Some of us have - you read that sort of analysis all the time here on FR. It is simply this: that Marx was extremely stubborn about there being only one class signifier that was pertinent to his analysis, and that it was economic class. Once the Frankfurt School got done re-aligning class analysis along other lines the whole thing fell apart just as old Karl knew it would.
The difference is simply that once multiple class signifiers are admitted one finds one's class interests fragmented along numerous fault lines. This is what the author means by "identity":
The Left is divided—although far from evenly—between those who believe that “identity” is the engine of history and those who believe that class struggle serves the same function.
One can only be proletariat, petit bourgeoisie, etc, if one sticks to economic class signifiers as Marx insisted. If, however, one's class identification happens to be wealthy, black, and a woman, one finds class interest fragmented; one cannot advance the interests of all these classes simultaneously because they conflict. And so one chooses whichever one seems expedient at any particular moment. Or, more often, one gives lip service to one and actual behavior to another. To be a Leftist along those lines is not to embrace diversity, it is to embrace hypocrisy. It's built in, one cannot avoid it.
There is, as well, the entirely subjective nature of identification, as we see in, say, a male who identifies as a female, or a black person who is accused of "acting" white. That does not bode well for right-thinking white leftists rioting in favor of interests whose adherents consider exclusively black.
The incredibly convoluted muddle that is contemporary Leftist social analysis is the result. If you get to choose your classes, or if others may do so for you, then literally anything one says in the way of class analysis is true; hence nothing is. It's a dead end road philosophically but it's sure well populated at the moment.
Forget where I heard this, but is true as always:
Diversity is an obstacle to overcome, not a goal to be achieved.
The left will eventually implode as the “Diverse” interests will fight over the remains of American wealth. However, Americans will be destroyed first; cast into poverty, ignorance, no careers, insulted, assaulted and murdered all to provide amusement for Negros and other minorities.
it will destroy us first, then it will destroy themselves.
Right now all those that are “diverse” are being smart, putting aside their astronomical differences and are laser-point attacking their enemy, us. Every minute, of everyday.
But once they have to live and work together, they’re done.
Case in point. When Blago was the IL Gov, he put together some diversity team of important power people that consisted of the rainbow of what the left sees as great. Black, Hispanic, gay, muslim, jew etc etc.
Within a few months they were at each others throats and the group died.
There is no way in hell they can get along. It’s just that right now they have kept it together by directing their hatred towards conservative Christians.
I just caught something on another website that seemed to deal with a curious paradox. It was a view of a blogger, herewith.
The celebration of diversity and it's advantages for mainly white populations are well known. What has not been realized is that in countries where the population is virtually non-white, this is a fact. There is absolutely no outcry or a demand for "diversity". There appears to be absolutely no requirement for an influx of white people to those countries.
The real reasons for so-called "diversity" might well be an eventual subjugation and even elimination. This of the much maligned white people, in their own countries. They of an orderly and fairly prosperous society, evolving over hundreds of years.
Excuse my ramble.