Are their any on the libertarian socialist side of the left that oppose intersectionality?

Are their any on the libertarian socialist side of the left that oppose intersectionality?

Attached: LAND.jpg (119x186, 3.71K)

intersectionality is libertarian, so not really.

who tf is that guy and why do i always see him posted here

Nick Land. One of the pioneers of accelerationism.

here's explanation of him

Attached: nick land.jpg (660x600, 41.01K)


I like this one better

Attached: 501097ec6cb987c39702547ec6985d619ffe53fc81533e3872c065bbb040b201.png (990x863, 524.72K)

I've yet to see a critique of intersectional theory that isn't "muh idpol" shitflinging.
Read some intersectional theory you useless shit-for-brains, you might learn something about how existing power structures actually work.


Intersectionality is idealist and has no basis in the material world. For Example many woketards argue that white people need to oppose white supremacy because it’s their responsibility. From a maternalist perspective this makes no sense because people support systems based off of self interest. People won’t fight for a revolution that’ll make them worse off. Nick Land at least is a materialist, and as such is better than the Intersectionality crowd.

Attached: It does not matter where we are going, only that we are going forward.png (1500x1000, 2.32M)

Attached: REIC1pT.png (880x832, 725.91K)

Intersectionality is where various forms of oppression overlap. Try harder next time.

Go straight back to left twitter, please.

The primary axis upon which most Communist theory rests in order to have any coherence is based on exploitation; oppression can be considered co-constitutive, but it is explicitly different. Intersectionality cannot account for Exploitation by it's very nature because it cannot be categorized upon the same plane as Oppressions, and therefore it has no explanatory power when it comes to class as a social relation. It may have leanings in Critical Theory which is itself of Marxist origin, but Intersectionality is a thoroughly modern, Liberal theory, and pales in comparison to the important works by Marxists throughout the 20th and into the 21st century on Social Reproduction Theory, which is not only much more exhaustive, but also actually coherent because it's borne out of a Materialist understanding of Class, and subsequently Race, Gender & other Social Groupings. I would suggest you stop talking authoritatively about things that you don't have a full picture of and assuming that all your opposition is as short sighted as you are. Read some books, if you want I'm sure some people could give you some recommendations.

Intersectionality is where you think that oppression is based off of culture and identity, instead of who produce labor and who consumes it.

Attached: HowPrivlageWorks.jpg (720x280, 24.23K)

Dumb brocialist

I have never been able to understand how Nick Land could reconcile accelerationism with his bog-standard suite of reactionary social beliefs. I mean, any materialist worth his salt can plainly see the fundamental reason that women, non-whites, etc are demanding and winning more rights. It's because capitalism is dissolving the material basis for traditional social divisions. You can look outside the window and see pretty quickly that this dissolution is a world-historic inevitability.

If you're an accelerationist, how can you justify any position other than continuing and accelerating the abolition of gender, race, etc?

Source: your ass
Do you have a single fact to back this up
t. Basement Brocialist

Wait, you actually think that Exploitation & Oppression are the same thing? Please, in your own words, explain what you think they mean. If you're arguing that they're interchangeable then you actually don't understand Intersectionality because conflation of the two is reductively Universalist and implies that a Black Man is both Exploited & Oppressed for being Black, which refutes the conception of either being based upon distinct Social Categories across different members of such. This is trivially untrue, you can argue that the degree of Exploitation that one group faces can be more or less severe based on other Social Relations but if you're conflating Oppression & Exploitation then you're denying that Class even exists at all and instead making every Social Category simultaneously hold primacy somehow on equal footing. This is actually a pretty central Marxist critique of Intersectionality; that it flattens the how the relations between Social Categories create and perpetuate each other. If you're arguing that only Intersectionality gives explanatory power to the way in which Social Relations interact with each other then I must only assume that my previous characterization was correct because Marxists were making more complex analyses and more astute observations about the "intersection" of Class & Race or Class & Gender decades before Intersectionality was even conceived of by Krenshaw. Could you please explain how you understand the Social Category of Class?

Because reactionaries are fundamentally idealists. Look at the fash futurists of yesteryear, the Nazis' plan for the future especially: technology divorced from the social changes it is inextricably linked to.

This is an impossibility.

Someone should use your posts as material for a Twitter left cliché dictionary.

If individualist anarchism can be considered libertarian socialism, then yes.

Yeah, it just seems like such a waste of a good term. 'Accelerationism', you know? Ideally, it'd be a term communists use to shit on liberals:

>well fuck you liberal, I want to accelerate progress

The owners of the Means of Production answer to still another, the Almighty Banker. The Banker is the Greatest of all Oppressors.

of course priviledge is material but that priviledge is distributed unevenly between various identities, if you think that oppression based on race never existed you're delusional

Nick Land supports technological accelerationism because he thinks that technological capitalism will destroy humanity. Capitalism is an anti-human ideology, Nick Land is honest about it.

pick related is you

Attached: SJWHirearchy.png (476x835, 171.18K)

Oppression based on race is very minor today, especially compared to relation based on production. Queer Porkys of color aren’t oppressed.

Can't we have a class-essentialist interpretation of intersectionality? All forms of oppression intersect because they can all be reduced to processes of class exploitation or their consequences.

Don't draw unnecessary schisms in the left.

Can't intersectionalists have a Materialist understanding of Oppression?

You could try actually reading Marxists who wrote about social issues like race and gender. Try Luxembourg, Kollantai, Newton, Fanon, and Hampton.

No, you can't, because that would be Social Reproduction Theory. I'm not even a person who hates Intersectionality; I think in the abscence of a lot of more modern Marxist works on these issues it can be a useful exploratory framework for the way that Oppressions based on Social Categories interact with each other and Social Reproduction Theory has a dearth of literature on LGBTQ+++ Issues, although I would argue there's not a lot to be said there. I also think that it's introduced a lot of potential Comrades into more naunced ways of looking at complex systems, at least for those that actually read Intersectional Theory (most of them don't, they get watered down Liberal Parlance versions of such and project their own Pathologies onto them), but ultimately, because it fails to account for a Materialist conception of Class it cannot. At best, Marxists could take Intersectionality, strip it of it's idealism and then conceive of a more modern kind of Social Reproduction Theory.

I take serious Umbrage with this, and I know where you're coming from because you've bought into the discourse of Intersectionalists vs Vulgar Materialists, but it's a misunderstanding, Marxists aren't the ones creating this schism, it's borne out of an information gap on the behalf of Intersectionalists because their education is lacking in Materialism. Marxists are a lot more likely to know about Intersectionality than vice versa. It's not neccessarily their fault; after all, Intersectionality is in vogue and it's a much easier system of thought to get into because it is so ingratiated into the modern left and curries favour within certain sections of Academia. That is not to say that Vulgar Materialists are not at fault also, but they're at fault within Marxist circles regardless because they choose not to read as much as they should.

The person pretending to be an Intersectionalist was likely someone trolling given how they spouted Left Twitter Cliches, I just engaged them because it's good practice because there are a lot of these types on the Internet Left. From my perspective, you thinking that we're the ones who are drawing an unneccessary schism is essentially just an appeal to authority because you're more familiar with Intersectionality as the premier way of understanding things like Race, Gender and so on, but that is on part of Marxist Erasure within Intellectual spaces; and you will see this everywhere when Intersectionalists reach back into the past to claim valour from Marxist authors like Dubois (I mention him particularly because even in the Wikipedia article he is transhistorically claimed as an Intersectionalist when he was a Marxist), and pretend that what they were doing was "Intersectionality", revealing a conceit that believe their Idealist framework to be an evolution of Marxist theory, rather than a Liberal bastardization of it.