> The Intersectional claim is basically that inherent markers like race have become a functionally like a marker of class. Hm. Unless closeparen edited their c

> The Intersectional claim is basically that inherent markers like race have become a functionally like a marker of class. Hm. Unless closeparen edited their comment, I've very confused, because that's not at all the claim that closeparen made. In fact, the "all racism is really just a form of classism" is more common in conservative circles than leftist circles. > So you're saying there's something magically special about the very specific formulation? No, not at all. It's just one more idea. And it has a name. That name is Marxism. Use each name for the thing that it refers to, and nothing else. > "Marxism" in such broad-brush terms is certainly not meaningless in any case. Not really. Marxism refers to the political philosophy laid out in Capital and popularized in texts like the Manifesto. It refers to Marx's synthesis of a bunch of specific ideas -- Hegel's dialectics, materialism, the labor theory of value, commodity form, class warfare, markets, etc. -- some of which were unique to Marx and some of which pre-dated him by centuries. Marxism refers to, you know, Marx's system of thought. I submit that whatever alternative definition you're proposing is silly and confusing. > Anyone who throws individual rights under the bus in favor of the interests of the group It's all fine and well that you're a traditional liberal, but calling everything that's "not you" a Marxist is pretty lazy.