The nature of reform and the possibilities for 'autonomy' in a capitalist society

[Luís Henrique]

Here, NoXion expresses his belief that capitalism can provide women with "autonomy".

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1186563&postcount=141

To quote directly,


But it's interesting that you think women autonomy "can't" exist when there is nothing specific to capitalism that prevents such autonomy. Patriarchy has in fact, to various different degrees, been eroded by the ideological "acid" of capitalism, which places profit above all other considerations. Notice that in the advanced capitalist countries patriarchy has been greatly diminished in various ways - most women in advanced capitalist nations (and the exceptions are usually immigrants from a less advanced nation) are not forced into arranged marriages and can have lives and jobs of their own (even if they pay less - a hangover from from more patriarchal times) and certainly aren't treated like chattel slaves except in the exceptions that I noted above. I see no reason why the erosion of patriarchy cannot continue, especially in the advanced capitalist nations. Granted, patriarchy still exists (even if in a weakened form in the advanced capitalist countries) and must be struggled against in all cases. But I see no reason for such unwarranted certainty that women's autonomy "can't" exist at some point in the advanced capitalist nations.

Evidently, NoXion believes that people can be "autonomous" under capitalist exploitation. It is a direct defence of capitalism, and, as such, belongs in OI.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Ideally, capitalism should provide equal opportunity, go against discrimination, etc. because it results in bigger consumer markets.

[Luís Henrique]

^^^ Ideally, capitalism should provide equal opportunity, go against discrimination, etc. because it results in bigger consumer markets.

He wasn't speaking of "equal opportunity", but about "autonomy". Even if capitalism could provide equality, it would be equality in exploitation and alienation - in wage slavery, in short - not equality in "autonomy".

Luís Henrique

[Demogorgon]

He's worse than a reformist. You cannot put a hair's breadth between his politics and Pusher Robot's. Both believe capitalism will end when technology allows for an end of scarcity and that it is impossible to end it until then.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I would make the distinction, however, between bourgeois capitalism and capitalism in general. Many RevLefters here are firm believers in the "wonders" of capitalism.

[chimx]

He wasn't speaking of "equal opportunity", but about "autonomy".

This is a crucial point right here. Praising capitalism for granting women autonomy is an absurdity. If he had simply suggested that capitalism has the effect of creating equal opportunity (for exploitation) then that would be a different matter, but this is not what he said.

[bcbm]

Can you demonstrate how the quote in the OP is not an ideological defence of capitalism and capitalist exploitation, or else shut up?

Suggesting that capitalism will allow for the granting of certain equalities as it has no economic reason not to is not a defense of capitalism- its fucking common sense.

[Jazzratt]

Can you demonstrate how the quote in the OP is not an ideological defence of capitalism and capitalist exploitation, or else shut up?

Luís Henrique

Saying that capitalism isn't 100% eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil is not an "ideological defence" it's honesty in argument.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Evidently, NoXion believes that people can be "autonomous" under capitalist exploitation. It is a direct defence of capitalism, and, as such, belongs in OI.

It's not a defence of capitalism any more than to note that capitalism does not require chattel slavery in order to function is a defence of it.

I did not call for women's autonomy to be gained via reformist measures, so your charge is baseless.


Anf if this thread is stupid... does it mean that supporting capitalism is no longer an opposing ideology?How is recognising that capitalism erodes pre-capitalist patriarchal institutions "supporting capitalism"?


He wasn't speaking of "equal opportunity", but about "autonomy". Even if capitalism could provide equality, it would be equality in exploitation and alienation - in wage slavery, in short - not equality in "autonomy".So you think that women in the UK are no better off than women in "Saudi" Arabia? Do you seriously think that the rise of capitalism has not been accompanied by a net increase in women's autonomy?

What fucking planet do you live on!? It can't be Earth, that's for sure.

Autonomy is not a binary condition. It is present in varying degrees.


He's worse than a reformist. You cannot put a hair's breadth between his politics and Pusher Robot's. Both believe capitalism will end when technology allows for an end of scarcity and that it is impossible to end it until then.

You're a fucking idiot if you think agreement on precisely one matter is enough to make mine and Pusher Robot's politics carbon copies of each other.

The idea that classless society requires in it's material conditions a significant decrease in scarcity brought about by new technology is not unprecedented in history - the Industrial Revolution gave the world a "foretaste" of the dizzying heights of material abundance that could be achieved with new technologies - but for some unfathomable (to me at least) reason, this "sticks in the craw" of certain idealogues among the left, particularly the more "vanguardist" varieties such as Marxism-Leninism/Trotskyism/whatever. I suspect this is because such a view sidelines the role of their precious "vangaurd party".

Which is probably why this matter is being brought up here in this thread even though it has little if anything to do with the subject of women's autonomy in the advanced capitalist nations.

This is gutter politics. Because I consider the self-appointed political "elite" that constitutes the vangaurd party (and which has presided over multiple failures) obsolete if not irrelevant in the first place, lots of mudslinging has been directed at me by those who consider me a threat, a nuisance, or embarassing to them... in the hope that something will stick.


This is a crucial point right here. Praising capitalism for granting women autonomy is an absurdity.

Very well, this can be put to an objective test. In which country are women allowed to leave the house without a male relative? The UK or "Saudi" Arabia? In which country can a woman be arrested for "dressing immodestly" (in other words, not covering up head to toe with a fucking black tent)? The UK or "Saudi" Arabia?

That women in the advanced capitalist nations have more (not complete) autonomy than in semi-fuedal shitholes is an indisputable fact. It is not matter of praise or condemnation.

[Luís Henrique]

Suggesting that capitalism will allow for the granting of certain equalities as it has no economic reason not to is not a defense of capitalism- its fucking common sense.

Again - he did not suggest that capitalism can grant certain equalities. He stated that capitalism can allow women "autonomy". Something that it cannot allow even to men, by the way.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Saying that capitalism isn't 100% eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil is not an "ideological defence" it's honesty in argument.

Capitalism isn't 100% evil. But it cannot grant women "autonomy". And the fact that it isn't 100% evil (but what is? anti-abortionism, perhaps?) doesn't mean that we should oppose it 80%.

Stop defending what he didn't write, and start defending what he effectively wrote - or shut up.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Autonomy is not a binary condition. It is present in varying degrees.

Ah.

And so, women can have some extent of autonomy, even if abortion is forbidden?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Very well, this can be put to an objective test. In which country are women allowed to leave the house without a male relative? The UK or "Saudi" Arabia? In which country can a woman be arrested for "dressing immodestly" (in other words, not covering up head to toe with a fucking black tent)? The UK or "Saudi" Arabia?

Or, in which country are women allowed to leave the house without a male relative? In Saudi Arabia, where abortion is forbidden, exception made for cases of danger to the health of the woman, or in Chile, where it is forbidden, period?

Luís Henrique

[Demogorgon]

You're a fucking idiot if you think agreement on precisely one matter is enough to make mine and Pusher Robot's politics carbon copies of each other.

The idea that classless society requires in it's material conditions a significant decrease in scarcity brought about by new technology is not unprecedented in history - the Industrial Revolution gave the world a "foretaste" of the dizzying heights of material abundance that could be achieved with new technologies - but for some unfathomable (to me at least) reason, this "sticks in the craw" of certain idealogues among the left, particularly the more "vanguardist" varieties such as Marxism-Leninism/Trotskyism/whatever. I suspect this is because such a view sidelines the role of their precious "vangaurd party".

Which is probably why this matter is being brought up here in this thread even though it has little if anything to do with the subject of women's autonomy in the advanced capitalist nations.

This is gutter politics. Because I consider the self-appointed political "elite" that constitutes the vangaurd party (and which has presided over multiple failures) obsolete if not irrelevant in the first place, lots of mudslinging has been directed at me by those who consider me a threat, a nuisance, or embarassing to them... in the hope that something will stick.

You believe that Capitalism cannot be overthrown at this time and rather than any change being brought about by the working class it will be brought about by science. What exactly is Leftist about that?


Very well, this can be put to an objective test. In which country are women allowed to leave the house without a male relative? The UK or "Saudi" Arabia? In which country can a woman be arrested for "dressing immodestly" (in other words, not covering up head to toe with a fucking black tent)? The UK or "Saudi" Arabia?

That women in the advanced capitalist nations have more (not complete) autonomy than in semi-fuedal shitholes is an indisputable fact. It is not matter of praise or condemnation.
Given that Saudi Arabia is probably a better example of unrestrained capitalism these days than the UK, that is not a very good argument.

[Dimentio]

Capitalism is better than feudalism and chattel slavery, I think we all could agree. Capitalism also tends to erode pre-capitalist patriarchal structures which are inhibiting it's growth capacity. I think we all could agree on that as well.

I wonder if the creator of this thread is drunk or if it is simply trolling.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ah.

And so, women can have some extent of autonomy, even if abortion is forbidden?

There are always limits on autonomy. Some of these limits are reasonable, others are not. I consider the limitation of abortion to be a very much unreasonable limit on women's autonomy. I think most people would agree that limitations against one's autonomy to murder to be reasonable.


Or, in which country are women allowed to leave the house without a male relative? In Saudi Arabia, where abortion is forbidden, exception made for cases of danger to the health of the woman, or in Chile, where it is forbidden, period?Different countries have different limitations on women's autonomy, I know that already. What is your point? That Chile is also infested with pre-capitalist notions of woman's autonomy?


You believe that Capitalism cannot be overthrown at this time...It can't at this moment in time. Otherwise it would have been done already. Obviously, the material conditions aren't right.


...and rather than any change being brought about by the working class it will be brought about by science. What exactly is Leftist about that?No, that's not what I am arguing. The working class will never get what they want unless they take it for themselves. But in order for a classless society to continue functioning, scarcity has to be eliminated (or there must be such abundance that to all intents and purposes it is eliminated). In order for scarcity to be eliminated or practically eliminated, there needs to be a high level of technological sophistication within that society.

This, for me, raises one question. What level of technological sophistication is required for classless society to function? Perhaps we've already reached it, or have yet to reach it. The thing is, and I am willing to admit this straight out, I do not know. The Paris Commune and anarchist Spain suggest that classless societies can be run with a technology level lower than today's, but I feel they did not last long enough to show that such societies are possible in the long-term for such technology levels, only that such societies are indeed possible if they are struggled for by class-conscious people. However, people are ultimately bound by material conditions and if the material conditions (including technology level) are not right for classless society, then it will fall regardless of what the people within it do - ideas do not win in the fight against reality.


Given that Saudi Arabia is probably a better example of unrestrained capitalism these days than the UK, that is not a very good argument.Unrestrained capitalism? You're having a fucking joke, aren't you? Considering that only about 40% of GDP comes from the private sector, I highly doubt it is as "unrestrained" as you make it out to be.

And this is of course ignoring the fact that the current main driving force of the Saudi economy - Oil - did not arise until after WWII.

The advanced capitalist countries have been so for longer than that, so little wonder.

[Demogorgon]

It can't at this moment in time. Otherwise it would have been done already. Obviously, the material conditions aren't right.The political conditions are not right. The technological conditions are just fine and have been for a very long time. I don't know what Utopian dream you have for Communism, but a classless society based upon worker self management is very possible


No, that's not what I am arguing. The working class will never get what they want unless they take it for themselves. But in order for a classless society to continue functioning, scarcity has to be eliminated (or there must be such abundance that to all intents and purposes it is eliminated). In order for scarcity to be eliminated or practically eliminated, there needs to be a high level of technological sophistication within that society.The elimination of scarcity of course means that our productive ability will need to be greater than our capacity to consume. If you are waiting for that you will be waiting a long time because we are nowhere near that point yet. Besides when it does happen, the whole political point will be moot anyway because without scarcity there are no need for distribution systems and capitalism would simply not exist.


Unrestrained capitalism? You're having a fucking joke, aren't you? Considering that only about 40% of GDP comes from the private sector, I highly doubt it is as "unrestrained" as you make it out to be.

And this is of course ignoring the fact that the current main driving force of the Saudi economy - Oil - did not arise until after WWII.

The advanced capitalist countries have been so for longer than that, so little wonder.
THis shows a rather impoverished level of economic knowledge. The Oil Industry is controlled by the Saudi State meaning that a large proportion of the economy exists nominally in the public sector, however unless the Government makes a specific policy to run its public sector firms differently, they operate in exactly the same way as private sector firms. The Saudi Government indeed runs the oil industry like any other firm.

Now the reason Saudi is a better example of unrestrained capitalism than the UK is because of much lower taxes, much less regulation and much fewer Labour Rights. None of that is deniable. Hence a more capitalistic country is perfectly capable of being more patriarchal than a less capitalistic one.

Indeed if you look at the worlds most capitalistic societies, almost without exception, women are in a lower place than in equivalent countries.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The political conditions are not right. The technological conditions are just fine and have been for a very long time. I don't know what Utopian dream you have for Communism, but a classless society based upon worker self management is very possible

Until proletarian revolution actually occurs, there's no way you could actually know that. At least not in the scientific way of "knowing". For all I know, you could hold it as an article of faith. Suffice to say that I don't.


The elimination of scarcity of course means that our productive ability will need to be greater than our capacity to consume. If you are waiting for that you will be waiting a long time because we are nowhere near that point yet. Besides when it does happen, the whole political point will be moot anyway because without scarcity there are no need for distribution systems and capitalism would simply not exist.Production is quite a world apart from distribution, as modern capitalism illustrates. Production and distribution of resources natural and otherwise under capitalism is very heavily biased towards a wealthy minority. It could be that modern capitalist society produces "enough" for "everyone" but until the system of distribution (and production too! Who the fuck really "needs" gold-plated hair curlers?) is reorganised in a much more equal manner we can't know that.


THis shows a rather impoverished level of economic knowledge. The Oil Industry is controlled by the Saudi State meaning that a large proportion of the economy exists nominally in the public sector, however unless the Government makes a specific policy to run its public sector firms differently, they operate in exactly the same way as private sector firms. The Saudi Government indeed runs the oil industry like any other firm.Hardly "unrestrained" if the oil market is dominated by a government-run monopoly.


Now the reason Saudi is a better example of unrestrained capitalism than the UK is because of much lower taxes, much less regulation and much fewer Labour Rights. None of that is deniable. Hence a more capitalistic country is perfectly capable of being more patriarchal than a less capitalistic one.Something which I never denied.

But is also a mistake to assume countries like Sweden, the UK, France etc are somehow "less capitalist" due to having measures in place designed to placate the workers (welfare safety net, more (if not totally) rigorously enforced labour laws etc). Of course, such things are also being rolled back, but this is due in part to the capitalist class in those countries becoming senile and irrational, and also partly because they simply can't afford such things as much as they used to be able to.


Indeed if you look at the worlds most capitalistic societies, almost without exception, women are in a lower place than in equivalent countries.When I say "advanced capitalist countries" I mean those countries that have been capitalist for the longest amounts of time. Those countries have also learned that unrestrained capitalism is not conducive to a healthy society (see: Somalia before the rise of the Islamic Courts). Advanced capitalist nations have moved beyond "gangster capitalism" like what is found in Russia today.

Of course, abortion rights in the US are continuously under attack compared to European countries, but that is due to a particular historical anomaly - the US is the exception, not the rule.

[Demogorgon]

Until proletarian revolution actually occurs, there's no way you could actually know that. At least not in the scientific way of "knowing". For all I know, you could hold it as an article of faith. Suffice to say that I don't.I am talking, as I always do, from an economic perspective. Detailed observation of capitalist economies leads me to believe that Socialism is possible. The actual economic changes needed are not as complicated as you might think, change certain key structural points and the rest will follow. The tricky part is the political revolution needed to do this.


Production is quite a world apart from distribution, as modern capitalism illustrates. Production and distribution of resources natural and otherwise under capitalism is very heavily biased towards a wealthy minority. It could be that modern capitalist society produces "enough" for "everyone" but until the system of distribution (and production too! Who the fuck really "needs" gold-plated hair curlers?) is reorganised in a much more equal manner we can't know that.That's not the elimination of scarcity though. Simply meeting everybody's needs (which is perfectly possible now, it just needs the political change required to alter the distribution system) is not the problem solved. People naturally want more than just the basics. All I need to survive is food, shelter and clothing. But I want (and am entitled to want) more than that. For scarcity to be eliminated we would need to gain the productive capacity to produce as much as anybody might want. We are not there by a long shot. So for the time being, egalitarian goals are an economic matter. And that means we (the working class) need to take political power in order to get our hands on the economic tool box


Hardly "unrestrained" if the oil market is dominated by a government-run monopoly.Oh for heaven's sake. Monopoly is a natural part of capitalism. The existence of such a large monopoly is part of the reason I say Saudi is much closer to unrestrained capitalism



When I say "advanced capitalist countries" I mean those countries that have been capitalist for the longest amounts of time. Those countries have also learned that unrestrained capitalism is not conducive to a healthy society (see: Somalia before the rise of the Islamic Courts). Advanced capitalist nations have moved beyond "gangster capitalism" like what is found in Russia today.Why is Switzerland more patriarchal than Austria? America more patriarchal than Canada? I could go on.


Of course, abortion rights in the US are continuously under attack compared to European countries, but that is due to a particular historical anomaly - the US is the exception, not the rule.
Not at all. In fact one of the striking things about capitalism is that it initially limited abortion rights more than feudalism did. Under Feudalism the typical position was for abortion to be legal up until quickening. Capitalism moved to outlaw it altogether.

[TC]

Here, NoXion expresses his belief that capitalism can provide women with "autonomy".

Evidently, NoXion believes that people can be "autonomous" under capitalist exploitation. It is a direct defence of capitalism, and, as such, belongs in OI.



I think its pretty obvious that NoXion meant that capitalism can provide women autonomy from patriarchal oppression and exploitation*, not from all forms of oppression and exploitation. Clearly capitalism can undermine (or strengthen) patriarchal relations just like it can undermine (or strengthen) feudal relations; it all depends on the particular dynamic between capitalist interests and the interests of the older institution.


*=note, non-technical use of the term.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

First, let me just highlight the important bits of what Luis Henrique quoted:


Granted, patriarchy still exists (even if in a weakened form in the advanced capitalist countries) and must be struggled against in all cases.

How in the fuck is this reformist? Where do I advocate women "voting their way to freedom"?


I am talking, as I always do, from an economic perspective. Detailed observation of capitalist economies leads me to believe that Socialism is possible. The actual economic changes needed are not as complicated as you might think, change certain key structural points and the rest will follow. The tricky part is the political revolution needed to do this.

Empty doubletalk to cover up your own lack of knowledge.

At least I have the honesty to admit when I don't know shit!


That's not the elimination of scarcity though. Simply meeting everybody's needs (which is perfectly possible now, it just needs the political change required to alter the distribution system) is not the problem solved. People naturally want more than just the basics. All I need to survive is food, shelter and clothing. But I want (and am entitled to want) more than that. For scarcity to be eliminated we would need to gain the productive capacity to produce as much as anybody might want. We are not there by a long shot. So for the time being, egalitarian goals are an economic matter. And that means we (the working class) need to take political power in order to get our hands on the economic tool boxThe transition from class to classless society is an unprecedented event historically. I would not be at all surprised to learn that it requires more than the simple "political change" that you seem to paint it as. In fact, the paradigm shift is so great that I suspect that it requires a major change in material conditions - and the only possible source of change that is likely to result in material conditions conducive to bringing about classless society that I can see at the moment is technological development. Of course, there are other sources of material change that I can think of, but most (if not all) of them are not conducive to bringing about the correct conditions (major asteroid impacts, global thermonuclear war, etc).


Oh for heaven's sake. Monopoly is a natural part of capitalism. The existence of such a large monopoly is part of the reason I say Saudi is much closer to unrestrained capitalismWhatever the nature of Arabia's economics, it cannot be denied that socially it remains in the medieval period. In fact, I think that "Saudi" Arabia's oil industry is an example of imperialist-sponsored "hyperdevelopment" that neglects everything else. So you cannot really use the Saudi oil industry as an example of their economic advancement, as ultimately the Saudi oil industry answers to Washington, not Riyadh.


Why is Switzerland more patriarchal than Austria? America more patriarchal than Canada? I could go on.I would be interested to know exactly how you determine that Switzerland is more patriarchal than Austria. As to the US being more patriarchal than Canada, there are good historical reasons for that - as I said, the US is a bit of an "odd duck" among the advanced capitalist nations, socially speaking.


Not at all. In fact one of the striking things about capitalism is that it initially limited abortion rights more than feudalism did. Under Feudalism the typical position was for abortion to be legal up until quickening. Capitalism moved to outlaw it altogether.Actually it wasn't "capitalism" that moved to outlaw abortions, it was a bunch of clerics, "social reformers" and other reactionaries who felt that women were "getting out of hand". The capitalists were probably too busy trying to make as much money as they could to bother themselves with women's wombs.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Replying to Luis Henrique's silliness from the Demogorgon expulsion thread...


No, stupid piece of shit (see? I can call names too, if I wish). Revolutionaries fight for women's autonomy because we recognise it doesn't exist.Since English does not appear to be your first language (judging from your location), it's perfectly understandable that you should misinterpret my sentence. I used the word "recognise" in the following vein (note the bolded definitions):


–verb (used with object), -nized, -niz·ing. 1.to identify as something or someone previously seen, known, etc.: He had changed so much that one could scarcely recognize him. 2.to identify from knowledge of appearance or characteristics: I recognized him from the description. They recognized him as a fraud. 3.to perceive as existing or true; realize: to be the first to recognize a fact. 4.to acknowledge as the person entitled to speak at a particular time: The Speaker recognized the Congressman from Maine. 5.to acknowledge formally as entitled to treatment as a political unit: The United States promptly recognized Israel. 6.to acknowledge or accept formally a specified factual or legal situation: to recognize a successful revolutionary regime as the de facto government of the country. 7.to acknowledge or treat as valid: to recognize a claim. 8.to acknowledge acquaintance with, as by a greeting, handshake, etc. 9.to show appreciation of (achievement, service, merit, etc.), as by some reward, public honor, or the like. 10.Law. to acknowledge (an illegitimate child) as one's own. 11.Biochemistry, Immunology. to bind with, cleave, or otherwise react to (another substance) as a result of fitting its molecular shape or a portion of its shape.




(transitive) To match something or someone which one currently perceives to a memory of some previous encounter with the same entity.
(transitive) Acknowledge (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acknowledge) the existence or legality of something.; treat as worthy of consideration or valid. The US and a number of EU countries are expected to recognise Kosovo on Monday.
(transitive) Acknowledge or consider (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consider) as something.
(transitive) Realise or discover the nature of something; apprehend (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apprehend) quality in; realise or admit (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/admit) that.
Give an award (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/award).




1: to acknowledge formally: as a: to admit as being lord or sovereign b: to admit as being of a particular status c: to admit as being one entitled to be heard : give the floor to d: to acknowledge the de facto existence or the independence of 2: to acknowledge or take notice of in some definite way: as a: to acknowledge with a show of appreciation <recognize an act of bravery with the award of a medal> b: to acknowledge acquaintance with <recognize a neighbor with a nod> 3 a: to perceive to be something or someone previously known <recognized the word> b: to perceive clearly : realize (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realize)


English is a bastard of a language, I'll grant you that.


Yes, I do. In fact, I am absolutely certain that you would, and, in fact, that it is what you do:You got me completely wrong.


Which, of course, proves my point: you believe capitalism can solve the problem of "women's autonomy" - and to be coherent with that, you would propose a reformist approach to feminist struggles.I stated that there was nothing specific to capitalism to prevent women's autonomy, and noted that women have different degrees of autonomy in different countries. Quite how you managed to interpret that as an endorsement of capitalism or reformist methods is known only to you.


It is true that capitalism "erodes" patriarchy - but it cannot "erode" the kernel of women's oppression, which is to treat them as means of production - means of production for "manufacturing" that special commodity that produces surplus value, labour force.Well, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? but even if (and that's a big if!) maximum women's autonomy is possible under capitalism, that doesn't change the fact that they would still be exploited... as workers!

So capitalism still deserves a "well earned rest"... in the dustbin of history!


The fact that you cannot fathom it shows the liberal nature of your positions, and your objective support for women's capitalist oppression.The fact that not all women in advanced capitalist nations are constantly pregnant baby factories destroys the claim of the immutability of patriarchy under capitalism.

[Luís Henrique]

Whatever the nature of Arabia's economics, it cannot be denied that socially it remains in the medieval period.

Yes, but Marxists believe that capitalism is a mode of production. It is Weberians who believe that capitalism is a cultural phenomenon.

Luís Henrique

[Demogorgon]

Empty doubletalk to cover up your own lack of knowledge.

At least I have the honesty to admit when I don't know shit!
I know nothing about economics? That's a good one. Maybe you should join me arguing in OI for a while to see what I come up with. I must question how you can claim to be a leftist when you have no idea about the economics of the matter

The transition from class to classless society is an unprecedented event historically. I would not be at all surprised to learn that it requires more than the simple "political change" that you seem to paint it as. In fact, the paradigm shift is so great that I suspect that it requires a major change in material conditions - and the only possible source of change that is likely to result in material conditions conducive to bringing about classless society that I can see at the moment is technological development. Of course, there are other sources of material change that I can think of, but most (if not all) of them are not conducive to bringing about the correct conditions (major asteroid impacts, global thermonuclear war, etc).The technology exists for socialism today. The material conditions that need to change are the political ones. I remain convinced that political revolution is needed to get us started. How we are going to get that started is of course a matter that I have no good answer to. There are several possibilities I can think of, but I suspect when it does come, it will be in a way that surprises us. Revolutions have a habit of doing that.


Whatever the nature of Arabia's economics, it cannot be denied that socially it remains in the medieval period. In fact, I think that "Saudi" Arabia's oil industry is an example of imperialist-sponsored "hyperdevelopment" that neglects everything else. So you cannot really use the Saudi oil industry as an example of their economic advancement, as ultimately the Saudi oil industry answers to Washington, not Riyadh.Wel socially Saudi Arabia is perilously close to tearing itself apart. People are becoming increasingly westernised, but the Government is still trying to enforce a medieval system upon them. It is in fact Saudi's strong Capitalist economy that is allowing this though. Thus far, it has provided the Government with the revenue to buy the people off. If you look at the spending the Saudi Government engages in you can see that it is very heavily geared to both social welfare and providing western-style luxuaries.

As for the oil industry answering to Washington, I couldn't say for sure how true that is. Saudi tends to be quite a difficult entity for America to deal with though, that is why the American Government goes ridiculously out of its way to please the Saudis. Ultimately neither of us is exactly in a position to know how the balance of power plays out there. It is not relevant to the point here though. Foreign control does not make an economy more Capitalistic.

Incidentally, as an aside, you may be interested to know that the Saudi economy is rapidly diversifying. They seem to be following in the Emirates (another hyper-capitalist but patriarchal society) in trying to achieve a much broader range of industry. No sign of the patriarchy lightening is coming though.


I would be interested to know exactly how you determine that Switzerland is more patriarchal than Austria. As to the US being more patriarchal than Canada, there are good historical reasons for that - as I said, the US is a bit of an "odd duck" among the advanced capitalist nations, socially speaking.
Well if you look at how under-represented women are in Swiss, politics, business, media etc and how large the pay gap is, not to mention the ridiculously late date they gained suffrage, you can easily see the most patriarchal country in Western Europe (well I suppose Italy runs it close at times). As for America, yes it has been a bit different at times, but that is again because of the nature of its economy

Actually it wasn't "capitalism" that moved to outlaw abortions, it was a bunch of clerics, "social reformers" and other reactionaries who felt that women were "getting out of hand". The capitalists were probably too busy trying to make as much money as they could to bother themselves with women's wombs.Not really. Said parties did indeed want abortion banned, but it wasn't them who sat in the Parliaments on Congresses that banned abortions. Capitalism doesn't like reproductive freedom much. It keeps down the workforce.

[Hit The North]

Yes, but Marxists believe that capitalism is a mode of production. It is Weberians who believe that capitalism is a cultural phenomenon.

Luís Henrique
Yes, but capitalism doesn't only have an economic function and the cultural life of a society is heavily influenced by the mode of production. I can't find anything controversial in NoXion's point that capital continues to revolutionise social relations and, in the process, undermine traditional ideology. The only controversy is over his use of the word autonomy. Hardly a safe basis for deducing his general political orientation and certainly not significant grounds for his expulsion.

[Black Dagger]

Split from CC discussion.

[Mania]

:lol: this is the quality of the shit coming out of the CC these days?! :lol: I could soil my garden with the 'content' of LH, Demogorgon's and Chimx's 'arguments.' ****s. :lol:

[BobKKKindle$]

Autonomy is a relative concept - the degree of autonomy which an individual is able to exercise can vary. As such, it is possible for women to achieve a degree of autonomy within the framework of capitalism, and clearly this is something women have achieved, given the changes in abortion laws (in addition to other progressive reforms, such as legislation which requires employers to pay equal wages to men and women in the same position) which have taken place in many advanced capitalist states. Advocating reforms to further enhance the rights of women and diminish social oppression is not the same as being reformist, as a reformist is someone who limits political activity to reforms, and does not view social revolution as a desirable means of achieving political change.

Relative to feudalism and other prior modes of production, capitalism has allowed for advances in the condition of women - the states where women continue to suffer great oppression (for example, Saudi Arabia) are those where industrial development has not taken place, because these states are part of the economic periphery in the world economy.

[apathy maybe]

Capitalism tends towards social equality. That is, all people are otherwise equal to make or lose their money in whatever way.

Of course, the rich don't want to be associated with the poor, but that is an artefact of all class based societies. Capitalism at least holds open the possibility that anyone can join the ranks of the rich.

So yeah, women, gay, black, whatever? Under true capitalism, all are equal to the white hetero man. Why? Because inequalities are inefficient.

So yeah, under capitalism, women can obtain the same level of autonomy as men.



(For those of you who are wondering why I'm not in the CC, I resigned.)

[Hyacinth]

Autonomy is a relative concept - the degree of autonomy which an individual is able to exercise can vary. As such, it is possible for women to achieve a degree of autonomy within the framework of capitalism, and clearly this is something women have achieved, given the changes in abortion laws (in addition to other progressive reforms, such as legislation which requires employers to pay equal wages to men and women in the same position) which have taken place in many advanced capitalist states. Advocating reforms to further enhance the rights of women and diminish social oppression is not the same as being reformist, as a reformist is someone who limits political activity to reforms, and does not view social revolution as a desirable means of achieving political change.

Relative to feudalism and other prior modes of production, capitalism has allowed for advances in the condition of women - the states where women continue to suffer great oppression (for example, Saudi Arabia) are those where industrial development has not taken place, because these states are part of the economic periphery in the world economy.
Well put. I’ll add that another thing that we must keep in mind, even if it is denied that capitalism is capable of providing any meaningful level of autonomy for *most* women, the case still remains that if a woman happens to be a capitalist she is capable of attaining considerable degrees of autonomy. How free/autonomous one is under capitalism is a function of how much power one has, which is, in turn, a function of how much *money* one has. Capitalism, as such, provides a great deal of autonomy and freedom to the capitalists, just as feudalism did for the feudal lords, and slavery for the slave owner, etc.

[Module]

Capitalism tends towards social equality. That is, all people are otherwise equal to make or lose their money in whatever way.

Of course, the rich don't want to be associated with the poor, but that is an artefact of all class based societies. Capitalism at least holds open the possibility that anyone can join the ranks of the rich.

So yeah, women, gay, black, whatever? Under true capitalism, all are equal to the white hetero man. Why? Because inequalities are inefficient.

So yeah, under capitalism, women can obtain the same level of autonomy as men.



(For those of you who are wondering why I'm not in the CC, I resigned.)

This - for the most part.

As I said in the CC thread, believing that not every single problem in society can only be solved with 'Revolution!' is not reformist, it's common sense.
Capitalism has no inherent need for patriarchy any more than it has an inherent need for anti-semitism, or any other specific form of social discrimination.
Whilst to a great degree social discrimination is maintained within the capitalist system, this discrimination occours primarily on class lines;
Apathy maybe, what do you make of this;
Social equality cannot realistically be achieved within economic inequality, because both serve to uphold each other. Those in positions of political, economic dominance seek to maintain this dominance through the promotion of their own social groups, for instance, the upper classes are the main proponents of the 'white straight male power structure' (as Bill O'Reilly has given us an example of) because this power structure also serves to legitimise and reinforce their political economic dominance within society.
Social discrimination is a natural counterpart of class discrimination, and a tool used by the political elite to justify their own power - I suppose you could say to misdirect class antagonism.
As such, I think that things like racism, sexism etc. have their firmest basis within capitalism and the class system, indeed those who truly suffer from this discrimination are those in the working classes, and those who perpetuate this discrimination in our general culture are those whose interest it is to maintain such divisions (as well as those with the means to do it), the upper classes, the capitalists.
Whilst we are all affected by social discrimination, its form changes within and between economic classes. Social discrimination is, I think ultimately, class discrimination.

However, whilst social discrimination cannot be fully achieved within capitalism, social struggle should be a natural counterpart to class struggle, and neither fully address eachother (obviously).
Social discrimination becomes a part of our entire culture and the most effective way of combating social discrimination is not to kid ourselves that specific economic action will have any great effect specifically on these social divisions. Both social and economic divisions legitimise and reinforce each other but like you cannot beat capitalism with identity politics, you can’t beat social discrimination through simple class struggle.

Patriarchy can be defeated within the context of capitalism, I think, but social discrimination will ultimately manifest itself in different forms. No doubt we are moving away from so-called ‘biologically determined’ social groupings, like race, gender, sexuality … through this new age of science and indeed advancing global capitalism such things become obsolete.
In new ways we are seeing social discrimination form – Islamophobia and the fear of terrorism for example is a new sort of social discrimination based on not biological differences but ideological differences – differences between the interests of one nation and another, etc.. When biological differences cease to become a problem, differences of interest, differences of ideology will take over. Another example is anti-communism, again which can be coupled, historically, with other forms of social discrimination such as anti-semitism.
Anyway I’m going on a little now, I’ve made my point ;)

[BobKKKindle$]

I’ll add that another thing that we must keep in mind, even if it is denied that capitalism is capable of providing any meaningful level of autonomy for *most* women, the case still remains that if a woman happens to be a capitalist she is capable of attaining considerable degrees of autonomy.

This is correct - the form and extent of oppression a woman experiences is determined primarily by her class position. If a bourgeois woman becomes pregnant and wants to have an abortion, but lives in a country where abortion is restricted or is not available through the public health system, she can go to a private clinic (where an abortion can be purchased as a commodity) or travel to another country where abortion is legal. These options may not be realistic for a working-class woman, as she does not have enough money to pay a financial costs and so a working-class woman would be more likely to face the dangers of having an illegal abortion (assuming she does not decide to carry the pregnancy to term) such that abortion restrictions (which is one of the most important forms of oppression directed against women) are especially harmful from the perspective of working class women.

[apathy maybe]

Yes social inequality will exist where there is economic or power inequality. However, as I said, this is an artefact of class society.

Social inequality doesn't have to be linked to physical characteristics, indeed discrimination based on anything other then wealth and power is inefficient in a capitalist system (and thus, given enough time, will disappear).

And so, I completely disagree that sexism or racism are inherent to capitalism. As people become more educated, and technology advances (which does seem to happen in a capitalist system compared to a feudalism system), these irrationalities just up and go.

Does that answer your question D?