Capitalism Has Worked

In what Ways has Capitalism Worked alongside Divisions of Gender?

In his publication Business Ethics; Richard DeGeorge critiques the proposition as to whether the construct of capitalism is morally legitimate economic framework, but tend to be supportive of it, basing his inclinations on the role capitalism have served in the progression of gender freedom and equality in property ownership. Other scholars in the similar school of thought have maintained that even if capitalism is to be blamed for in economic discrepancies, it has notably lessened the concept of gender disparities, especially in traditional societies (Adorno, 2002). The advent of capitalism bred social and technological innovations that are paramount especially to women and significantly disintegrated dogmas that held sabotage women’s abilities to progress socially and economically. Capitalism shares on the philosophy the ideal of mutual advantage and individual rights. Additionally, progressive capitalism holds that through the institutionalization of mutual advantage through meaningful voluntary exchange; no societal class of people should sacrifice their interests without beneficial expectations (Ahmed, and Donnan, 1994). The basic essence of this essay is to critically evaluate how women have maneuverer through the discourse of capitalism throughout history, while borrowing ideas from the basic principles of capitalism and scholarly sources.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, together with the socialist bloc, the capitalism philosophy has spread out its wings to a bigger global region, and there it has unleashed her economic-based changes. Marx’s methodology is important in the context of this essay, in identifying the capitalist structural strings and macro-level practices that form foundations for the perceived inequalities between male and female gender, in the capitalist states (Baehr, 2010). Additionally, literature that analyses Marx’s methodology is vital in establishing the limits between which political and legal changes should operate to end gender disparities. Although Karl Marx did not adequately write about oppression of women, his scholarly work is a monumental source of theoretical precepts for the understanding of oppression under capitalism regime and therefore again from where instincts about what can be done is also sought.

There are those who share the idea that capitalism has come along with lots of efficiency and freedoms, but again with various moral atrocities such as indifferences and inequalities in people, who are unable to compete favourably, and provide for themselves; which ought to be rectified through government policies. Critics of capitalism sprang from different spectrums including environmental constraints, world poverty, slavery, and the cares of human trafficking. Alessandrini (1999) states that feminists who perceive capitalism as an ailment to the world nations especially women and working people are the greatest critics. Such feminists view capitalism as a system that has continually constrained women’s efforts to thrive in economic spheres amidst the inequalities it induces; which has consequently made women suffer more than men.

In their book, Cudd and Holmstrom (2011) demonstrate how capitalism induced significant changes, in the span and quality of human life especially in the twentieth century. Among the changes the scholars present include such as increase in per capital income, increased life expectancy, reduced birth rates. Apparently, and as the two authors suggest, it takes a detailed eye to see major problems associated with the transitions initiated by capitalism especially on the part of the twentieth century women. The tragedy of capitalism is that it broadens the spectrum of inequality which is detrimental to vulnerable groups and women. Notably, capitalism has apparently increased economic inequality, but again which has resulted into social and political discrepancies. Through elaborate legal redress women have been able to thrive through such forms of discriminations and inequalities (Beck, Giddens, and Lash, 1994).

Through progressive capitalism, technical innovations have improved women’s wellbeing and life quality. Perceived from a feminist defence of capitalism, view, capitalism has promoted social innovations and specifically disintegrated to old dogmas and patriarchal thresholds that compromised women’s social statuses. Capitalism therefore reawakened women from a deep slumber, to the opposition of oppressive traditions and hierarchies of caste and gender, and the realization of their strengths and abilities in the realm of economic power and social justice just as men (Belchem, 1990).

Capitalism in its extraction is characterized by non-discriminate and legal-based protections for private property, cooperatives, and competitive market for trade. In view of this premise, it therefore implies that capitalism is central to social and governmental sanctioned nature of a system. Capitalism is a kind of cooperative competition and a bunch of socially accepted doctrines by which the proponents extract advantages from (Brick, 2006). The capitalism normative value is dependent upon the legislations which delimit the game and the advantages by which the stakeholders obtain. The nature of capitalism does not relate with mannerisms of how resources are distributed in a system, since the government or private agencies can redistribute the outcome of exchange and production but again only to some extent. The art of redistributing goods that alleviate the incentive for citizens to create business and produce goods and services for the pursuit of trade is not within the jurisdictions of capitalism. This has consequently granted all gender some capacities and fairground to venture into business (Bulmer, 1986).

Controversially, capitalism in the face of women has been an elemental source of progression. This premise can be argued on the context of what capitalism has done cumulatively over time and how it has changed the realms of women freedom and the vulnerable members of society. While looking through the shadows of history, it is conspicuous that the magnitudes of oppression that gender groups, castes, racial extractions, experienced before the advent of capitalism has reduced relative to the present day (Cudd, 2015). This therefore begs for a question as to whether capitalism alleviates such forms of oppressions in a more comprehensive manner than any other economic system. The scenario also raises a question as to whether the apparent increase in inequality under capitalism regime proclaim capitalism as a regressive social institution.

Davis and Monk (2011) argue that capitalism does not put in place oppressive situations for race, caste groups or gender but instead is a tool that creates a condition with inequalities of wealth and income distributions. The role of capitalism is perceived to intensify the existing inequalities amongst women and the vulnerable class (Dedeoglu, 2007). In the absence of such conditions, capitalism still tends to induce inequality of incomes and wealth and therefore a source of social inequality. The ethical aesthetics can draw an observation, on the fact that capitalism is thus morally wrong in creating intense gaps between the rich and the poor. Controversially, capitalism has been creating economic discrepancies, but again through positive means, such as trade and not entirely impoverishing the particular societal members of capitalist states. At such a particular point, become a vital controller for malpractices, through legislations and establishment of a rule of law that define the boundaries within which to act (Cudd, 2015).

When inequality emerges to be unfair, then it forms a tenet that proclaims it as morally unacceptable. Capitalism laid foundations for economic inequalities based on its ability to disseminate goods into market places as dictated by the force of demand for such goods and services as well. The individuals with the capacity to control the supply of the high demand goods are highly rewarded, while those unable because of their skill, competencies or any other factor are not appropriately awarded. This forms the authentic of economic inequality, which is created on the face of morality (Dennis, 2012). Since the patriarchal society has not empowered women enough capacities, this form the reason why most of them have lagged behind. But when inequalities are induced fraudulently, then unjustified inequalities come into existence. The laws of land then come into play to leverage and make better the conditions prevailing.

Most proponents and interested elites to this subject of capitalism concur with the sense that severe poverty is not morally appropriate but are not in harmony about how to approach the issue for a solution. As maintained in the above sentiments, capitalism creates discrepancies in income distribution through differential demands for services and goods that create the chances of trade. Notably, capitalism also inspires innovation as individuals look for best means to compete and be the best in the limelight of markets in terms of goods and services delivery. Innovation then consequently gives birth to global wealth. Since inequality is accountable for innovation, inequality thus becomes morally acceptable (Gimenez, 2005).

The interplay between gender and capitalism is eloquent in presence amidst how the societal webs confer the female gender empowerment to control some aspects in the economic hemisphere. The women- deprived, and chauvinistic societies therefore implies that women have little threshold to contribute to the supply of demanded goods, or to control vital innovations that can sparkle their position economically (Kocabıçak, 2013). The same discourse applies to other vulnerable groups who do not have the basic ground to control some incentives for supply and innovations. Through such a capitalist cocoon, women have continually not had a staircase to stand firm and indeed act accordingly, until recently in some civilizations when such norms are broken through informed legislations that focus on empowerment of vulnerable people (Wright, 2013).

More radically, capitalism has awakened women from their bed into the public limelight and exposure. In such exposure, women have come into contacts with ideas, people and technical innovations, and become aware of what they need to do for the best of their economic prowess. Moreover, capitalism has exposed men and women to new concepts and ideologies through the interactions within different cultural affiliations and personalities. Remarkably, it has indeed reduced the oppressions inflicted by traditional dogmas that constructed gender-based hierarchies. Those who intent to maintain and live by such traditions are condemned to fight against the strings of capitalism to stir things up (Lal, 1987).

Notably, capitalism introduces four main mechanisms that seek to overthrow the tradition to forge new pathway in the pursuit to conquer the patriarchal oppression of women. In the domain of materialism, capitalism seek to subvert the ancient forms of deformed desires and misleading doctrines by adopting concrete choices tamed to unleash women’s potentials. By granting women job opportunities and ages, capitalism grants them an opportune moment for self-exploration outside their homes and therefore giving them a starting point to new beginnings in economics. When such empowerments become manifested, then women begin to fight for their place in seeking equality with men (Putnam, 2001). This also gives them an elevated bargaining power, making them able to resist forms of violence that society may perpetrate on them. Additionally, capitalism has given women an option for them to become entrepreneurs and therefore become self-bosses. This is an informed choice in this arena.

Another mechanism that capitalism has promised women is the drive to drop traditional culture, which is compromising are retrogressive (Green, 1997). Such drive is built on the threshold of awareness about individual rights, which women are reminded to adopt, in the quest to disband traditional gender ideology and patriarchal systems. Capitalism extracts its primary justifications from the optimization of personal liberty, with capitalists promulgating the philosophy of individualism, which assists in dismantling sexism, male chauvinism, and related retrogressive believes. A practical example is the resistance to family planning using contraceptives and the forbidding of abortion that is commonly enshrined in ancient cultures (Putnam, 2001). Capitalism battles hard to provide an excitement to fight against resistance, preparing children into the competitive society, and responsive adulthood. The elemental ideology of individualism which capitalism advocate for excites both men and women to perceive women as of people with value in themselves, and thus not only for their domestic chores that they have historically perfected.

Thirdly, in induction of free market for exchange; capitalism preaches the concept of mutual advantage. Adam Smith’s proposition of the invincible hand forms an authentic source of this mechanism. In capitalism domain, every individual is implored t tackle his/her advantage and that of the colleague. Additionally, the concept of mutual advantage is formulated from the idea of a positive sum game; which suggests that all the players involved win on equal terms, and at the same time (Rosser, 2018). By acting and playing within an atmosphere of similar structures, every participant can struggle favourably to achieve without compromising anyone else. Mutual advantage dissents the notion that women ought to sacrifice their best interests for the good of others without fateful advantage or reward. By this doctrine, capitalism echoes the concept of equality on the market platforms.

Eventually, since capitalism motivates innovation, capitalist government and business organizations inspire science as a framework for technical innovation. The science framework provide a forum and ground for critical analyses of people’s attitudes and beliefs, and therefore a blueprint to discover that which is upheld but again without any positive rationale. In the pursuit for a critical and comprehensive innovation, established firms go for highly educated and capacitated minds and individuals with varied efficacies (Simmel, 1971). For a society to support such efforts for innovations, it therefore ought to prepare her children well through a system of reliable and need-based education system. In such way, capitalism also contributes into the basketry of societal conditions that are not only responsive to change, but also focused to make it a better place.

Progressive capitalism holds a deeply rooted sense of responsibility in encouraging social and technological innovations in the effort to end feminism oppression, but again lower the malpractices of inequality that propagate the unjust balance between the poor and rich elites. As presented in the above discussion, three major reasons that confer economic inequality moral unacceptable status are; her ability to unjustly influence political judgments in the advantage of the rich, its inclined position to induce people more desperation, and its ability to make people susceptible to violence and social unrest. The essence of progressive capitalism in this regard is thus to operate against these discourses, to the degree of not alleviating the inspirations to social and technological innovation, in the pursuit to make it progressive (Weber, 1992).

Conclusively, by encouraging innovation and accommodating the concept of individual rights, capitalism preaches against oppression of women. Progressive capitalism in its conscious structure tends to exploit the relationship between opposing oppression, and individualism. Additionally, capitalism do not orient with people or organizations that oppose rights of individuals, not only in safeguarding ideological connection, but also inspire the perfect mutual advantage on where capitalism is built. As a fighter of oppression, progressive capitalism then strives to orient itself with feminist political dynamics. As exemplified above, it is apparent and noticeable about how gender has emaciated through capitalism, alongside the spinning wheel of time. Despite the existence of other social and economic models, this essay primarily focused on capitalism. Economic democracy or market socialism equally provides instinctual perceptions of a traditional culture, but are less likely to address the aspect of women oppression. Also they are agents of change; they do not incentivize technological innovation.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Capital Allocation by Financial Markets.

References

• Adorno, T., 2002. Adorno: The stars down to earth and other essays on the irrational in culture. Routledge.
• Ahmed, A.S. and Donnan, H., 1994. Islam in the age of postmodernity. Islam, globalization and postmodernity, pp.1-20.
• Appadurai, A., 1996. Modernity al large: cultural dimensions of globalization (Vol. 1). University of Minnesota Press.
• Baehr, P., 2010. Hannah Arendt, totalitarianism, and the social sciences (p. 71). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S., 1994. Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford University Press.
• Belchem, J., 1990. Industrialization and the working class: the English experience, 1750-1900. Gower Publishing Company, Limited.
• Brick, H., 2006. Transcending capitalism: Visions of a new society in modern American thought. Cornell University Press.
• Bulmer, M., 1986. The Chicago school of sociology: Institutionalization, diversity, and the rise of sociological research. University of Chicago Press.
• Cudd, A.E., 2015. Is capitalism good for women? Journal of Business Ethics, 127(4), pp.761-770.
• De George, R.T., 2011. Business ethics. Pearson Education India.
• Dedeoglu, S., 2007. Women workers in Turkey: global industrial production in Istanbul. IB Tauris.
• Dennis, R.M., 2012. Finding the African Americans That Middletown Left Out: The Field Notes of a Sociologist. Edwin Mellen Press.
• Gimenez, M.E., 2005. Capitalism and the oppression of women: Marx revisited. Science & Society, 69(1: Special issue), pp.11-32.
• Green, N.L., 1997. Ready-to-wear and ready-to-work: A century of industry and immigrants in Paris and New York. Duke University Press.
• Kocabıçak, E., 2013. The relationship of patriarchy and capitalism: the ‘win-win’ scenario reconsidered. Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi, (12).
• Lal, B.B., 1987. Black and Blue in Chicago: Robert E. Park's Perspective on Race Relations in Urban America, 1914-44. British Journal of Sociology, pp.546-566.
• Putnam, R.D., 2001. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.
• Rosser, C., 2018. Max Weber’s Bequest for European Public Administration. In The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe (pp. 1011-1029). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
• Simmel, G., 1971. DN Levine (Ed.): On Individuality and Social Forms: Selected Writings of Georg Simmel.
• Weber, M., 1992. The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. translated by Talcott Parsons. Introduction by Anthony Giddens. London and New York: Routledge.
• Wright, M., 2013. Disposable women and other myths of global capitalism. Routledge.