Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

snot

(11,848 posts)
3. Ok, that helps . . .
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 01:45 PM
Jun 2012

but I'm still a little unclear . . .

E.g., capitalism, at least as I understand it in the US, claims to be based on merit, competition, and the like; e.g., theoretically, if a woman does a job as well or better as a man, she should be rewarded as well; viz., those who try to deny inequality are always careful to blame the unequal pay on factors other than merit (e.g., that women are for whatever reason more free to choose the option of taking time out from careers for child-rearing, etc.).

I do believe, of course, that despite the theory, unfair inequality nonetheless persists under capitalism, however, because it advantages men. And that seems to me no less the case under socialism. While socialism may theoretically seek to erase unfair power over the economic welfare of everyone just as capitalism may theoretically seek to create level playing fields in which merit can emerge and everyone has an equal chance to be President, in practice, in the shorter run, men may still be advantaged to the extent women and minorities are disadvantaged (just as economic elites tend to cling to their advantages).

Even if you take economic rewards completely out of the picture, so that every individual enjoyed the exact same material standard of living regardless of their role, it's still gratifying, or not, to get to do the work you want to do, or not; to have a role that doesn't involve cleaning toilets, or that seems more central or important in some way; and it's hard to eliminate that kind of inequality unless you're going to fill roles lottery, or make literally make every single decision by a "general assembly"-type process, both of which are pretty unworkable.

(I hope you realize, I mean all this in the spirit of friendly discussion; I do believe we'd be better off adopting socialist-type approaches w.r.t. at least some kinds of functions; and I'm a feminist. But I'm still struggling re- the question of any logical reason why socialism might tend more than other systems to reduce chauvinisms.)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Socialist Progressives»Claudia Jones--"Comp...»Reply #3