A no small part of feminism contemporary presents itself as a critique of capitalism (to defeat the patriarchy is part of the same movement that leads to defeat capitalism). The argument of this input will defend that a no small part of arguments well spacious the interior of feminism are not only perfectly compatible with capitalism, but -in fact – are an extension of your logic. And so on, and with that we go to our hegelian title, the reason for capitalist triumph over his detractors.
An argument that is quite widespread, and I believe it is in particular between those who are defined to criticize the capitalism, is the idea of the invisibility of domestic work. The capitalism that only understand that which is exchanged in the market could not give value to domestic work, and more still would be based on that re invisible: Only obscuring the work of reproduction it is possible to have a production job available for capitalist production.
Now, what form is chosen to make visible domestic work? To give a market value. In other words, it continues to operate under the idea that only through market exchange, the price which acquires a good or service, that something acquires value. Moreover, the operation becomes as if nothing will change (apart from making it visible) in an activity by the fact of becoming something that is exchanged, that one would say is one of the foundations of capitalist production. And something that, in this particular case, we might well doubt (is it the same cook you buy food made?, does the only difference is that in one case do not pay and in the other, yes?).
Needless to say, it is factually incorrect to the idea that capitalist production requires to make invisible the domestic work. Capitalism can function perfectly with the idea of turning mercantile exchange all operations of the domestic work (in other words, don’t cook, buy food; do not clean your house, buy the services of cleaning). Historically, the configuration of the home where the man works remuneradamente and the woman is the lady of the house is relatively late, and in particular of the middle class (see De Vries, The Industrious Revolution).
The abortion issue is another where the arguments of feminists that standard they are perfectly compatible with capitalism. The argument baseline is the autonomy of the body, the idea that each person owns his own body, and a body that is understood as separate from the rest.
And here one finds the idea that basal that the people are the masters of your body is an argument basement of capitalism initial. Decades ago, MacPherson wrote a beautiful book called The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, which tracked between Locke, Hobbes, and others, the birth of the idea that an individual owns himself -in fact, in Locke, is the origin of any idea of property. And again, we are faced with an idea that has its limits. On the one hand, one might well say that one does not have a body, is a body; but the most critical issue is precisely that of the separation. The idea of bodies individual separate is just your limit in the reproductive processes of the species, where clearly we find a configuration that is less conducive to that idea. And an argument of this type requires jumping concept in which a being goes from being a thing to be a person by the simple fact of birth (even when their capacity is relatively similar to what it was before birth). To avoid misunderstandings, although I am sure that it will be the same: the foregoing is not followed anything in relation with the abortion. Are possible many other arguments to defend it (or attack it), the case is to show that that kind of argument is inherent in a conception of the human being that is perfectly adapted to the logic of capitalism.
A third case, and with this we conclude the input, it is more general. Is the defence of an idea of autonomy that is based on the full non-dependence of others. It is also an argument that appears in several places that one of the obstacles with which lowers the value of women is the idea that they need from others, while men -free – stand by themselves. The release would be, then, to emulate this lack of dependence.
More to say that that, precisely, is the basic mode in that the reason capitalist operates. The way in which feminism relates to the domestic hearth, in particular, is a sample of its high compatibility with the individualism of capitalism. Remember that the home is one of the few spaces that are not commodified internally in modern societies, in fact in more than one sense is a form of real capitalism (let’s say, there is no exchange to obtain the services that occur in the home, in the most concrete case, the food is available to all). The logic of operation of a home can be, usually is, a hierarchical but clearly that is not individual. And yet, one of the logics of feminism, to bring the practices of negotiation, of the equivalence of benefits required to incorporate the logics of capitalism. As Aristotle said (this is one of the famous sentences of the nicomachean Ethics) that when there is friendship there is no need of justice (1155a): In the last instance, there is concern about the equivalence, because -among other things – lets you import the distinction of self and other. Transform the sphere of the intimate in the scope of the contract, and thus to extend the logic of capitalism, it is part of some of the arguments relatively large in the interior of feminism.
Needless to say, before concluding, that none of these arguments is universal to the interior of something as varied as feminism. However, they are relatively extended. and it is not so rare to find among people who, otherwise, will think anti-capitalists.
In any case, the fact that capitalism takes advantage of those who are manifested in a critical position does not cease to be a further demonstration of the power of the mechanisms of capitalism.