capitalism = feminism, groundwork I: female economic independence

“Economic self-sufficiency is feminism.”

individual freedom (responsibility) will soon cease to be optional.

destruction of traditional marriage (patriarchy) is inherent in the development of commercial societies. capital wants to bypass the middlemen and cut a deal directly with women—the matrices of its substrate. thus it becomes ever more economically unfeasible, under capitalism, to keep women out of the workforce.  in the end, capitalism = feminism (as a process).

the very nuclear monogamous family is already a straying away from the common human mating pattern (the harem of the emperor) and so it’s a stepping stone to further marriage subversion. thereon, the reconfiguration of marriage, from a buying agreement between owners to a contracting between equal parties, is a particular case of the general autonomization of commodities (as capital).

even the Blue Church is slowly becoming aware that the previous alignment of feminism with communal organization was a mistake:

  • all productive endeavors go through a three-stage cycle – labor intensity, labor struggle, automation – that feeds into the next iteration. consumption and reproduction are currently in stage 2, heading to 3.

As women have poured into labour markets around the globe, state-organised capitalism’s ideal of the family wage is being replaced by the newer, more modern norm – apparently sanctioned by feminism – of the two-earner family.

  • labor intensification.

Rejecting “economism” and politicising “the personal”, feminists broadened the political agenda to challenge status hierarchies premised on cultural constructions of gender difference.

  • labor struggle in reproduction: decoupling of productive capacity – the economic – from the reproductive capacity – the reproductive, through the wedge of identity politics: distraction and camouflage.

“Finally, feminism contributed a third idea to neoliberalism: the critique of welfare-state paternalism.”

  • automation: capital is nomad fluxes, instantiated in distributed systems, rather than centralized organizations. working roubdabout, behind the scenes, occult.

yes, it’s dark and cold, so much so it already scorched many a pious Christian and their pledges of solidarity. the cosmic womb is a harsh mistress.

* * *

capitalism brings anti-memory to patriarchy and slowly dissolves it into anonymous assemblages (we usually call them “joint-stock corporations”). it no longer matters who your forefathers were. what matters is how much money you can make – productive capacity, rather than reproductive authenticity.

a series of particularly bloody wars at the beginning of every modern century depletes the male workforce surreptitiously and undermines the basis for a nationalistic revival of fatherlands. women are brought into factories, and thus the basis of the traditional societies is already in jeopardy. “who will raise the children?!” metastasizes into civilizational identity crisis. and then there were the boomers…

* * *

the full body of capital is a giant cunt, swallowing and emasculating all patriarchal dreams of sovereignty: the reign of the tool is the reign of the female: flowing in a convergent wave of vaginal discharge towards a squirting orgasm—SINGULARITY.

it is only thus – as purely synthetic formless self-reproductive function: as abstract matrix – that “women” can be free.




4 thoughts on “capitalism = feminism, groundwork I: female economic independence

  1. The more prosaic truth is that capitalism has no need for female workers – which is why everything women do in the workforce is either a) officially working for the government doing nothing important, or b) working in notionally “private” jobs that exist because of government (eg. human resources, which everyone knows is just a political commissar position).

    If capitalism needed women, it’d actually, you know, employ women. But it doesn’t. The government employs women, directly or indirectly.

    Women are only “self-sufficient” in the sense of having men pay for the value-destroying make-work that empowers women. In terms of actually literally being self-sufficient, no, women are never going to lay the bricks, run the power grid, resurface the roads, change the oil, dig the minerals, etc, etc, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. capitalism has ultimately no need for any workers – they’re all ultimately automatized.

      but also, no. women have worked first in the looms of fabric production. are clothes something the government makes you do? then, mostly, they were secretaries and computers – way before any government had even plans to organize economy. there’s all other kinds of employment for women too. so you’re reduction is factually wrong. capitalism has by and large, for over 5 centuries employed women.

      not that any of that matters: even conceding that all the jobs there are for women are government commanded jobs, and that men are paying for all that, the question remains as to why do men do pay all that? how the hell have women been able to be invested with such humongous powers?

      don’t set up an imaginary enemy that you can’t defeat.


      1. Mass female labour force participation is a relatively recent invention. The women who were in the workforce were not a large percentage of women – back then, running a household was a job unto itself. Female labour force participation didn’t hit 50 per cent in the US until about 1970. I imagine most countries weren’t much different.

        (Looms? You could have gone all the way back to farms, or churning butter, or cavewomen collecting berries. I suppose it depends on the definition of “work”.)

        At any rate, that’s the past. Today, women in the workforce are mostly government attaches, officially or unofficially.

        How did women arrogate such humongous powers? Because women are the cathedral’s largest client group. This is where the manosphere meets Moldbug. The usual confidence trick for furthering female political power is to bribe men with the promise of sex in return for supporting and furthering fem-centric social change. The social change occurs; the sex mostly doesn’t. (This is all manosphere boilerplate.)

        Men have no class consciousness – maybe the manosphere is evidence of a nascent consciousness among men – and so it’s not surprising that men mount no resistance.

        If we set up our own enemies, we would set up only weak ones. Alas, we don’t choose our enemies; we choose causes, and our enemies follow from that. If that thing of Moldbug’s is the metapolitical directorate of the new right, the manosphere is surely the sexual-politics directorate. The two really are two departments of the one organisation. They both describe reality, and reality is one thing; so, they can’t clash.

        Feminism (that is to say, organised female sociosexual rent-seeking) will – must – die with the death of the framework that enables it. Feminism is a product of the blue social model, and hence will die with it.


      2. I don’t think the original point I made (that female economic emancipation undermines traditional family) depends largely on the relative amount of females employed. but we should definitely get the data for Europe. (the article from Free Northerner I linked at the beginning of the post has a good definition of what a job is). also, we should get the data on female employment areas, as I think a lot of it is (like the rest of jobs in general) in the service economy (restaurants, bars, stores, etc).

        now, if the Cathedral are a bunch of lunatics with no grip on reality, how come did they get to rule the world?

        as for Feminism, as the process of emancipation of commodities, it doesn’t seem to be slowing down.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s