"Although intersectionality can usefully describe the effects of multiple oppressions, I propose, it does not offer an adequate explanatory framework for addressing the root causes of social inequality in the capitalist socioeconomic system. In fact, intersectionality can pose a barrier when one begins to ask other kinds of questions about the reasons for inequality—that is, when one moves past the discourse of “rights” and institutional policy, which presuppose the existence of social relations based upon the private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of labor."
That doesn't make any sense. Intersectionality, at least the version I'm familiar with, explicitly includes the critique of capitalism as one of it's core elements. It sounds like you're asking about some Democrat/liberal perversion of the original concept.
From the Combahee River Collective Statement;
We realize that the liberation of all oppressed peoples necessitates the
destruction of the political-economic systems of capitalism and
imperialism as well as patriarchy. We are socialists because we believe
that work must be organized for the collective benefit of those who do
the work and create the products, and not for the profit of the bosses.
Material resources must be equally distributed among those who create
these resources. We are not convinced, however, that a socialist
revolution that is not also a feminist and anti-racist revolution will
guarantee our liberation.
This is what I have in mind.
That doesn't make any sense. Intersectionality, at least the version I'm familiar with, explicitly includes the critique of capitalism as one of it's core elements. It sounds like you're asking about some Democrat/liberal perversion of the original concept.
From the Combahee River Collective Statement;
I'm gonna read that statement for sure.