Introduction
Inspired by this post on Feministe, I am going to attempt to write about feminism and capitalism until I either make some sense of it, or run out of things to say. Here is my intent in writing: I purpose to show that feminism and capitalism are compatible.
First, a disclaimer: I am not an economist. I am not a professional activist, and have had little contact with those of other cultures. I am not a women’s studies professor. I a white, lower-middle class, college student (CS major) who is fairly well read in many areas, and who has too much free time on her hands. Therefore, I may get technical aspects of economics wrong. I may fail to understand the true nature of the condition of women around the globe. I may make other errors. I tend to argue using deductive logic, and may therefore ignore statistical and anecdotal data more than some would.
What is capitalism?
This section is not directly related to feminism, but is necessary for a sense of perspective.
According to the dictionary, capitalism is:
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
So capitalism means that capital – the means of production – is controlled by individuals or corporations, not by society at large or the state. Now try to forget, for a minute, the associations we usually give to the word capitalism. The factory owners exploiting workers, the large nations using economic pressure to force smaller nations to oppress their own people, etc.
What is the minimal capitalistic system?
Let us consider a Hunter-Gatherer society: Large government groups do not exist. The largest economic group is the. immediate family or a small group of people. Let say that one person catches a rabbit, while another picks some berries. Now, each person has used her capital - her arms and legs and tools – to produce value. Each is entitled that value she has produced. Now suppose that an exchange is made, say, a rabbit leg for a handful of berries. Each person has now chosen to participate in the exchange of value – this is a capitalistic system.
The same Hunter-Gatherer society could also provide examples of a communal society. Say that everyone goes hunting or gathering, randomly. Afterwards, each person puts their result in a central pool, which is distributed out to all the members of the group. Thus no one has control over the capital, the value itself, or the exchange. If each person chose what his contribution was to be, he would have control over the capital, but not the other parts of the economy – it is still a communal economy.
A leader-based economy is the third option. A person, group, or religion dictates the use of capital and the exchange of value.
As far as I can see, these three simplifications cover all of the possible economic paradigms. There are infinite variations and combinations, of course. Most western societies have been of the capitalistic variety. Fascism and Soviet-style communism are leader-based economies. Socialism, true Marxism, and many primitive societies are communal in nature. And many societies have different economic systems in place at different scales. Nuclear families, for example are often run in a communal or leader-based fashion, despite the presence of a capitalistic economy.
Note that I have not taken the above from any particular theory or author – it is based solely on observation and from reading literature on the individual systems described. Why have I made up my own classification system? I believe that it will prove useful when discussing the feminist implications of economics. If anyone can find a hole in my system, an economic paradigm that does not fit, please tell me about it. Also, does anybody know a better general term for a ‘leader-based’ economy
In my next post, I will consider feminist objections to capitalism.
(Read the next part in this series.)