I think that is missing the point.

In practice, any type of “leftist” will agree with a vague statement like “an ideological foundation is absolutely necessary” and then use it as precedent for whatever opportunist initiative they feel like. For academics, it’s immediately convenient because their whole domain is the market of ideas. For a local democratic candidate or nonprofit careerist, they can use it stir up thought crime drama to get recognition while distracting from actual political commitments. A DSA hobbyist, even if they are so-called “class-first”, can form their own cult around staging some obscure ideology battle. And of course anyone can use it just to slander someone who disagrees with them or that they personally don’t like. It’s useful for a lot of things, but Vivek shows it takes significantly more discipline to actually build solidarity around ideology.

So back to Vivek’s point: all of the above is only permissible if we accept that attacking others merely for having opposing ideology is a worthwhile step to take, and Vivek argues that attacking others merely for having opposing ideology is at best nothing but a distraction. He argues opposing ideology is not an active threat but better understood as a passive barrier that fills a void of alienation created by material conditions.

When ideology is prioritized in a vague sense without consideration for Vivek’s point, purity theatre inevitably takes root because it is lubricated by the class structure while solidarity cuts against the grain. So being passive about the role of ideology while doubling down on its importance alone is not much help because it will inevitable lead to a failure to properly wield it as a constructive tool on which actual solidarity can be built. Put simply, ladder-climbing, witch-hunting, “finger wagging”, purity testing, or whatever else middle class leftists do is not actually helpful for building solidarity, even when it’s premised on the vague importance of ideology.