Yeah, class reductionism will only ever lead to more oppression of those already marginalised.
If your leftism doesn’t include intersectionality, you’re doing it wrong.
(to be clear - “culture wars” are a right winged distraction, but they are based on very real and massively impactful systems of oppression that they are trying to maintain, ignoring this only enables them, and guarantees those systems will remain even if we get economical change)
If your leftism doesn’t include intersectionality, you’re doing it wrong.
Similarly, if your intersectionality doesn’t include leftism, it’s literally worse than useless because it functionally works to maintain the underlying material conditions that served to create whatever social injustice you are fighting.
This is the right take, IMO. Labelling race, gender etc issues as “diversions” has the same flavour as “I know the slaves are oppressed, but freeing them doesn’t end capitalism, does it?”
The diversion is the idea of rainbow capitalism. For example: fighting for the right for people of any identity to own slaves is not a valid goal and also won’t “free the slaves.” Ending slavery is the goal. Rainbow capitalism acts as a shell game to divert energy toward token concessions and labels them victories. Anti-racism and feminism should be (and I would say, are) at the core of any coherent flavor of leftism, but diverse oppression is still oppression and a rainbow flag on a Raytheon missile is not a win.
Edit: should have read the comment further down. Said what I meant but with gooder words.
I definitely don’t equate intersectionality with culture war, but I think it’s important to understand why capitalism has adopted intersectionality in the specific way it has. A lot of the debates about it on the left seem to be rooted in conflating intersectionality with how it’s commodified. Like you can think Robin D’Angelo is ridiculous without throwing intersectionality out the window.
All the big names I’ve seen labeled class reductionists are basically involved with diversity and intersectionality at some level, and openly express their support of those sort of initiatives, or have actually benefitted from them and admit it. Adolph Reed had a great example of when they were negotiating their collective agreement the EDI commitments were one of the first thing signed off and agreed to, but it took them a year of arbitration to get more sick days or something like that. It’s the same with my union as well. It just shows how capital is not against EDI or intersectionality, they’re against exploiting people less.
Yeah, class reductionism will only ever lead to more oppression of those already marginalised.
If your leftism doesn’t include intersectionality, you’re doing it wrong.
(to be clear - “culture wars” are a right winged distraction, but they are based on very real and massively impactful systems of oppression that they are trying to maintain, ignoring this only enables them, and guarantees those systems will remain even if we get economical change)
Similarly, if your intersectionality doesn’t include leftism, it’s literally worse than useless because it functionally works to maintain the underlying material conditions that served to create whatever social injustice you are fighting.
This also is true, yes.
This is the right take, IMO. Labelling race, gender etc issues as “diversions” has the same flavour as “I know the slaves are oppressed, but freeing them doesn’t end capitalism, does it?”
The diversion is the idea of rainbow capitalism. For example: fighting for the right for people of any identity to own slaves is not a valid goal and also won’t “free the slaves.” Ending slavery is the goal. Rainbow capitalism acts as a shell game to divert energy toward token concessions and labels them victories. Anti-racism and feminism should be (and I would say, are) at the core of any coherent flavor of leftism, but diverse oppression is still oppression and a rainbow flag on a Raytheon missile is not a win.
Edit: should have read the comment further down. Said what I meant but with gooder words.
I definitely don’t equate intersectionality with culture war, but I think it’s important to understand why capitalism has adopted intersectionality in the specific way it has. A lot of the debates about it on the left seem to be rooted in conflating intersectionality with how it’s commodified. Like you can think Robin D’Angelo is ridiculous without throwing intersectionality out the window.
All the big names I’ve seen labeled class reductionists are basically involved with diversity and intersectionality at some level, and openly express their support of those sort of initiatives, or have actually benefitted from them and admit it. Adolph Reed had a great example of when they were negotiating their collective agreement the EDI commitments were one of the first thing signed off and agreed to, but it took them a year of arbitration to get more sick days or something like that. It’s the same with my union as well. It just shows how capital is not against EDI or intersectionality, they’re against exploiting people less.