Reminder: Intersectionality is just an idealist manifestation of the attitudes inherent to the petty bourgeois intelligentsia. It is completely incompatible with historical materialism as it denies the primary contradiction of class conflict in social repression as well as the material basis for all forms of oppression. Instead it reduces class war, racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, etc. to subjective and individual "feelings" which are unique and inarguable to the special interest groups they apply to.
Intersectionality is anathema to Marxist thought and is more characteristic of neoliberal thinking, though it also, by its individualist and idealist nature, fuses with anarchism quite effectively.
The notion that historical materialism/class conflict holds a special position in the order things that makes it the active part of material existence with all else being passive reaction is itself pure idealism.
An idealist concept.
Jack Cox
Dialectical logic is much more advanced than traditional/spiritual forms of dualism and has more or less been completely vindicated by our modern understanding of science and the universe. Literally anyone with a brain and the ability to perceive reality can see that class is the most central and basic mechanism for dividing power and resources in all human societies that were formed after the discovery of agriculture. The state was born of class, as was organized religion, slavery, patriarchy, etc. Oppression is not idealist. If one person is able to coerce another into an inferior social or economic position, that is, by definition, oppression.
Xavier Hill
Not if it's synthesized with Marxism.
Log on to r/FULLCOMMUNISM to learn about
MATERIALIST INTERSECTIONALITY
Jayden Price
Cool, I'm always interested in the discovery of new laws of nature. I hope I can read this complete vindication before you receive your nobel prize. This assumes that there is a set pool of power and resources which is then divided (as if there's one big cake of.. stuff.. around which all human gathers and receive a piece of based on a class formula) through (your conception of) class. To take note of the differences in those, call them class, and to then proclaim that class is the central mechanism behind itself is to be begging the question. I notice this a lot in marxists, they imagine the world as a big bucket of stuff which just is, a-priori, and is then divided according to what they call systems, which are seen as having a separate existence from people they apply to, a divine rule book so to say, created prior to mankind. It's a childlike form of idealism, as children too form their conceptions based on the here and now, and so think in conceptions that can be understood in such terms. Not only is this definition inconsistent with how the term oppression is actually used, it would still be idealist as social or economic positions do not have material existence. (At which temperature does ownership of a bakery start to burn? What is the molecular structure of being the most popular person on a brass band?)
