If CRT has anything to teach, it's that if you dismiss people's lived experience[1] you're only causing more trouble. When people see parallels between CRT and Marxism, you can either dismiss them or take them seriously. The fact that you disagree about the scope or meaning or implications of those parallels is a different matter. If you outright dismiss what seems patently obvious to people, that's where they'll stay stuck; and moreover, they'll take your dismissal as evidence of relative credibility.
I get that there are trolls out, including professional trolls, who weaponize innuendo and have zero interest in engaging in honest debate. But the reason for abstaining from quick dismissals is for the benefit of the people they're targeting, not the trolls. I guess what I should have written was: CRT absolutely has deep connections with Marxist thought. See, e.g. Frantz Fanon. So what?
I can't not point this out, even though it's about the orangest thing I can write here: Fanon died roughly 30 years before CRT was a thing, and, moreover, CRT is an offshoot of Critical Legal Studies (which in turn is an offshoot of critical theory), and Fanon wasn't a legal scholar. He's a race-oriented critical theorist (I can't believe I'm writing this), right, not a critical race theorist?
Again, just back to Crenshaw, who wrote at length about how Critical Legal Studies loses the plot about racism in its zeal to reconsider the entire liberal legal structure.
I promise I'm just writing this because, like many HN comments, it is a sort of rhetorical burp I just have to get out.
More seriously: it is somewhat frustrating that any serious analysis of oppressor/oppressed systems can be dismissed as "Marxist" because of Gramsci and hegemony, because oppression is obviously a real thing (ask any evangelical Christian) but neo-Marxism is principally trotted out when the oppressed are disfavored. But then, lots of academics who pretty clearly aren't Marxist are happy to use Gramscian neo-Marxism as a tool, so, sure, maybe you're just right about this.
I get that there are trolls out, including professional trolls, who weaponize innuendo and have zero interest in engaging in honest debate. But the reason for abstaining from quick dismissals is for the benefit of the people they're targeting, not the trolls. I guess what I should have written was: CRT absolutely has deep connections with Marxist thought. See, e.g. Frantz Fanon. So what?
[1] Only half using that phrase facetiously.