From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. This fundamental idea already betrays one aspect of egalitarianism: The idea that all people are equal. Of course this tenet of egalitarianism was always stupid, and the important thought behind egalitarianism is not the idea that all people are equal, but that all people deserve equal rights and opportunities.
But even then, Marx and Engels were explicitly anti-egalitarian. Quoting Engels from a letter:
"The concept of a socialist society as a realm of
equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old “liberty, equality, fraternity,” a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a
phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered."
Again, quoting from an Anarcho-Communist essay that itself quotes Engels:
In March 1875 Engels complained in a letter that the programme mistakenly advocated “[t]he elimination of all social and political inequality”, rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions”. For Engels, the goal of total social equality was impossible and represented the ambitions of an under-developed form of socialism. He wrote,
“As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen. ” (Engels 1875)
They explicitly say that complete equality is unhelpful as a political goal, and argue instead for the abolition of class distinctions as a specific goal.
Another quote from the same essay, this time referencing Marx's text about the Gotha Program:
"[...] Marx claims that advocating equality along one dimension, such as everyone in a society earning the same amount of money per hour worked, will lead to inequality along other dimensions. Everyone earning an equal amount per hour of work would, for example, lead to those who work more having more money than those who work less. As a result, those unable to work a large amount (if at all) such as disabled people, old people, or women who are expected to do the majority of housework, will be unequal with those who can work more, such as the able-bodied, young people, or men. Or those doing manual labour, and so unable to work long hours due to fatigue, will be unequal to those who engage in non-manual labour and so can work more hours. If a society decides to instead ensure equality of income by paying all workers the same daily wage then there would still be inequality along other dimensions. For example, workers who don’t have to provide for a family with their wage will have more disposable income than workers with families. Therefore we can never reach full equality but merely move equality and inequality around along different dimensions."
From this statement you could almost deduce that Marx was not in favor of equal pay per se, but rather of his own doctrine "From each..".
Now Marx was definitely a humanist, but that's to be seperated from being an egalitarian by any means.
This is lumping stuff together where important distinctions exist. "Idpol" as it exists today definitely started as a movement for equality; it started as a movement aiming to fix the problems with the revolutionary socialist left as it existed at the time.
The mainstream form of 'idpol' that has every business in DC hanging out rainbow bunting for Pride is what you say it is though. Like ironically the movement for 'marriage equality' is conservative in that it is asking for acceptance of gay people into the traditional paradigm, rather than demanding an end to the traditional paradigm. A lot of mainstream 'idpol' is like that, like Sheryl Sandberg's "leaninism" which basically says women can achieve social equality by hiring nannies to raise their children while they work 80 hour weeks.
I agree with your point, and I recognize the roots of the movement. when I refer to "idpol" I am generally talking about the recent mainstream phenomenon, not its historical roots. You could trace those roots back indefinitely, but that doesn't do much good. I believe most ideas corrupt overtime: like when enlightenment lead to race science.
at the core is often something worthwhile. I think people can get a lot out of Judith Butler's books if they read them, especially if they read them critically. I think intersectional feminism has some good ideas. but those are really insignificant for the real world. Butler is instrumentalized, both from the left and the right, as a stand-in or as a straw woman.
I think this particular kind of discourse is something we will see more and more of in the future. even now, when I post on Reddit for example, people genuinely reply to me having no ****** idea of what I meant, or what I expressed. their entire post is based on some weird projection, of something they wanted to see in my text, they get hung up over one word and lose sight of the actual meaning.
all of this is only going to worsen with deep fakes, when we finally reach the point where we can make anyone say or do anything. when it will be absolutely impossible to distinguish the simulation from the real. I think we're in for a degree of corruption (not the money-laundering kind..) that we've never experienced before. Baudrillard argued that even in the 80s, we've already come very close to extinguishing all that is true and real. today, his writings seem more prothetic than ever.
I think the impossibility of retreat is one thing that can make these situations awkward or tense.
