As Feminists, as Libertarians, You Cannot Defend Capitalism

I'm Watermark

I'm Watermark

Diabetic
Capitalism depends on the unpaid labor of women in the home to guarantee the reproduction of the current and next generation of workers. This imposes a double burden on women, who most often also work outside the home, as well as do the bulk of the child care and housework. A whole ideological apparatus exists that enshrines the privatized family as the most acceptable form of childrearing and personal relations.

Capitalism has turned sex into a commodity, a reality whose burden falls chiefly, but not exclusively, on women. Women are denied control of their own sexuality and reproductive decisions--denigrated if they are sexually promiscuous (unlike men, who are congratulated) and denied, to varying degrees, control over whether to carry a pregnancy to term. Women also face sexual harassment and violence in the home as well as outside it.

The result of women's burden, however, is not that a working-class man's burden is eased. On the contrary, this privatized form of the family places a burden on both men and women, who are expected to use their meager paychecks to keep their families together, pay for their children's schooling, health care and so on, while the capitalists reap all the benefits.

Women's wages continue to be below men's, and this is justified on the archaic grounds that men are the main "breadwinners" in society. Here again, there is no benefit to men in this arrangement. Just as the low wages of immigrant workers help the bosses drive down the wages of all workers, so the employers can use the low wages of women to keep wages low for men. In addition, it should be kept in mind that working-class couples are sharing less money than if women received equal pay to men.

Sexual stereotyping also pegs women to certain jobs and men to others on the grounds that certain jobs are "women's work" and others "men's work." These attitudes have shifted but still persist.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THESE OPPRESSIONS aid in allowing the bosses to drive down the wages and working conditions of immigrants, women and minorities, which in turn allows them to drive down the wages of all workers. The old saying of the Industrial Workers of the World, "An injury to one is an injury to all," is perhaps the most important slogan for the labor movement in this regard--for unless the working class takes this slogan to heart, it will always be defeated.

The working class consists of men and women, gay and straight, Black, white and brown, speaking many different languages, and coming from many different nationalities. If the working class is to successfully challenge capitalism, it must overcome these divisions. On this basis alone, it is essential to recognize the sources of division and inequality inside the working class if a strategy is to be devised to overcome them; for divisions cannot be overcome by ignoring them any more than it can by stoking them.
Click to expand...

Read more @
http://socialistworker.org/2013/12/19/challenging-every-form-of-oppression
 
women can choose now.

There was a time when a woman could not choose to marry or to work outside the home.

Now we can.


capitalism provides the flux needed for people to make their own way.


how many female business owners do we have today?

how many did we have back when women were forced to stay home?

another problem is now with this freedom of work out or work home families are increasingly choosing who stays home with the kids.

MEN now do that.

do yo9u NOT care about them?

are they being exploited?

NO they are free to make the choice.


capitalism creates a dynamic world that forces any leaders we choose to face the power of the pocketbook.


any system without the dynamic force of capitalism and how it can change the game at any moment keeps any leader who makes their way to power much less capable fo becoming a dictator.

shit changes


capitalism makes sure shit is always changing and that the levers on power are slippery.


You cant have real freedom without it
 
now I posted from my mind


you gonna try doing that as well as just lapping up someone elses opinion?
 
Women do, depending upon their circumstance, have a choice. They can work in the home, with their labors unpaid, and currency income belonging to the man. Or they can work outside the home, being turned into a commodity, stripped of creative control over their work, and paid below their value.

Also, capitalism isn't so good about change. The US, if you'd like to use it, is a good example. Objectively, how much has changed since early-era industrial capitalism, or the depression and dust bowl? Living standards may be up, thanks to policies hatched as a result of European Marxists. And we've made some social improvements, though they pale in comparison to socialist organizations and governments. But, more importantly, the same structures of power exist today, unchanged, unchallenged.
 
Dear Rose,

I have been a stay at home since 1987 or so.


By making that choice I was able to save money and rent out property we owned to build for our retirement.

IT was NOT a punishment to me and it actually brought my family many many good things including a son that had a wonderful childhood and even gave other kids a better childhood merely by being his friend.


saying its unpaid is horseshit.

It paid my family back in spades.


what you want is for some bueracrat to deside what gets made and sold in this country.

that is a recipe for disaster.


The people deciding will not be making the decisions on the right information.


take a look at EVERY time you ideas were tried in reality?

You see socialism is the best form of government on paper.

that is not true when you transfer it to human reality.


it failed every time

we don't need to mess with historically failed ideas.

there are ideas that do work


Like well regulated capitalism.
 
Two things:

a.) Where do stay-at-home parents get their salaries?
b.) Are you really ready to tell me that the "pink-tide" countries, and the Soviet Republics had less successful democratic institutions, and less successful social services, than we see in the United States?
 
"Also, capitalism isn't so good about change. The US, if you'd like to use it, is a good example. Objectively, how much has changed since early-era industrial capitalism, or the depression and dust bowl? Living standards may be up, thanks to policies hatched as a result of European Marxists. And we've made some social improvements, though they pale in comparison to socialist organizations and governments. But, more importantly, the same structures of power exist today, unchanged, unchallenged. "

rose said this and then I said this


the people in power can not hang on to power like they can in a socialist country.


what you want to do is make the corporate leaders THE GOVERNMENT.

don't you see that?
 
There is no way around having the corporations even when we have government corporations.

someone has to produce all the shit we need and want right?

what does socialism do?

they make those jobs government jobs.


those people will have a lock for life on those jobs huh

right now a CEO can get tossed on their ass for not preforming in a way the benefits the company.

you want that person to now be a government employee with MASSIVE power
 
evince said:
"Also, capitalism isn't so good about change. The US, if you'd like to use it, is a good example. Objectively, how much has changed since early-era industrial capitalism, or the depression and dust bowl? Living standards may be up, thanks to policies hatched as a result of European Marxists. And we've made some social improvements, though they pale in comparison to socialist organizations and governments. But, more importantly, the same structures of power exist today, unchanged, unchallenged. "

rose said this and then I said this


the people in power can not hang on to power like they can in a socialist country.


what you want to do is make the corporate leaders THE GOVERNMENT.

don't you see that?
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. Socialism isn't dictatorship. Socialism is when production is controlled democratically, not by some autocratic state.
 
Rose said:
That's not true at all. Socialism isn't dictatorship. Socialism is when production is controlled democratically, not by some autocratic state.
Click to expand...



so we will elect the corporate CEOs?


how well do you think that will work?
 
Instead of fighting stereotypes our only solution is to adopt the failed policies of the USSR? The article is written by an educated buffoon.
 
Socialism is NOT workable in the real world.

TOO much power gets concentrated into too few hands.


When you have individual humans creating demand you can not have life long bureacrats desiding what will drive our economy.

It has to be fluid and the leadership has to be dumped and hired as the market response needs.

GO STUDY every country that tried this mess in reality.

Its a HUGE fail.

FACE FACTS
 
Under Socialism you won't have CEOs. obviously, but democratic control. Workers' control always works better for workers, capitalism for thieves.
 
I am posting way more than you are rose huh?


Im actually challenging your ideas about socialism in a way that makes you think hard about them huh?


care to apologise to me about your claim about how I post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top