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?)
You can have a culture and ethnic identity based around crops growing in the desert, personally identify as a desert farmer, be educated in the ways of farming in the desert, and want to fuck every desert crop you see.
Crops still won't grow in the desert.
Samuel Martinez
That's all of reddit's "socialist" community with the exception of /r/socialistRA. For fucks sake I got banned from /r/ChapoTrapHouse for defending Tucker Carlson since he was only major political commentator to denounce Trump's Syria strike. The anarchist subreddit is the worst though, they have a disclaimer that says something to the effect of "while we are anarchists, this sub is not run democratically" or something.
Robert Campbell
Also daily reminder that the mods of most major socialist subreddits are literally 14.
Are you talking about the practical manifestation of intersectional theory or the bare bones theory? The latter is literally just true, intersecting contradictions do exist, that's just a fact. For instance, "le rich niggers" do in fact get arrested more for good reason than whites of the same class. They're still bourge fucks but they have it worse off than the cumskin bourge fucks.
Nathan King
Intersectionality is a product of American (neoliberal) academia and is meant to help redress social grievances while also reinforcing capitalism. It has absolutely no place in any socialist movement.
Anthony Davis
You didn't answer the question. do you think complex contradictions, which are provable material facts of social relation, are real?
Intersectionality is the observation that identities stack and are synergistic in a negative way, basically. Intersectionality has been gravely misunderstood. In it's original form, it is a very evident observation, and literally just fact, as points out. How it applies to other theory and praxis is a different story. Class oppression is a very important type of oppression, but it doesn't explain all types of power structures present in society. Claiming that communism will fix all types of oppression, or that class goes first is myopic and is not self evident. Especially in America, most poor people don't feel oppressed by upper classes, but do feel that they are oppressed by other forces, such as, religion, cops, homophobia, transphobia, muh patriarchy (inb4 no such thing, nigga plz, women get prayed upon much more than men), etc. Policing language and behavior, sjw-ism in general, etc, is very probably the wrong approach, but it does show where people feel they are being fucked. As a final thought, there's nothing holy about Marxist thought and Das Kapital was definitely not an instruction manual. Marx described a very prevalent and dominant power structure under capitalism, namely class struggle, but that doesn't mean that is the only one or that it is the first that must go. What if these other power structures are what is holding people back from demanding better wages? Will a feminine gay black man demanding a higher wage be treated the same as a white straight jock?
James Baker
The idea that any form of oppression exists outside the context of property relations isn't necessarily anti-socialist, but it is certainly anti-Marxist.
The form oppressive relationships take is ultimately determined by the productive forces of society. Modern racism, for example, is almost completely economic in nature; some of the common causes of racism include attitudes leftover from slavery (a productive relationship), economic anxiety from working class whites and their fear of depressed wages (a productive relationship), and the liquidation of black ghettos due to the increasingly obsolete black working class, who are far less educated or skilled than white workers.
This doesn't mean that white supremacy shouldn't be combated and eliminated, only that white supremacy is a symptom of property relations and not an ill in and of itself that exists outside of the class war. The same with sexism or homophobia.
Christian Lopez
let's wait for how long this post would last before getting taken down for ableism
Forgot to give some more detailed responses to this post in particular. Both religion and the police are mechanisms by which the upper classes repress the working class. I mean honestly, how can you possibly think the cops, whose entire job is to enforce property rights, aren't the agents of the bourgeoisie? Do you think billionaire televangelists who consistently advocate for privatization and anti-labor laws aren't the spokespeople of the regressive capitalists? And what is homophobia if not a backward, religious prejudice stirred up by the ruling class to keep workers fighting each other?
In regard to patriarchy, Engels wrote a perfect explanation for why modern patriarchy is a product of industrial property relations. I'll refer you to him on this subject. Of course. Marx was writing in another time and place and not everything he wrote can be directly applied to our current, modern day context (though ☭TANKIE☭s might like to argue otherwise). That said, Marx's descriptions of capital accumulation, class war, historical materialism, and commodity production are just as true today as they were then. Marx's work, like Newton's or Darwin's, can certainly be expanded upon and adjusted, but it is still true to its very core. If you are a Marxist, it kinda does. He was pretty clear that he viewed class as the linchpin for society and social progress. No one in the history of Marxism has ever disputed that black or gay workers often have it worse than white or straight workers; just that these additional grievances aren't caused by anything other than modern capitalism.
Justin Anderson
Yes, economics are definitely responsible for most forms of oppression emerging, women, black americans, etc. But, we can at least reduce it's impact under capitalism. I'm probably biased because I'm petite bourgeois and gay. I deal with a lot of covert homophobia but not economic oppression. Still I believe that we would be better off if people were more informed and we had a culture of working together towards everyone's happiness. On the other hand, gay acceptance has taken a massive leap the last 10 years. Before, people would say shit like "I would beat my kid if he was gay" and people would even applaud it. Now it's basically social suicide to say something like that. I mean, my aids ridden grandchildren will probably die before ever seeing communism take hold, let alone me. I definitely think it's pretty awesome I can now go to a gay bar without fearing for my life.
I realize this is a shitty response, but it is because I mostly agree with you. I merely want to give another perspective.
Also, I don't do shit, I just reap the benefits of other people marching, baking gay cakes and changing their profile picture on facebook.
