Jessica Hoffman’s challenge on capitalism and feminism
Jess Hoffman wrote an interesting post at Feministe on “Toward a Liberationist Feminism (Or, I Hope Pro-Capitalist Feminism Is an Oxymoron)”.
Hoffman, of Make/Shift magazine and other interesting projects, says:
What does feminism, or sexism, mean in a vacuum?And what is that pro-capitalist, individualist notion of feminism aiming for? More Carly Fiorinas and Madeline Albrights? More women participating in — profiting from — the endgame rush to climate chaos fueled by global capitalism?
Again, I get stuck: So many people have already made this critique. Is it that it’s not being circulated, heard, widely enough? Is it that the people defending a pro-capitalist feminism have heard those critiques and simply disagree? But if it’s that, why are they not even substantively engaging with, responding to, addressing those arguments?
Posted by Jess McCabe on 25 August 2008, at 12:49 PM | Comments (14)
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
Shea said:
Brilliant and not before time. I have long believed that feminism and capitalism (at least in its presently formation) are simply incompatible. This make the case perfectly.
Posted on 25 August 2008 at 1:50 PM
Daniel said:
We live in a capitalist society, so does the vast majority of the world, there is no sign of it changing, the alternatives that exist have been tried are worse.
The system can and needs to be tweaked, but anyone thinking a better alternative system is going to come along is living in dream land, and to tie into it any significant progress for women and other oppressed groups does them a diservice.
Anti-capitalist feminists are, (if you will forgive the rather odd analogy) in effect left waiting at a bus stop for a bus that will never come, refusing to walk or to get on to any other buses that might take them near their destination.
Posted on 25 August 2008 at 6:57 PM
A Very Public Sociologist said:
Class society and women's oppression have gone hand in hand throughout all of history - it's absurd to assume you can abolish patriarchy and still have a system based on the exploitation of labour power and the accumulation of capital to the exclusion of all else.
Oooh, I feel a polemic coming on ...
Posted on 25 August 2008 at 10:30 PM
Mobot said:
Daniel - I appreciate that capitalism is so ingrained and so all-pervading that it is difficult for many people to see it as anything other than inevitable or even natural. However, I don't see why it's so difficult to get your head around the idea that a system which is explicitly and unapologetically based around *inequality* can never hope to achieve true social equality and justice. It's all very well for those who benefit from the status quo to dismiss dreams for a more inclusive and egalitarian future as silly, but others make it their life's work to help bring about meaningful change and this does not amount to sitting around fantasising while everyone else gets on with the daily grind. Capitalism is simply not physically sustainable in its current incarnation, and there are alternatives other than living in a communist state.
Posted on 26 August 2008 at 1:21 PM
Jennifer-Ruth said:
Well Daniel, that is a very defeatist attitude!
Why do you think that no alternative system will ever come along? Why do you think that no other system has ever worked? Besides that, we know that Capitalism works via the oppression of people and at the end of the day, only really makes the rich richer. Sure, it gives me personally a lot of privilege, but I can't say that I can ever be happy or comfortable benefitting off it because that privilege is gained from the oppression, misery and sometimes death of others.
I don't have all the answers, but I do know that it is not in human nature to stop looking for improvement. We're always trying to make things better and the idea that socio-economics has reached its pinacle of achievement in capitalism is laughable.
So yeah, I'll stay in dreamland - those that dream are usually the ones who make a difference, not accept the status quo.
Posted on 26 August 2008 at 4:26 PM
kitty said:
I am a capitalist for the same reason that I am a feminist, because I believe that my body, my thoughts and my labour are mine. The idea that they should be utilised for the greater good is the antithesis of feminism.
I have to admit that I do not understand how it is possible to be a feminist and not be a capitalist, or vice versa.
It is strange that the blogger assumes that capitalists have not read the anti-capitalist critiques, while I assume that the blogger and her supporters have not read pro-capitalist literature.
Posted on 26 August 2008 at 5:20 PM
Daniel said:
Perhaps it is a defeatest attitude but no one appears to have suggested an alternative.
Posted on 26 August 2008 at 6:26 PM
Sam said:
Kitty: Why do you assume that anti-capitalists do not believe in self-ownership? Many Marxist critiques of capitalism are based on the theory of surplus value, the objection to profit gained through the capitalist compensating the worker for the former's time, rather than what they produce. As G.H. Cohen pointed out in the book, 'Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality', any objection to a theory of political economy based on the discrepancy between labour time and labour power must begin from the premise that the worker owns the labour.
I hope this helps you understand how it might be possible to be a feminist and not a capitalist.
Posted on 27 August 2008 at 1:36 AM
Carol said:
kitty, from what you say I don't understand why you consider yourself a feminist and not just an individualist, liberal capitalist.
Feminism surely means you want the same rights for all women, not just the achievement of YOUR rights. Now that would mean, in your terms, that all women should have the right to have control over their thoughts, body and labour. But as many above have explained, that is just not possible under capitalism, especially not individualist capitalism.
Posted on 27 August 2008 at 7:56 AM
Bai He said:
Re: Daniel's comment, I have lived in Britain for the past 7 years, but I grew up in another country in Europe, in a society which is based on an entirely different model,a socialist democracy. Daniel's attitude is one I keep meeting in Britons, you feel an alternative is unrealistic merely because you have not tried anything else.
Kitty - a reading list?
Posted on 27 August 2008 at 8:16 AM
Jennifer-Ruth said:
But Kitty, in a capatalist system all your labour is not your own - your labour benefits those far above you more than it does you.
Posted on 27 August 2008 at 8:55 AM
Jess McCabe said:
I also find it hard to understand the idea that in a capitalist system, an individual has much control over their own labour. There's some level of choice over what sort of job you take, but it's constrained choice, depending on, basically, what condition find yourself in, and often in large part that's conditions you're born into. And once in a job, there's little that you have control over - wages, working hours, working conditions... Those controls and limits on how far the employer can set the terms under which you work have certainly not been introduced by the market. The further down the pile you go, the less ownership of your own labour you really have, as far as I can see.
Posted on August 27, 2008 10:24 AM
Daniel said:
Bai He I would be interested to know what country you are refering to.
Is their currently a system in use that people critiquing capitalism would prefer? Is their a well developed theoretical system that they think is better?
Posted on 27 August 2008 at 2:58 PM
Shea said:
Daniel - yes ! I actually like the look of Venezuela at the moment. For once a leader is using his country's oil revenues to actually benefit the poorest of the population through reinvestment in clean water and healthcare for all.
I have always thought a socialist system founded on Keynesian economics was preferable to the current laissez-faire version of capitalism, which through the spectacular lack of regulation and accountability in the financial sector has led us to the brink of recession.
But, if you look at Jessica's article it really is an invitation to develop something better. We are at a point when it should be clear that capitalism as it stands, based on individual enterprise and unlimited expansion of markets is impossible in a world of finite resources. We have seen that certain brands of socialism/communism failed because they did not allow market to tell the economic truth, now we are seeing that capitalism does not allow for the ecological truth to be told (to paraphrase Oystein Dahle).
Given that the vast majority of the poorest people are women it should be obvious that a system that exploits them is incompatible with feminism.
Posted on 28 August 2008 at 12:17 AM