The error of the political state, populism, intersectionality

One of the foundamental concepts of the young Marz is the error of the political state. Put somewhat schematically, Marz says that it is useless to fight for civil rights if you don't fight for social and economical rights. If you are gay it matters relatively the right to marry, if you are jobless. Marx doesn't say that civill and democratic rights are useless, he says that it is dangerous to strive for civil rights without striving social rights. This is exactly what happens with the populist right, who supports the economic rights but rejects the civil rights. Orban ,the president of Hungary, stated it clearly: "people wants democracy, not an open society",  implying by the way that civil rights cannot be supported by the poors, which is obriously false. The populist position is the opposite of the liberal way, which supports civil rights and rejects economica rights, and this enables the populist to present themslev as "anti-system", but it is also radically at odd with the leftist idea of fighting both for civil and economic rights.

Luckily, if marzism is rare and endangered in Europe (it is threatened by grave confusion of idea, not by lack of popularity(, it fourishes insted in American Universites (as Barry Sandeers and the popularity of BIDS shows): American leftist intellectuals have rediscovered the error of the political state, under the name intersectionality, which means simply that there is no contradiction between the defense of the rights of minorities (civil rights) and the defense of the right of the poor whites (economica rights): In the light of the wisdiom of the old sage with long beards, I dare say that you cannot defend the poor white without defending the poor black. Empirically it is even simpler: both are poor, and their interests are obviously the same.

And on a more global base the incredibly successful feminist movement "no one less" rejects the idea that feminism is a question of civil right: it is a question of equality, and both it is fundamentally an econmic question.

Maybe I am wrong,, but I reckon that 30 years of neoliberism - notwistanding the huge backlash of of populism - has finally arrived to an end.