Prisoner of Love: Intersectional Political Economy

Why do patriarchal systems survive? What is missing in how economics relates to the concepts of identity and power?
Jayati Ghosh talks with Nancy Folbre about her new book, "The Rise and Decline of Patriarchal Systems," and explores how we might reframe feminist economics to better address societal challenges.
Buy the book: www.versobooks...

[@misshvkk]

Ohhh she has a new book! Nice.

[@Mrlimabean01]

you guys have been drifting further and further off the deep end the last couple years. I was one of your first ever subs, and you just lost me

[@amalsuhail5496]

Is there a role for law and order to protect just economic life? How would it fit in with intersectionality?

[@harrisjm62]

I'm not a Marxist, but her take on Marxism is incorrect. Marxists have talked at length about relationships and the production of people. It's actually implied by the concept of "Surplus Value", the surplus is the extra that comes after subsistance. Surplus refers to the extras that come after reproducing society (which includes sexual reproduction). While it may be simplistic to think we can make a clear or measurable distinction between suplus and subsistance, it's been a rather useful simplification. Maybe she is right though, she has taught Marxist econ and is likely really good at it but it's hard to tell in a 30 second critique of a 300+ page concept. I really like her alternative definition of exploitation though. Valid points there. It also equally applies as critique of neoclassical econ too.

[@cristianerehem13]

Just watched. 1. I think that the difference between intersectionality and the caricature of the so called "identity politics" is in the explanation the guest gave about how the units of opression create mixed groups of interests that prevent a coeherent advance of the oppression's scrapping and by that fact each group will only be interested in the unit it feels more hit by. And through that precise depicture of the patriarcal capitalist system which intertwines those units (gender, race, color/ethnicity, religion, culture, geography, sexual expression), used to exclude or negotiate inclusion as a trade for giving up in a larger "system reform", we can grasp the misconception by the Left about two feedbacking fallacies: no identity politics can be leftist ideologically - it seems the left sometimes feels entitled to all the right and good in life and doesn't deal with its own intricate set of contradictions - exactly because the left ideal of overcoming oppression as a mentality turned into a system which organizes the society is not embraced by people who are not totally screwed by this system - those various ways and degrees of mixing the units of opression are what gives the system its fkexibility and power of cooptation: a white woman not-poor if hit by "being a woman disadvantages" and not conformed with that will only stand up against that feature while defending her advantages even as a reason to not be screwed... The same for a hetero black rich man or woman, a gay white rich man or woman, and the list of "screwed screwers" goes on. Left cannot act as if any fight for a particular equalizing is or should be necessarily leftist. And that's ok even because the Left isn't yet, after all the progress that Left feminism did, totally embracing every unit of oppression - the opposition between "identity" and "class struggle" on the "Left" or the acceptance of "identity politics" rather than an intersectionality understanding and reviewing of leftist strategies show how people in the left are as hypocritical and attached to their own prejudices and advantages as the right. But that isn't my point - it's just a thing I've been commenting for years and still bothers me why people insist in being dumb about it - maybe that intertwining of units' advantages can explain it. 2. My point is a thing I was thinking before watching this, after seeing the news: when the guest talked about changing the economy of goods for one of care and social service I thought that isn't a coincidence that the humanity is getting older, women and men are not wanting to have children (also because of the ecological crisis but as a result of the changing models and roles of tradicional family) and for me this can only be the Collective Unconscious being prepared for the ecological revolution which is the only way humanity can survive. Not only a decreasing population will explore less a depleted planet but a majority of elderly will impose on the youngsters the duty of care and with less "productive" humanpower the societies will have to change the way they produce and share. No wonder that this revolution is coming by the hands of youngsters becoming equality powerful to the eldest in the enviro movts, indigenous peoples everywhere and women of every age and place standing up against the grabbing of their territory (for sex in many ways, from rape to unwanted maternity). It's the Nature standing up for itself everywhere and that's the revolution happening that people can't recognise because still waiting for a male model of it, all those that failed... Note: the two important news that gave me that insight were the chinese change in birth policies and one that I watched today on Democracy Now!, a young girl giving a speech in some school/college event in which he gave up on the prepared words to make a heartfelt appeal against laws in the US banning birth control by women. Two different countries and cultures but still the state regulating it - in China is yet understandable due to the size of its population but no law can bend human will - for the good and the bad - and the right of Nature to self defense against humanity. And about children, with so many of them without family or carers, maybe people who are not wanting to birth their "own blood dinaties..." will be able to mother them as human beings and not heirs. So I think the author is right in preparing people for an "age of care" economy/society because that it seems to be the plan of Nature to reeducate this delinquent species while recovers itself from the several centuries war of "male dominance". People need to see beyond the headlines and the myopic ideologies. Thanks for the insights and sorry for my too much talking. Sampa/SP, Brazil, 03/june/2021 (Corpus Christy) - 14h45 (-3GMT).

[@Svemirsky]

Um, are you serious??

[@amalsuhail5496]

Protection

[@thisisastupidfeature]

Intersectional Political Economy: A terrifying concept.

[@aritragupta161]

Terrifying to those who gets to lose their position of power.

[@thisisastupidfeature]

@@aritragupta161 lose*

[@Childlesscatlaby]

The concept of "Surplus" within the traditional economic theory is based on false logic..rational actors making rational decisions, leverage of physical assets as a primary means to create fiat " capital" surplus. Platforms and blockchain enable exponential mesoscale economic flows that aren't measured in P&Ls, accounted for on balance sheets or GDP. Accounting based on 1+1 = 2 can't compete against resourcefulness. Given an infrastructure of freedom of human ingenious capacity to organize around innovation,, surplus is based on the quantum equation of 1+1=3.

[@cristianerehem13]

Just watched. 1. I think that the difference between intersectionality and the caricature of the so called "identity politics" is in the explanation the guest gave about how the units of opression create mixed groups of interests that prevent a coeherent advance of the oppression's scrapping and by that fact each group will only be interested in the unit it feels more hit by. And through that precise depicture of the patriarcal capitalist system which intertwines those units (gender, race, color/ethnicity, religion, culture, geography, sexual expression), used to exclude or negotiate inclusion as a trade for giving up in a larger "system reform", we can grasp the misconception by the Left about two feedbacking fallacies: no identity politics can be leftist ideologically - it seems the left sometimes feels entitled to all the right and good in life and doesn't deal with its own intricate set of contradictions - exactly because the left ideal of overcoming oppression as a mentality turned into a system which organizes the society is not embraced by people who are not totally screwed by this system - those various ways and degrees of mixing the units of opression are what gives the system its fkexibility and power of cooptation: a white woman not-poor if hit by "being a woman disadvantages" and not conformed with that will only stand up against that feature while defending her advantages even as a reason to not be screwed... The same for a hetero black rich man or woman, a gay white rich man or woman, and the list of "screwed screwers" goes on. Left cannot act as if any fight for a particular equalizing is or should be necessarily leftist. And that's ok even because the Left isn't yet, after all the progress that Left feminism did, totally embracing every unit of oppression - the opposition between "identity" and "class struggle" on the "Left" or the acceptance of "identity politics" rather than an intersectionality understanding and reviewing of leftist strategies show how people in the left are as hypocritical and attached to their own prejudices and advantages as the right. But that isn't my point - it's just a thing I've been commenting for years and still bothers me why people insist in being dumb about it - maybe that intertwining of units' advantages can explain it. 2. My point is a thing I was thinking before watching this, after seeing the news: when the guest talked about changing the economy of goods for one of care and social service I thought that isn't a coincidence that the humanity is getting older, women and men are not wanting to have children (also because of the ecological crisis but as a result of the changing models and roles of tradicional family) and for me this can only be the Collective Unconscious being prepared for the ecological revolution which is the only way humanity can survive. Not only a decreasing population will explore less a depleted planet but a majority of elderly will impose on the youngsters the duty of care and with less "productive" humanpower the societies will have to change the way they produce and share. No wonder that this revolution is coming by the hands of youngsters becoming equality powerful to the eldest in the enviro movts, indigenous peoples everywhere and women of every age and place standing up against the grabbing of their territory (for sex in many ways, from rape to unwanted maternity). It's the Nature standing up for itself everywhere and that's the revolution happening that people can't recognise because still waiting for a male model of it, all those that failed... Note: the two important news that gave me that insight were the chinese change in birth policies and one that I watched today on Democracy Now!, a young girl giving a speech in some school/college event in which he gave up on the prepared words to make a heartfelt appeal against laws in the US banning birth control by women. Two different countries and cultures but still the state regulating it - in China is yet understandable due to the size of its population but no law can bend human will - for the good and the bad - and the right of Nature to self defense against humanity. And about children, with so many of them without family or carers, maybe people who are not wanting to birth their "own blood dinaties..." will be able to mother them as human beings and not heirs. So I think the author is right in preparing people for an "age of care" economy/society because that it seems to be the plan of Nature to reeducate this delinquent species while recovers itself from the several centuries war of "male dominance". People need to see beyond the headlines and the myopic ideologies. Thanks for the insights and sorry for my too much talking. Sampa/SP, Brazil, 03/june/2021 (Corpus Christy) - 14h45 (-3GMT).