Deep ecology is the big one that I run into a lot. There’s a 150+ year history of Marxist ecology which inherently understands those ideas in an intersectional framework. I can go back to Engels and describe climate change from a humanistic perspective even if he predated the science. Deep ecology tried to reinvent the wheel without the overt political analysis of Marxism, still using that intersectional framework but in a defanged liberal way. The result is a very messy paraphrasing of Marxist ideas without being able to name them directly or reference them across that 150+ year body of literature. It’s much more easily recuperated and made into a passive academic subject for fancy lads to ponder without a coherent sense of ontology. That comes at the expense of Marxist ecology not being able to get a real foothold in modern academia.

Then there’s hippie shit and other forms of reactionary traditionalism. They take the same core ideas but don’t even have the academic pretense of the deep ecologists to help define or organise those into something actionable, scientifically or politically. A hippie can say something I agree with but derive the opposite conclusion from it because they don’t have actual theory or a sense of organised praxis. A reactionary can say they want to go back to the specific time period Marx is describing in his ideas of the antithesis between town and country, but they aren’t doing so from a post-enlightenment or historical materialist standpoint. They want a literal reinvention of the 17th century where they’re the guy enclosing the commons while Marx wants to apply 19th century ideas to solve specific contradictions that came from those 17th century conditions.

Marxism is the next stage of philosophical and scientific inquiry beyond the enlightenment. Rejecting it just reinvents the same things it’s saying or reinforces some kind of reactionary movement toward feudalism.