025)
[33] Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n 16-111 (06/04/2018)
[34] See: August 7, 1787: The Right to Vote (U.S. National Park Service). (accessed 2025)
[35] Even these, however, would be subject to a scientific, rather than legal, examination to determine need.
[36] There would have to be constructed a strict definition, but it would be a matter of science, rather than politics or beliefs.
[37] Still pending, given current trends.
[38] At least as a cause de jure, being separate from a support role we may play.
[39] D.C. police chief, officers marched in Pride parade in uniform. Leo Chibbaro, Jr. 06/13/2024.
[40] Exclusion on parade: Keeping uniformed NYPD cops from the Pride March goes against the spirt of inclusion. Editorial Board. 06/29/2025.
[41] Civil Rights Groups Horrified at Elon Musk’s Racist Outburst Against Black People. Victor Tangermann. 01/12/2024 (accessed 2025)
[42] See: Thomas Sowell’s Official Website (accessed 2025)
[43] Barack Obama helped convince NBA players to end their strike and return to play | SB Nation. Ricky O’Donnell. (08/29/2020)
[44] Why Rich People Think They’re Better Than Everyone – Business Insider. Katie Warren. 05/21/2019
[45] “No other system of economic organizing rewards merit, hard work and creativity the way Capitalism does”- Essays on Capitalism & The U.S. Economy. Hendrith Smith. 2018.
[46]Identity, Race and Electoral Politics – CounterPunch.org. Rob Urie. 08/28/2025
[47] Similar to Ancient Greek philosophies extolling Aristotelian Eudemonia (balance) between virtues and vices.
[48] See: Why Aristotle Was Right: The Power Of Balance | by Anthony Perez | Medium. 03/06/2017.
Leave a Reply