intersectionality isn't really about the equal pay stuff, its the assertion first and foremost that all oppressions intersect. Which is just false from one's own experience imo

@Spookaswa ikr! 😄

i don't see why you're saying that they aren't Marxists... especially when most Marxists today whether you consider them hardcore or not, are intersectionalists.. you can't say that about for example.. Libertarians

```Armenian holocaust didn't happen, but should've```
- Chunk Uigur

Intersectionality isn't Marxian. Marxists would say that class oppression is the fundamental oppression that overrules all other possible, conceivable forms. Intersectionalists disagree with this, they treat all conceivable oppressions as equal, intersecting, interpenetrating.

Marx was thoroughly anti-intersectionalist in his world outlook, just a basic reading on Marx demonstrates this

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/427959006166777876/451859949279117325/1522908192714.png

I think they would agree with you on that races are a social construct in their entirety, we are all born equal and that we are equally deserving if it wasn't for muh capitalism.
Their assertion isn't that all oppression is equal, it's that all people in [insert category] are oppressed in the same way based on that category.. that's how they strategically dismantle Individualism.. wouldn't that be your claim about Class?

If you saw any of the arguments between Marxists and intersectional ones, you'd instantly see what I mean.

Many intersectionalists have a specific slur, used particularly against classical Marxists: **class reductionist**

Marxism = **literally class reductionism, by necessity**

and they use this word as a negative

anyway..

tell me one thing that's wrong about Armenian Genocide

it was a genocide

next

based

redpilled

```A working man has written a pamphlet against the head of the system, not against Louis-Philippe, but against “Rothschild I. King of the Jews”. [by G. M. Dairnvaell] The success of this pamphlet (it has now gone through some twenty editions) shows how much this was an attack in the right direction. King Rothschild has been obliged to publish two defences against these attacks of a man whom nobody knows, and the whole of whose property consists in the suit of clothes he wears. The public have taken up the controversy with the greatest interest. Some thirty pamphlets have been published pro and con. The hatred against Rothschild and the money lords is enormous, and a German paper says, Rothschild might take this as a warning that he had better take up his headquarters somewhere else than upon the ever-burning volcano of Paris.```
- Engels, 1846

damn, 2woke4me

ain't this the lad that said the Family Unit would be dismantled under his system?

quite to the contrary, not dismantled, but that it would wither away

It's Christmas, get this crap out of here.

No, that was Martin Luther King, a.k.a. Hegel

😄

Family has always evolved throughout the ages, no reason to think it won't continue to evolve

yeah

just like gender

family has always evolved though

family in 2018 isn't what it was in 341

and in 341 C.E it wasn't what it was in 3,000 B.C.E

doesn't mean changes by your system are *evolution*

of course it evolves, along with material and technical conditions

from my pov they're top down Degeneration

except that the Marxian state obviously wouldn't impose a view on family

or at least the kind of state pursued by Engels wouldn't

that is for certain

Yeah, but the artificial economic environment you'd create would result in it's dismantlement

it's pretty much what's happening under the Welfare State in US to Nogs

but it might actually be less bad because your system isn't sustainable

it just dies off after a while

current system doesn't :/

or so it seems rn

I mean yes the change in the mode of production would yield a change in family. Of course it would. This is obvious, but it also means that no particular change in family would be imposed by the administration.