Meh. All the -isms are just excuses for the elites to take the lion's share of the resources and leave the peons with what's left. They need an -ism to sell it.
Capitalism is a mechanism of the Patriarchy and Patriarchy is a mechanism of Capitalism. They are independent, interrelated systems of hegemonic control.
They venn, and mutually, intersectionally compound the benefits of those that they privilege, and mutually intersectionally compound the marginalization of those they don't.
But Sandy J-T is correct, Patriarchy as a social system of control existed chronologically long before the Capitalism as an economic system was ideated.
Any system that is birthed and matured under a patriarchal paradigm, is bound to encode patriarchal ideals in it's design unless it explicitly attempts otherwise.
That is no more (or less) true of capitalism than everything else.
Trying to break it down to the "Yeah, obviously" version, just to see if I can...
Capitalism requires absolutely the existence of capitalists who invest in entrepreneurs (who then hire labour in every form of it we know, but that's not necessarily an absolute requirement). The presence of Capitalists is pretty definitional.
It therefore requires (and reinforces) the existence of haves and have-nots, though potentially with mobility between states (this potential is mediocre in our form).
To act as as entrepreneur who received investment, one must be deemed acceptable for same.
Thus, any standard of acceptability, however fucked (in our case, kyriarchy) necessarily blocks moves from have-not to have, because it means one is blocked from opportunity to receive investment, (leaving one in the labour-selling segment, in our form, and free to get screwed by "acceptability" there as well).
Capitalism: Tool of the status quo power structure, in this case absolutely the patriarchy.
ReplyDeleteSort of. Capitalism benefits the rich. The patriarchy is rich so capitalism helps them maintain power.
ReplyDeleteBrian Ashford, Tony Lower-Basch Are your claims equivalent? If not, how are they different?
ReplyDeleteYes I think we are saying the same thing.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism in the abstract isn't custom-suited to patriarchal needs; a capitalism where this was not so is theoretically possible.
ReplyDeleteIn present formation, with current wealth distribution: Yeah, as above.
Listening
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's a chicken and egg thing. Patriarchy came first. (amirite girls)
ReplyDeleteplease say more, Sandy J-T. You've got a different perspective than my other responders, and I value it.
ReplyDeleteMeh. All the -isms are just excuses for the elites to take the lion's share of the resources and leave the peons with what's left. They need an -ism to sell it.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism is a mechanism of the Patriarchy and Patriarchy is a mechanism of Capitalism. They are independent, interrelated systems of hegemonic control.
ReplyDeleteThey venn, and mutually, intersectionally compound the benefits of those that they privilege, and mutually intersectionally compound the marginalization of those they don't.
But Sandy J-T is correct, Patriarchy as a social system of control existed chronologically long before the Capitalism as an economic system was ideated.
William Nichols tfw you make one stupid sex joke and suddenly the dudes think you're Keynes
ReplyDeleteCapitalism benefits any kyriarchical or stratified society, but is orthogonal to patriarchy.
ReplyDeleteAny system that is birthed and matured under a patriarchal paradigm, is bound to encode patriarchal ideals in it's design unless it explicitly attempts otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThat is no more (or less) true of capitalism than everything else.
Trying to break it down to the "Yeah, obviously" version, just to see if I can...
ReplyDeleteCapitalism requires absolutely the existence of capitalists who invest in entrepreneurs (who then hire labour in every form of it we know, but that's not necessarily an absolute requirement). The presence of Capitalists is pretty definitional.
It therefore requires (and reinforces) the existence of haves and have-nots, though potentially with mobility between states (this potential is mediocre in our form).
To act as as entrepreneur who received investment, one must be deemed acceptable for same.
Thus, any standard of acceptability, however fucked (in our case, kyriarchy) necessarily blocks moves from have-not to have, because it means one is blocked from opportunity to receive investment, (leaving one in the labour-selling segment, in our form, and free to get screwed by "acceptability" there as well).
... Roughly like that, I think.
I think it is interesting that everyone who voted no is a man, near as I can tell.
ReplyDelete