I was talking about how capitalism and the ruling classes used reactionary tendencies to their benefit, and in comes this:

"I know you're doing a tiny little marxist analysis here, but even without attacking your materialist framework, I don't believe that capitalism is inherently patriarchal, racist etc.

Don't get me wrong, capitalism is inherently hierarchic and can utilize other hierarchies underneath it. However, all these other systems of oppression — racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia... — are entirely accidental to capitalism.

Racism, sexism and homophobia are quite literally mere consequences of the history before capitalism: colonialism demanded racism in order to self-justify, homophobia came from the religious institutions during the feudal period, and sexism emerged way long ago when humans first settled down into sedentary agricultural societies.

None of these are essential or necessary to capitalism: capitalism is in no way defined by their presence, nor are they implied by the essential traits of capitalism. In fact, I dare say that there are sectors within the bourgeoisie that genuinely oppose them and believe that it's simply better for work organization (which, duh, is necessary for exploitation) for all genders, races, sexualities etc to be treated the same so that they can all be maximally productive and maximally exploited. Even if you speak of these prejudices as "a tool to divide and conquer", they are but one tool in the capitalist's box: one which can be replaced if something better is found."

Apparently, historical context and dialectal relationships don't exist to this person. I'm curious as to the response and also why this brain breakage occurs. I hate how to these people oppression and everything else that happens are just isolated, separate, and incidental events, missing the forest for the trees. Kill me.