On the whole, I share your concerns. But I think 'the left' means different things to us both.
I reject these neo-leftists as much as you do. In fact, I don't consider them leftists at all, I think they are a disgrace to the left. Many represent a new kind of far-right extremism. They know nothing of socialist economic theory or materialist conceptions or how to apply them to an analysis of a society. When I talk about the benefits of the left, I'm talking about economic liberation, which I think is absolutely requisite if we hope to achieve youth liberation, and I could spend forever trying to reason with people that this is not what socialism means or has ever meant. I have written about this elsewhere and I haven't the energy to repeat myself. I will simply include these edited excerpts from a post I made on BC:
'Socialism pretty much forms the basis of all humanity; all humans are by default born equal, all of the worlds natural resources are by default equally distributed among everyone. Humans need to assume individual roles for it to become a society. Every human is an important cog in this system, everybody works together in exchange for something that benefits them (use-value). There is a healthy balance to be had when it comes to wealth inequality (it is inevitable to some degree). But the massively wealthy in today's society completely transcend this nature of things and seize socialism for themselves, so that instead of interacting with each other for our means of living, we are forced to interact with our financial dictators who could not be more estranged and disconnected from us and the real world. Rather than corporations being democratically governed, they are governed by a corrupt elite. We wouldn't allow this anywhere else, so I find it odd that we allow it in the business sector.
To see these injustices you have to first see that 'humans are social beings'. The fact that they are is the objective stance, it's a fact we can agree on. Of course there are other forms of injustices, and they are only noticeable when we put them in relation to how a cooperative community ought to act. All it takes is for someone to go 'Wait, this isn't civilised, this isn't right.' It makes me think everyone is a bit of a socialist at heart. If we don't hold onto our sense of community and cooperation we lose our humanity. One can embrace the socialist perspective, don some socialism-tinted glasses and not identify as a socialist. Through these lens, for me at least, humanity becomes one big interconnected web, and we can better understand what has gone wrong when society loses its order and symmetry, or when judgement is fled and reason is lost.'
The universities tend to be neo-liberal elitists more than traditional leftists, just like the whole Democratic party. You use the word 'feminism', but actually 'pseudo-feminism' is much more appropriate (fake feminism). Man-hating pseudo-feminists might be our enemies, but ultimately I think we should be harnessing the right kind of feminism. The intellectual Germaine Greer's theories on sexuality, for example, are very progressive and might be more supportive of our views of youth liberation than we think. We need to be reaching out to more female pedophiles for this reason. I have a theory on why female pedophiles seem to be less common, I don't think they are, I just think their inhibited sex-drive lessens their ability to see their love of children in a sexual light, and so may never recognise their love as pedophilic. Which is why we need to be emphasising the loving aspect of our attraction over the sexual. but I digress, here are some more extracts:
'The socialist method of analysis is also valuable to anyone who wants to understand how a society works. I don't believe in state ownership of the means of production, that would be authoritarianism and would result in an undesirable society. Unfortunately these types of societies are the ones that people think of when the word 'socialism' is mentioned. Just like child molesters and rapists are thought of when the word 'pedophile' is mentioned. No, my socialism is about public co-operation, real people deciding their own future, working together for the greater good. It's about recognising the power we collectively share as 'social' beings, and then using that power to benefit ourselves and not the ultra-wealthy or powerful. It's about encouraging people to engage in open discussions such as this to come to objective resolutions via cross-analysis, free from dogma and bigotry. I never said we need to pursue a communist utopia by the dictatorship of the proletariat, that would be horrible. But the fact that society needs urgent incremental change hardly bears reflection. We certainly won't make progress as child-lovers in today's climate. And if we don't side with the left then who one Earth will we side with? All positive social change comes from the left.
And, I think it's far more linked to CL than we think. We need to be fighting for economic liberation at the same time as youth liberation, for me it's the same fight. Children are placed on a predetermined path which only leads to profit for the ruling classes. They don't want children to wonder from this path, they don't want them to experience something so liberating as sensual pleasure and romantic satisfaction at such a young age, because it could free them from the shackles of materialism. I think it's important we argue this case. Humanity will never allow itself to think freely while finance reigns supreme.'
I have also written elsewhere about how important it is that we don’t fall prey to dogmatism, if our views fit perfectly into any given political group, as you mentioned, then clearly we are not displaying intellectual autonomy and independent thinking. When I refer to left-wing policies, I am talking primarily about economic reform and freeing society from materialism and consumerism. You can be of the left, while criticising it fiercely (as I have). But taking a reactionary stance and ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ is very dangerous ground to be on. You also mentioned 'Marxist' beliefs in relation to social constructs including gender and family structure. This is a phenomenon I simply don't understand; 'cultural Marxism' isn't a thing, it was invented by neo-liberals and reactionary conservatives and continues to be peddled by well-meaning charlatans like Jordan Peterson. But in relation to what you wrote, surely traditional family structures are (if anything) a roadblock to our goals? I would like to hear more thoughts on this.
To take one thing of value from the writings of Marx would be 'the materialist conception of history'. If you haven't looked into this then I recommend it. But I would like to propose, alongside it, something along the lines of 'the sexual conception of history'. If economic instability and class struggle can be seen as a major contributor to societal ills, then perhaps it could go hand in hand with childhood sexual repression and unfulfilled sexual desires, the disastrous consequences of which was has been detailed extensively by psychoanalysis, and today discredited for this reason (society doesn't like to accept things that point towards a need for radical change). And I feel that our perception of the child is so seriously flawed, our notion of innocence so dangerously warped, that I feel society will never improve until we liberate the child from enforced ignorance and oppression (and thus the economy from materialism and finance). Radical change is needed for us to progress, and the left is the only viable platform for radical ideas such as this.
Anyway, just some thoughts, maybe I'm talking nonsense. I am always open to changing my mind in the light of better arguments. I'm just offering suggestions and (what I think could be) solutions to our shared plight.