his is such a fundamental misunderstanding of collectivist I don't knew where to begin. For example your definition of intersectionality is literally the opposite of what the term means: intersectionality is how multiple factors intersect to create unique situations that both sects need to work together to combat. It's a means of diffusing sectionalism.
Sectionalism is a subset of nationality focused on specific regions of a country, instead of the country as a whole, so you're misusing or ass-pulling terminology
again. I think you mean "sectarianism", conflict between subsets of a group, which is much more in line with intersectional
rhetoric, but they're
far worse with it than anyone else. Given the treatment of TERFs, "white feminists", the existence of the "get the T out of LGBT" and so on, intersectionality is an
extremely sectarian monolith that reacts with hostility to any noticed divergence. If you step out of line with
any point, the whole movement goes at you with hostility. It's not smoothing over the issues so there isn't active conflcit, it's demanding monolithic support of
everything with
no exceptions.
Mind describing what
you think collectivism means?
Here's what Merriam Webster has to say about it:
Definition of collectivism
1
: a political or economic theory advocating
collective control especially over production and distribution
also: a system marked by such control
2
: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
Umm... every US supported dictator in South America since the start of the cold war begs to differ on the "economic liberalism vs authoritarianism"
This still follows "tends to". The
trend remains that authoritarianism
usually means a decline in economic liberties. The reason for such standouts can be closely tied to the fact that the US's support rested on the economic liberalism, while the authoritarianism was, bluntly, largely needed to keep a stable government with economic liberalism
at all. With Pinochet, it really was either him or full-on socialists. As in "things are currently being nationalized en mass, including large foreign industries". The Chilean economy was
already falling apart when he came into power because of the rampant nationalization of businesses. I'm just noting the circumstances of the US supporting him, here.