class reductionism "versus" intersectionality? no, class reductionism AND intersectionality.>>2950550>[Alex Jones] was also talking about how he prefers the Class Reductionist Left over the Intersectionality Crowd, and how he has read Hegel.interesting. Personally I find "class reductionism" and "intersectionality" to be a false dichotomy. What is disparagingly called "class reductionism" is nothing more than the recognition of class struggle as the base struggle. Intersectionality, from that point of view, is merely the study of all the ways in which the proletariat can be further subdivided and pit against one another. From the standpoint of the defense of proletarian revolution, and from the standpoint of "class reductionism", it is essential to understand the intersectional nature of struggles, to united the proletariat, and prevent their division by bourgeois forces along non-class lines. The bourgeoisie can also be dvided on intersectional issues. For example the national and comprador bourgeoisie. The core and periphery bourgeoisie. The industrial and financial bourgeoisie. The male and female bourgeoisie. The cishet and queer bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie all fight each other over these issues just like the proletariat done. What should be done, then, is that intersectional principles should be applied strategically by the revolutionary proletariat to provoke infighting among the bourgeoisie, and to maintain unity among the proletariat. But currently that is not done.
this is one of those debates which isn't really about what it appears to be about, but is in fact a battle over vibes, or even more than that, between personality types/dispositions of poster on the internet.
the dichotomy is only false on the level of the ideas themselves, rather than the root of the dispute. as symbols and partial weapons in the battle, there's nothing false about it. most false dichotomies are like this.
the problem with coming to a novel synthesis position is that it winds up being irrelevant. when someone says "reform or revolution?" 9/10 times they want to know whether your hobby is soviet hype edits or election result wikipedias, they're not interested in your carefully considered program of non-reformist reforms which will bring revolution closer. that doesn't help assign you to one team or the other.
as for what is done and not done, that's really another matter entirely: the revolutionary left entirely lacks the capacity for any political action whatsoever. what orgs need more than anything else is a management textbook that'll tell them about setting achievable goals with defined failure states and imposing responsibility on managers cadres for meeting those goals.
alas, that too is one of those "very clever, but irrelevant" takes…
cant there be a middle ground?