Capitalism is good for all social movements – creates opportunity for individuals.

Abstract This paper investigates an aspect of the question of whether capitalism can be defended as a morally legitimate economic system by asking whether capitalism serves progressive, feminist ends of freedom and gender equality. I argue that although capitalism is subject to critique for increasing economic inequality, it can be seen to decrease gender inequality, particularly in traditional societies. Capitalism brings technological and social innovations that are good for women, and disrupts traditions that subordinate women in materially beneficial and socially progressive ways. Capitalism upholds the ideology of individual rights and the ideal of mutual advantage. By institutionalizing mutual advantage through the logic of voluntary exchange, progressive capitalism promotes the idea that no one is to be expected to sacrifice their interests with no expectation of benefit. Thus capitalism opposes the traditional, sexist ideal of womanly self-sacrifice. Keywords Capitalism Feminism Ethics of capitalism Inequality Tradition Innovation Introduction In his seminal textbook, Business Ethics, Richard De George treats the issue of whether the capitalist system as a whole is morally acceptable as a fundamental issue of business ethics (De George 1999). His interest in the morality of capitalism no doubt stems from his earlier research on Marx and Marxism, but he takes pains to frame the field in terms of the justice of the system of capitalism and the practices of business within the system. Capitalism, on his analysis, not only offers the great goods of freedom and efficiency, but also brings with it moral dangers that must be kept in check through government programs, namely inequality and indifference to those who cannot compete in the market well enough to provide for themselves. Neither capitalism nor socialism, he argues, is inherently immoral, yet capitalism offers more goods than socialism. Although business ethics has, for the most part, assumed the moral legitimacy of capitalism, a variety of criticisms have been raised to the system as a whole as well as to the morality of particular markets. We might call the issue of the morality of the capitalist system as a whole a meta-business ethics question. In the spirit of Richard De George’s meta-ethical investigation of capitalism, I pursue an aspect of this question of whether capitalism can be defended as a legitimate economic system, namely, ‘‘is capitalism good for women?’’ Capitalism is under attack from within and without. The financial crisis that began in 2008 reveals precariousness in the financial world that many political leaders and economists thought had been eliminated after the Great Depression. Critics of capitalism come from a variety of directions: concerns about the environment, world poverty, workers in the developed world who see their jobs being outsourced, worries about human trafficking and slavery. One of the most developed sources of criticism of capitalism comes from feminists who see capitalism as not only bad for the natural world and for the working class, but also as particularly bad for women. (Bahramitash 2005; GibsonGraham 1996; Visvanathan et al. 1997) Feminists charge that capitalism inevitably leads to inequality, from which women suffer more than men. Socialist feminists offer a vision of economic democracy that they say will improve life for almost everyone, and particularly for women.

In a recent book (Cudd and Holmstrom 2011), I argued that capitalism has brought about great changes in the quality and length of human life in the twentieth century: the income takeoff (the vast increase of per capita income of developed nations), the health transition (raising the life expectancy by upwards of 50 years), and the fertility transition (from an average of 6 children per woman to around 2). In this paper, I delve further into the question of whether capitalism is good for women. A major problem with capitalism is that it increases inequality, which is especially harmful to women and other vulnerable groups. Capitalism increases economic inequality in the first instance, but this in turn tends to create political and social inequalities. Inequality, I agree, needs to be controlled if capitalism is to be progressive and defensible. I defend such a controlled capitalism in two ways that are particularly relevant to feminism as a progressive social movement for human freedom. First, capitalism promotes innovation: it promotes technical innovation that tends to improve quality and length of life for everyone, but particularly for women. But more importantly for the feminist defense of capitalism, it promotes social innovation, in particular the destruction of harmful, patriarchal traditions. Thus, the second defense I will make of capitalism is that it opposes tradition fetishism and reduces the oppression of traditional societies that impose hierarchies of gender and caste. Capitalism is a system in which there are non-discriminatory, legal protections of decentralized, private ownership of resources, cooperative, social production for all citizens, and free and open, competitive markets for exchange of goods, labor, services, and material and financial capital. The first thing to note about this definition is that it implies the socially and governmentally sanctioned nature of the system. Laissez-faire capitalism is an unrealizable ideal that could never actually obtain in fact because for capitalism to even exist, let alone prosper, property rights need to be defined by a legislative body and protected by a police force. Markets require trust and security, such as can only be supplied by a relatively complex social system of rights, trust, and protection. (Anderson 2004) 1 Social, cooperative interaction is at the heart of the system, in both the creation of the social, legal infrastructure that frames economic production and exchange, and in production and exchange themselves. The second thing to note about this definition is that it emphasizes the competitive character of the system. Capitalism is a form of cooperative competition, a set of socially accepted rules within which players seek their best advantage, as they see it. Its normative value as a social system will depend upon both the rules that delimit the game and the values by which its players define their best advantage. Finally, the third thing to note is that this definition does not specify how capitalism relates to the distribution of resources, since government or private charity can redistribute the outcome of production and exchange— but only to a point. Redistribution of goods that removes the ability or incentive for people to create firms and produce for exchange makes the system something other than and opposed to capitalism. My view is that capitalism can be progressive toward feminist ends. This is a controversial view. I defend it by addressing two critical questions about capitalism. First, does capitalism bring about less oppression of women (and other groups) over time? This question can be asked looking backward and looking forward. Since I think that the answer is very clear looking backward that oppression of gender groups, racial groups, castes, and other groups is less now than before the advent of capitalism in the industrial revolution,2 I will concentrate on two forward looking questions: (1) does capitalism better eliminate current oppression than any alternative economic system? (2) Does the apparent increase of inequality under capitalism imply that it is a regressive social institution? To this second question I now turn.

The Inequality Objection In our recent book, I argued that capitalism does not initially create oppressive conditions for race, gender, or caste groups, but that it can be seen as creating inequalities of wealth and income given the longstanding background conditions of oppression for those groups. What I meant by that is that capitalism exploits and then exaggerates existing inequalities. Absent those oppressive conditions, however, capitalism would still create inequality of wealth and income, and whatever moral or social inequality that follows from that. The inequality objection to capitalism is that the inequalities created by capitalism are inevitable and morally unacceptable. To examine this objection, the first point to address is the degree to which capitalism inevitably promotes or creates inequality, while the second is the question of what constitutes morally unacceptable inequality.

Inequality is a relation between two subjects and with respect to some good. While a social system may reduce inequality with respect to some goods, or between certain groups or individuals, it may increase it with respect to other goods, and between some groups or individuals. The inequality objection to capitalism is that it increases inequalities of wealth and income between rich and poor countries and between individuals. This is not uncontroversial; the degree of inequality one finds depends on which countries one looks at and what time periods one considers. The matter of how one measures inequality of wealth and income is also the subject of controversy. Bob Sutcliffe and David Dollar are economists who argue on different sides of the inequality objection, but they agree on the following basic characterizations of economic inequality at present in the world. 1. Global inequality (among individuals throughout the world) has risen steadily over the past two centuries, but since 1980 has declined modestly; 2. Inter-country rather than intra-country inequality is the largest contributor to global economic inequality; 3. The growth of the Chinese economy since 1980 is one of the main explanations for 1 and 2 (Sutcliffe 2007; Dollar 2007). However, most of the growth of economic inequality is of the ‘‘flying top’’ form, that is, it is because of the increase in wealth and income of the better off, rather than a lowering of the wealth and income of the worse off. Second, those countries that have fared the worst over this timespan are the ones that have failed to develop a global capitalist economy. (Dollar 2007) Thus, capitalism creates economic inequalities, but mainly through its positive, wealth creating effects on countries that engage in global trade, and not by absolutely impoverishing individual citizens of capitalist countries. But what constitutes morally unacceptable inequality? Goods that can be distributed unequally can be either rival or non-rival. A good is rival if its being enjoyed by one person precludes its enjoyment by another person. Status, political power and influence, and toothbrushes are all rival to some degree. It is perhaps arguable that any good that is both essential to well-being and rival ought, morally, to be distributed equally or at least in accordance with the difference principle.3 But wealth and income are not necessarily rival; they are not rival if the total wealth is rising. Therefore, increasing the wealth of some does not necessarily decrease that of others. So if capitalism simply raises some persons’ wealth or income, while not decreasing that of others, then that inequality is not in itself morally problematic. If inequality comes about unfairly, then that too is a reason for it to be morally unacceptable. Capitalism essentially creates economic inequalities because it distributes goods in markets, where trades take place because of differing levels of demand for goods and services. Those who bring highly demanded or relatively scarce commodities or skills to the market are highly rewarded, while those who do not possess those commodities or skills will not gain equal rewards in a system where people are free to make trades that satisfy their needs and desires.4 This is a morally acceptable reason for inequality to be created, all other things equal. When inequalities are created by force or fraud, these are not justified inequalities. It is up to a society’s government to determine through its laws and enforcement of those laws what constitutes force and fraud. Critics of capitalism often conflate inequality and poverty, objecting to the inequalities that capitalism creates while citing statistics about the poverty of the global poor. Most proponents of capitalism will agree that severe poverty is not morally acceptable, although they disagree about how to address the problem. However, most will argue that capitalism is the best means to address poverty because it is the best means for creating wealth. As we said before, capitalism creates inequalities through the differential demands for goods and services that create the very possibility of trade. Capitalism also promotes innovation as people compete to generate demand for their goods and services, and innovation increases the total wealth in the world. Since inequality is part of the explanation for innovation, inequality is even more morally acceptable. However, things are not quite that simple, and the critics have a point when they decry inequality. First, inequalities of wealth and income cannot be separated from inequalities in political power and influence. Capitalism is an institutional system that sets the rules that structure markets, determine ownership rights, and provide legal enforcement of trade restrictions. The precise rules and the way that they are enforced can be shaped to favor one or another group or individual over the others. In this way, it is similar to basketball, where allowing three points for long shots favors smaller players who are not large enough to compete favorably with bigger inside players but whose shooting ability from the outside makes them more valuable, or where rules against body contact are differentially enforced when the contact occurs inside or outside the lane, which favors larger players inside the lane and smaller players outside the lane. Rules governing capitalist exchange are determined both internally and internationally. As Thomas Pogge has pointed out, nations can determine whether a government of a country is the legitimate owner of its territory’s resource, or it can declare it an outlaw government and prohibit trade or deny borrowing privileges. International trade is overseen by the World Trade Organization, which can rule certain trade restrictions acceptable and others unacceptable, and so benefit one group of producers, workers, and consumers or another (Pogge 2002, Chap. 1). Internally governments have even greater ability to determine ownership rights and influence trade. Thus, there is a great deal of political influence over the key determinants of capitalist markets, and therefore over individuals’ wealth and income. Economic inequality between individuals and nations creates differential influence over these governing institutions. Affluent countries and their corporations can influence the institutional rules of capitalism in a variety of ways. They can hire economists and lawyers to figure out what rules would benefit them, they can influence opinion through clever marketing of their point of view, they can leverage favorable agreements through exercising their bargaining power by refusing to make less favorable agreements which they can afford to walk away from, and they can simply bribe those in power to make the rules most beneficial to their businesses. Pogge writes: ‘‘Economic inequality matters insofar as it affects the design of the common institutional rules and the modifications of this design over time. The more inequality grows, the more the affluent countries and their corporations and individuals can shape the global rules in their favour, through their superior bargaining power and expertise’’ (Pogge 2007, p. 138). Thus economic inequality can bring about greater inequality, and so it is unfair.