DOCSLIB.ORG

The Reproduction of Empire of Capital Through Incursions of Capitalist Processes Into Non-Capitalist Processes Since 1989 A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Reproduction of Empire of Capital Through Incursions of Capitalist Processes Into Non-Capitalist Processes Since 1989 A THE REPRODUCTION OF EMPIRE OF CAPITAL THROUGH INCURSIONS OF CAPITALIST PROCESSES INTO NON-CAPITALIST PROCESSES SINCE 1989 A DISSERTATION IN Economics and Social Science Consortium Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by RUCHIRA SEN MA, University of Missouri-Kansas City, USA MPhil, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India MA, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India BA (Hons) St. Stephen’s College, India Kansas City, Missouri 2018 THE REPRODUCTION OF EMPIRE OF CAPITAL THROUGH INCURSIONS OF CAPITALIST PROCESSES INTO NON-CAPITALIST PROCESSES SINCE 1989 Ruchira Sen, Candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2018 ABSTRACT This dissertation lays out a theoretical framework for a non-capitalocentric theory of the empire of capital since 1989. Following a complementary holistic approach, it sees the economy as reflecting the society that it is a part of. Thereby, certainly, the economy comprises the capitalist system but it also comprises kinship, community and state systems, necessary for the capitalist system to reproduce itself. The incursions of capitalist processes into the non-capitalist processes is an entry point into conceptualizing empire. This dissertation examines the incursions of capitalist processes into non-capitalist processes and their effect on the politics of identity and emancipation. Its contribution lies in its focus on reproduction and on the relationship between capitalism and systems on the ‘outside’ of its empire. iii APPROVAL PAGE The faculty listed below, appointed by the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, have examined a dissertation titled “The Reproduction of Empire of Capital through Incursions of Capitalist Processes into Non-capitalist Processes Since 1989,” presented by Ruchira Sen, candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, and certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance. Supervisory Committee Mathew Forstater, Ph.D. Committee Chair Department of Economics Norma E. Cantú, Ph.D. Social Science Consortium Linwood Tauheed, Ph.D. Department of Economics Peter Eaton, Ph.D. Department of Economics Viviana Grieco, Ph.D. Department of History iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .............................................................................................................. viii PREFACE.................................................................................................................................................. xi Chapter 1. EMPIRE: WHAT'S ON THE 'OUTSIDE'? .................................................................................. 1 Section I: Empire since 1989 – a contemporary empire of capital ....................................... 3 Section II: Why does the empire of capital require an ‘outside’? ....................................... 10 Section III: What does the ‘outside’ do? ................................................................................ 26 2. INCURSIONS OF CAPITALIST PROCESSES INTO NON-CAPITALIST PROCESSES ....................................................................................... 43 Section I: Historical ‘Primitive’ Accumulation and the Transition to Capitalism in England, Scotland and Continental Europe .................................................. 46 Section II: The So-Called ‘Primitive’ Accumulation as a Continuous Process ................ 56 Section III: ‘Primitive’ Accumulation and Continuous Conflict in Contemporary Context ............................................................................................................. 67 Section IV: Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 75 3. ‘HOUSEWIFIZATION’, LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN AND DOUBLE-SHIFTS ..................................................................................... 78 Section I: Housewifization, the Emergence of the Surplus and Empires ......................... 81 Section II: Housewifization and the Empire of Capital since 1989 ................................... 98 Section III: Explorations in Time Use Data to Illustrate the Incursions of Capitalist Processes into the Kinship Economy ................................................................. 112 4. THE ROLE OF STATE AND IDENTITY............................................................................... 145 Section I- Fictitious Commodities and Disembedding ...................................................... 149 Section II: Defining State in Relation to Hegemonic, Capitalist and v Non-Hegemonic Processes .................................................................................................... 158 Section III: The State as a Site for the Triple Movement: Incursions of Capitalist Processes and the Resistance ........................................................................... 167 Section IV: Dominant and Contender States ...................................................................... 176 5. THE EMPIRE OF CAPITAL ....................................................................................................... 185 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 197 VITA ....................................................................................................................................................... 216 vi TABLES Table Page 3.1 Formulae for Estimates of value of money and 풎풆풍풕̂ ...................................................... 127 A.1 Expendability and Vanishing Women- Number of Women per 1000 Men and Number of Women per 1000 Men in India ........................................................ 184 A.2 Estimates of the Value of Money and 푚푒푙푡̂ , USA, 2003-2015 ........................................ 185 A.3 푬푶푵̂ = Wage Inflows (Monetary Earnings) in Labor Equivalent – Non-Wage Labor – Wage Labor – Care in the USA from ATUS data 2003-2015 ....... 187 A.4 Ratio of Wage Labor to Non-Wage Labor and Labor Hours Spent in Care, USA, 2003-2015 ........................................................................................................ 188 A.5 Average Wage and Non-Wage Labor, including Care (Hours ......................................... 189 A.6 Average over 퐸푂푁̂ Income-Groups .................................................................................... 190 A.7 Ratio of Wage to Non-Wage Labor for Men, USA, 2003-2015 ....................................... 191 A.8 Ratio of Wage to Non-Wage Labor for Women, USA 2003-2015 .................................. 192 A.9 Average Wage Labor of Men by Income Group, USA, 2003-2015 ................................ 193 A.10 Average Non-Wage Labor of Men by Income Group, USA, 2003-2015 ........................... 194 A.11 Average Wage Labor of Women by Income Group, USA, 2003-2015............................... 195 A.12 Average Non-Wage Labor of Women by Income Group, USA, 2003-2015 ..................... 196 vii ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1.1. System Dynamics of a One-Good Monetary, Production Capitalist System ......................... 14 1.2. GRAIN and MONEY in a one good model with capitalist consumption ............................. 18 1.3. UNEMPLOYED and LABOR in a one good model with capitalist consumption .............. 19 1.4. System Dynamics of a Two-Good Monetary, Production Capitalist System ......................... 22 1.5. PRODUCER GOODS and CONSUMER GOODS in a Two Good Model ...................... 24 1.6. Economy as a Network of Capitalist and Non-Capitalist Economic Systems ....................... 39 1.7. The System of Capitalist Processes ............................................................................................... 40 1.8. Systems of Non- Capitalist Processes ........................................................................................... 41 3.1. Number of Women per 1000 Men in India ................................................................................. 96 3.2. Number of women workers per 1000 men in India ................................................................... 96 3.3. Number of women workers and non-workers per 1000 men by industry classification, India ....................................................................................... 97 3.4. Number of women per 1000 men in household and non-household manufacturing activities in India................................................................................ 99 3.5. The Circular Flow of Reproduction (Economy as a Network of Capitalist and Non- Capitalist Economic Systems reproduced from Chapter 1) .......................... 116 3.6. Kinship and Capitalist Systems .................................................................................................... 120 3.7. Average EON̂ 2003-2015, USA .................................................................................................... 128 3.8. Ratio of Wage Labor to Non-Wage Labor for Men, USA, 2003-2015 ................................. 130 3.9. Ratio of Wage Labor to Non-Wage Labor for Women, USA, 2003-2015 ........................... 130
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Me, Myself & Mine: the Scope of Ownership
    ME, MYSELF & MINE The Scope of Ownership _________________________________ PETER MARTIN JAWORSKI _________________________________ May, 2012 Committee: Fred Miller (Chair) David Shoemaker, Steven Wall, Daniel Jacobson, Neil Englehart ii ABSTRACT This dissertation is an attempt to defend the following thesis: The scope of legitimate ownership claims is much more narrow than what Lockean liberals have traditionally thought. Firstly, it is more narrow with respect to the particular claims that are justified by Locke’s labour- mixing argument. It is more difficult to come to own things in the first place. Secondly, it is more narrow with respect to the kinds of things that are open to the ownership relation. Some things, like persons and, maybe, cultural artifacts, are not open to the ownership relation but are, rather, fit objects for the guardianship, in the case of the former, and stewardship, in the case of the latter, relationship. To own, rather than merely have a property in, some object requires the liberty to smash, sell, or let spoil the object owned. Finally, the scope of ownership claims appear to be restricted over time. We can lose our claims in virtue of a change in us, a change that makes it the case that we are no longer responsible for some past action, like the morally interesting action required for justifying ownership claims. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Much of this work has benefited from too many people to list. However, a few warrant special mention. My committee, of course, deserves recognition. I’m grateful to Fred Miller for his many, many hours of pouring over my various manuscripts and rough drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Socialist Planning
    Socialist Planning Socialist planning played an enormous role in the economic and political history of the twentieth century. Beginning in the USSR it spread round the world. It influenced economic institutions and economic policy in countries as varied as Bulgaria, USA, China, Japan, India, Poland and France. How did it work? What were its weaknesses and strengths? What is its legacy for the twenty-first century? Now in its third edition, this textbook is fully updated to cover the findings of the period since the collapse of the USSR. It provides an overview of socialist planning, explains the underlying theory and its limitations, looks at its implementation in various sectors of the economy, and places developments in their historical context. A new chap- ter analyses how planning worked in the defence–industry complex. This book is an ideal text for undergraduate and graduate students taking courses in comparative economic systems and twentieth-century economic history. michael ellman is Emeritus Professor in the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. He is the author, co- author and editor of numerous books and articles on the Soviet and Russian economies, on transition economics, and on Soviet economic and political history. In 1998, he was awarded the Kondratieff prize for his ‘contributions to the development of the social sciences’. Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 128.122.253.212 on Sat Jan 10 18:08:28 GMT 2015. http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9781139871341 Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015 Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 128.122.253.212 on Sat Jan 10 18:08:28 GMT 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Abolishing the Institution of Renting Persons: a Different Path for the Left David Ellerman [University of Ljubljana, Slovenia]
    real-world economics review, issue no. 93 subscribe for free Towards abolishing the institution of renting persons: A different path for the Left David Ellerman [University of Ljubljana, Slovenia] Copyright: David Ellerman, 2020 You may post comments on this paper at https://rwer.wordpress.com/comments-on-rwer-issue-no-93/ Abstract This paper is a brief analysis of how the Left has been side-tracked for about a century and a half by Marx, Lenin, and the Russian Revolution. It is as if the central question was whether people should be publicly or privately rented – with the Great Capitalism-Communism Debate and Cold War being like a “Peloponnesian War” over whether slaves should be publicly owned (Sparta) or privately owned (Athens). Although Marx would have personally favored abolishing the (private) wage-labor relation, the deficiency was in his theories. He had: no theory of inalienable rights to critique wage-labor per se; no labor theory of property about workers appropriating the whole product (positive and negative fruits of their labor); and no theory about democracy in the workplace (or elsewhere). The major fork-in-the-road started with the inchoate “labor theory” of Locke, Smith, and Ricardo. Marx tried to develop it as the labor theory of value and exploitation, and the so-called “Ricardian Socialist” (such as Thomas Hodgskin and to some extent, Proudhon) developed it as the labor theory of property – while modern economics bypassed it entirely with the marginalist revolution. We argue that the Left should take the branch indicated by the labor theory of property.
    [Show full text]
  • The Invisible Hand Mechanism of Property Appropriation
    On Property Theory1 David Ellerman University of California at Riverside [email protected]; www.ellerman.org Key words: Theory of property; appropriation; invisible hand; responsibility principle, Hume, Locke, employment relation, inalienability of responsible agency. JEL codes: B52, D23, D63, K11, J54 Abstract A theory of property needs to give an account of the whole life-cycle of a property right: how it is initiated, transferred, and terminated. Economics has focused on the transfers in the market and has almost completely neglected the question of the initiation and termination of property in normal production and consumption (not in some original state or in the transition from common to private property). The institutional mechanism for the normal initiation and termination of property is an invisible-hand function of the market, the market mechanism of appropriation. Does this mechanism satisfy an appropriate normative principle? The standard normative juridical principle is to assign or impute legal responsibility according to de facto responsibility. It is given a historical tag of being "Lockean" but the basis is contemporary jurisprudence, not historical exegesis. Then the fundamental theorem of the property mechanism is proven which shows that if "Hume's conditions" (no transfers without consent and all contracts fulfilled) are satisfied, then the market automatically satisfies the Lockean responsibility principle, i.e., "Hume implies Locke." As a major application, the results in their contrapositive form, "Not Locke implies Not Hume," are applied to a market economy based on the employment contract. It is shown the production based on the employment contract violates the Lockean principle (all who work in an employment enterprise are de facto responsible for the positive and negative results) and thus Hume's conditions must also be violated in the marketplace (de facto responsible human action cannot be transferred from one person to another—as is readily recognized when and employer and employee together commit a crime).
    [Show full text]
  • JUS SEMPER NEWSLETTER in Pursuit of the People and Planet Paradigm
    THE JUS SEMPER GLOBAL ALLIANCE JUS SEMPER NEWSLETTER In Pursuit of the People and Planet Paradigm Our Latest Publications on Building the New Paradigm of People and Planet HIGHLIGHTS JUS SEMPER Newsletter – Winter-Spring 2021 C O V I D - 1 9 a n d E t h n i c - P e a s a n t (Un)witting Servitude Capitalism Has Failed Back to Production: D e m o c r a c y , C a t a s t r o p h e Resistance in South a n d M i n d s — What Next? (John An Analysis of the Condorcetism and Capitalism — (John America and Meso- Manipulation Bellamy Foster) A Imperialist Global Popular Participation Bellamy Foster and america to the 4.0 ( A l e j a n d r o powerful narrative that Economy (Intan (Andrea Surbone) An Intan Suwandi) — A A g r i c u l t u r e o f Teitelbaum) Wi t h explains Capitalism, its Suwandi) Enlightening innovative institutional true eye opener about C a t a s t r o p h e a l m o s t a b s o l u t e most devastating form e s s a y o n h o w structure to replace h o w t h e c u r r e n t Capitalism (Nubia control of the means of Neoliberalism, and imperialism extracts the current system to p a n d e m i c i s a n Barrera Silva) of production and the mainsprings of wealth from the global build a new society.
    [Show full text]
  • Possession As the Root of Title
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1979 Possession as the Root of Title Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "Possession as the Root of Title," 13 Georgia Law Review 1221 (1979). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POSSESSION AS THE ROOT OF TITLE Richard A. Epstein* I. TM PROBLEM STATED A beautiful sea shell is washed ashore after a storm. A man picks it up and puts it in his pocket. A second man comes along and takes it away from him by force. The first man sues to recover the shell, and he is met with the argument that he never owned it at all. How does the legal system respond to this claim? How should it respond? The same man finds the same shell, only now the state, through its public processes, comes along and insists that the shell belongs to the common fund. It offers the man nothing for it, claiming that the shell was found by luck and coincidence and not by planned and systematic labor. How does the legal system respond to this claim? How should it respond? The questions just put can recur in a thousand different forms in any organized legal system. The system itself presupposes that there are rights over given things that are vested in certain indi- viduals within that system.
    [Show full text]
  • Deserving to Own Intellectual Property Lawrence C
    Hollins University Hollins Digital Commons Philosophy Faculty Scholarship Philosophy 1993 Deserving to own intellectual property Lawrence C. Becker Hollins University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.hollins.edu/philfac Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Becker, Lawrence C. "Deserving to Own Intellectual Property." Chicago-Kent Law Review 68 (1993): 609-29. Hollins Digital Commons. Web. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at Hollins Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Hollins Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Becker, Lawrence C. "Deserving to Own Intellectual Property." Chicago- Kent Law Review 68 (1993): 609-29. DESERVING TO OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWRENCE C. BECKER* My project in this Article is to examine the notion that people might "ti'ese'rvede!len>e to own the ploductsofpioducts of their intellectual labor in an especially ·~t'''",.~tJr()nlg way-stronger than any way in which they might deserve to own .· of non-intC,lllectualnon-int(.llleetual labor..labor,. Such a project runs counter to stamd;ardsta.nd;:ud philosophical analyses of property lights,rights, which discuss desert­ toi:-laloor arguments in general terms and make little or nothing of the distinc;ticmdis:tin•cticm between. intellectual and non-intellectuallabor.non-intellectual1abor" 1 This Article will show that focusing on desert arguments for intel­ lectual property raises a. disturbing issue that standardstamdard philosophical analyses overlook,overlook. The issue is this: Suppose, as seems highly likely, that there are multiple, equally powerful lines of argument that are relevant to the justification of a syStemsystem o,fo.,f private property.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Theory of Non-Capitalist Economic Systems
    Clásicos y Contemporáneos en Antropología, CIESAS-UAM-UIA En The Theory of Peasant Economy, (eds. Thorner, Kerblay y Smith), 1966, págs.1-28. ON THE THEORY OF NON-CAPITALIST ECONOMIC SYSTEMS Alexander V. Chayanov In modern theory of the national economy, it has become customary to think about all economic phenomena exclusively in terms of a capitalist economy. All the principles of our theory—rent, capital, price, and other categories—have been formed in the framework of an economy based on wage labor and seeking to maximize profits (i.e., the maximum amount of the part of gross income remaining after deducting material costs of production and wages). All other (noncapitalist) types of economic life are regarded as insignificant or dying out; they are, at any rate, considered to have no influence on the basic issues of the modern economy and, therefore, are of no theoretical interest. We shall have to accept this last thesis in regard to the indisputable dominance of finance and trading capital in world commerce and the unquestioned part it plays in the present organization of the world economy. But we must by no means extend its application to all phenomena in our economic life. We shall be unable to carry on in economic thought with merely capitalist categories, because a very wide area of economic life (that is, the largest part of the agrarian production sphere) is based, not on a capitalist form, but on the completely different form of a nonwage family economic unit.1 Such a unit has very special motives for economic activity and also a very specific conception of profitability.
    [Show full text]
  • A Topos Strategy and Research Brief
    PROMOTING BROAD PROSPERITY A Topos Strategy and Research Brief Produced by the Topos Partnership for Public Works: the De-mos Center for the Public Sector Topos Partnership | www.topospartnership.com Axel Aubrun | Meg Bostrom | Joe Grady De-mos | www.demos.com October 2009 ABOUT TOPOS Founded by veteran communications strategists Axel Aubrun and Joe Grady of Cultural Logic and Meg Bostrom of Public Knowledge, Topos has as its mission to explore and ultimately transform the landscape of public understanding where public interest issues play out. Our approach is based on the premise that while it is possible to achieve short-term victories on issues through a variety of strategies, real change depends on a fundamental shift in public understanding. Topos was created to bring together the range of expertise needed to understand existing issue dynamics, explore possibilities for creating new issue understanding, develop a proven course of action, and arm advocates with new communications tools to win support. www.topospartnership.com - ABOUT DEMOS Dēmos is a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization. Headquartered in New York City, Dēmos works with advocates and policymakers around the country in pursuit of four overarching goals: a more equitable economy; a vibrant and inclusive democracy; an empowered public sector that works for the common good; and responsible U.S. engagement in an interdependent world. Public Works: Th e Dēmos Center for the Public Sector was initiated by Dēmos as a deliberate attempt to address America’s lack of trust in, understanding of and support for the essential roles of government. Grounded in thor- ough research and refi ned through extensive fi eld-work with state organizations and national constituencies across the country, the Public Works approach to this problem has yielded enhanced understanding of how we can create a more receptive public audience for constructive conversations about government.
    [Show full text]
  • Constant Returns to Scale: Can the Market Economy Exist? 1 M
    real-world economics review, issue no. 64 subscribe for free Constant returns to scale: can the market economy exist? 1 M. Shahid Alam [Northeastern University, USA] Copyright: M. Shahid Alam, 2013 You may post comments on this paper at http://rwer.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/rwer-issue-64/ Abstract This note argues that the competitive paradigm of neoclassical economics breaks down in the presence of constant returns to scale (CRS). With CRS, all goods can be produced at identical unit costs by all economic agents, making self-production a feasible alternative to market production. In the event, an infinite number of equilibria become possible with a mix of markets and self-production. If labor is the only factor of production, self-production is the only option and the market economy ceases to exist. All too often the competitive paradigm of neoclassical economics has been faulted for its unrealistic assumptions, but rarely for logical inconsistency. These critics have also developed several new variants of economics based on more realistic assumptions.2 Nevertheless, these critiques have failed to dislodge the competitive paradigm from its preeminent position in economics. Kenneth Arrow (1994: 451) has argued that this is because the competitive paradigm “is still the only coherent account of the entire economy.” Others point to the ideological function of neoclassical economics: in particular, its defense of the capitalism of unfettered markets.3 This note presents a different critique: it shows that the competitive paradigm is inconsistent with constant returns to scale (CRS). At least since Leon Walras, economists have constructed mathematical models to establish the exact conditions under which a market economy – with fixed resources, tastes and technology – can attain an equilibrium that is also Pareto-efficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Economics for a Full World1
    Economics for a Full World1 Herman Daly Introduction. The Great Transition discussion is organized around four key questions: where are we; where are we going; where do we want to go; and how do we get there? It helps at the beginning to give short answers to these basic questions in terms of economics, broadly defined, with references to where each is discussed later in this essay. Where are we? We are now in a full world, but still behaving as if in an empty world. Transition toward planetary civilization requires adaptation to a full world, and is discussed in I and II. Where are we going? Continued growth in the full world leads us to an era of uneconomic growth, followed by probable ecological collapse, as discussed in II and III. Where do we want to go? I suggest that we want to go to a steady- state economy (an economy of qualitative development without quantitative growth), characterized by longevity, sufficiency, and equity. This is discussed in IV and VI. How do we get there? Part IV identifies two flawed strategies (economic imperialism and ecological reductionism), and a better one (steady-state economy). Part V outlines ten specific policies toward a steady-state economy. I. Basic Vision: The Economy as Subsystem of the Ecosphere When I worked at the World Bank, I often heard the statement, “There is no conflict between economics and ecology. We can and must grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time.” I still hear that a lot today. Is it true? Is it possible? 1 An earlier version was presented as a speech on the occasion of the Blue Planet Prize, Tokyo, November 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberty, Gender, and the Family Jennifer Mckitrick University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy Philosophy, Department of 2006 Liberty, Gender, and the Family Jennifer McKitrick University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub McKitrick, Jennifer, "Liberty, Gender, and the Family" (2006). Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy. 30. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub/30 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in LIBERTY AND JUSTICE, ed. Tibor Machan (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2006), pp. 83-103. Copyright 2006 Hoover Institution Press. 3 Liberty, Gender, and the Family Jennifer McKitrick DISCUSSIONS OF JUSTICE within the classical liberal, libertarian tradition have been universalist. They have aspired to apply to any human community, whatever the makeup of its member­ ship. Certainly some feminists have taken issue with this, arguing that the classical liberal, libertarian understanding of justice fails to address the concerns of women, indeed, does women an injustice. Among these we find Susan Moller Okin, and it will be my task in this essay to explore whether Okin's criticism is well founded. Susan Moller Okin's justice, Gender, and the Family is a land­ mark feminist discussion of distributive justice that raises issues no political philosophy should ignore.) However, libertarians have tended to ignore it. That is perhaps not surprising as Okin 1. Susan Moller Okin, Justice, Gnukr, and tlu Family (New York: Basic Books.
    [Show full text]