Silicon Valley Tanks: Nancy Frasers Feminist Critique of Digital Capitalism

Here’s a translated and rephrased version of the text while preserving its meaning:

The incorporation of artificial intelligence in production processes, the ESG agenda, and policies aimed at diversity and inclusiveness may now be perceived as hallmarks of a new, equitable capitalism. Some leftist accelerationists, such as Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek, contend that technological advancement can be leveraged «against capital.» In their 2013 manifesto, #Accelerate: Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics, they argue that the acceleration of technological development leads to the automation of production, which should eventually result in shorter working hours and, in the long term, deconstructing the labor market.

Conversely, Nancy Fraser argues that the tangible outcomes of a progressive, reformed capitalism that professes to be «humane» contribute to rising social inequality alongside climate and global social-political crises. She refers to this phenomenon as «cannibalistic capitalism,» a system that not only profits but consumes the very foundations that enable it to exist: nature, labor, trust, and care.

Fraser warns against capitalism’s ability to transform any critique into a means of legitimizing authority and suggests that this should always be kept in mind when discussing neoliberal feminism, identity politics, and various ecological, decolonial, and anti-patriarchal movements.

To grasp the critiques Fraser poses against the initiatives labeled as “for all things good,” one must delve into her understanding of justice, which she frames as a harmonious blend of three elements: redistribution (economic), recognition (cultural), and representation (political).

In today’s world, one must be prominently visible and engaged to secure a stake in the attention economy—an observation even those unversed in marketing can affirm. The ability to craft a personal brand is now essential even for the most impoverished, as otherwise, they risk going unnoticed during charity distributions. For many groups marginalized by various forms of identity, striving for recognition has become a primary goal.

It’s pertinent to mention that Fraser does not advocate for the abolition of identity politics. However, she points out that shifting political focus toward identity does not fundamentally alter the existing power structures and relations of production. By concentrating on cultural recognition, identity politics often distracts from deeper issues of economic inequality and unjust resource distribution, thereby maintaining or even reinforcing current systems of oppression.

Fraser’s commitment to developing a complex analysis of the intersections between gender oppression and capitalism has grown increasingly relevant, especially as political crises have become more pronounced than economic or social problems. In her 2017 article «The End of Progressive Neoliberalism,» she sought to explain the «rightward shift» in developed European nations and Donald Trump’s rise in the U.S.:

“Progressive neoliberalism has developed in the U.S. over the past three decades and was officially embraced with Bill Clinton’s election in 1992. Clinton became the main architect and standard-bearer of the ‘New Democrats’—the American equivalent of Tony Blair’s ‘New Labor.’ Instead of the coalition of unions from the ‘New Deal,’ which included organized factory workers, African Americans, and urban middle classes, he fashioned a new alliance of entrepreneurs, affluent suburban residents, emerging social movements, and youth—all expressing sincere allegiance to contemporary progressive values, endorsing diversity, multiculturalism, and women’s rights. Even while approving of such progressive ideas, Clinton’s administration served the interests of Wall Street financiers.”

Fraser highlights the «interests of financiers» in her argument, claiming that since the 1990s, these interests have been catered to not only by presidential administrations but also by human rights advocates, in the absence of clearly articulated leftist socialist narratives in public discourse. Progressive American neoliberalism facilitated an alliance between mainstream social movements (feminism, anti-racism, multiculturalism, LGBTQ rights) and elite business sectors (Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood). According to Fraser, the former enabled the latter to adopt their charisma:

“Ideals, such as diversity or empowerment, which can serve various purposes, now act as a convenient cover for policies that have undermined the livelihoods of those once referred to as the middle class.”

Feminism, in particular, has been effectively co-opted by contemporary capitalism. Those seeking representation receive it, though not yet on an equal footing with men; nevertheless, female directors, doctoral candidates, and programmers are now commonplace. Such recognition ofindividual women, rather than women as a class, ultimately serves to stabilize an unjust system. We see gender inclusion, yet without weakening the economic foundations of inequality.

This expansion of empowerment often translates merely into the struggle for women to exploit others—this, in fact, is what occurs. Appointing more women to corporate boards or electing them to political positions, or endowing women with special powers within existing corporate or state structures merely appears to be feminist achievements. In reality, it perpetuates patriarchal patterns by including women in positions of power.

For Fraser, liberal feminists are fixated on false objectives—essentially, the opportunity to become capitalists or presidents. Genuine feminist goals should not be about providing women access to the upper echelons of hierarchies, but rather about dismantling these structures.

Fraser similarly critiques the appropriation of ecological agendas by corporations and political figures. Currently, the denial of global climate change seems increasingly marginalized: even Vladimir Putin publicly acknowledges the need to address warming, which will have «serious consequences» for Russia. This strategy is not always driven by populist intentions, marketing considerations, or trends. Sometimes, it’s simply an acknowledgment of a consensus recognized among expert communities as common sense. Yet mere recognition of the problem does not facilitate its resolution. Moreover, Fraser believes that ecological disaster is embedded in the logic of capitalism:

“Nature and care are two conditions of capitalist accumulation that capitalism exploits but does not reproduce.”

Under «green capitalism,» personal responsibility is relegated to consumers shopping at «eco-friendly» stores, with eco-labeled products transitioning into the elitist consumer niche. Naturally, this has no impact on climate change, much like corporate ESG ratings; instead of emissions reductions, we see the trading of pollution rights.

Fraser argues that a «new common sense» must avoid a reductionist “environmentalism.” It should not treat global warming as a trump card that overshadows all else, but rather trace this threat back to the deeper societal dynamics that also drive other aspects of the current crisis. Only by addressing all fundamental facets of this crisis—both «ecological» and «non-ecological»—and uncovering their interconnections can we begin to construct a counter-hegemonic block that supports a collective project and possesses the political weight for its effective implementation.

When Nancy Fraser was born in 1947 in Baltimore, Maryland, Jim Crow laws enforcing racial segregation were still in place. Her parents, secular Jews, were political liberals who supported Franklin Roosevelt. However, Nancy felt that their way of life contradicted the values they professed.

Her youthful rebellion smoothly transitioned into political activism, advocating for civil rights, and she became an active participant in the anti-Vietnam War resistance movement. While studying at Bryn Mawr College, Fraser urged young Americans to burn their draft cards and refuse military service. Reports of Buddhist monks in Vietnam self-immolating in resistance to the war profoundly impacted her. In an interview, Fraser confessed that at that time, she seriously thought, «If you really oppose the war, why haven’t you set yourself on fire?»

While maximalism and radicalism remained ingrained in her character, a stroke of luck allowed her to navigate her activist fervor without self-destruction, ultimately living to the age of 78 as a respected professor. She encountered several Trotskyists who introduced her to political struggles beyond self-immolation. Nancy joined Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and became a feminist—a typical path for young intellectuals whose parents could afford prestigious educational institutions.

Bryn Mawr College, indeed, was such an elite women’s college (this type of segregation also existed in the U.S. in the 1960s). Initially, Fraser sought to study classical philology. She realized her dream when the poet and translator of the «Iliad,» Richmond Lattimore, became her mentor. However, it would have been too bourgeois for Fraser to settle for that alone. The tumultuous spirit of the time demanded deviations from established courses, prompting Fraser to gravitate toward another instructor, philosopher Richard Jacob Bernstein. Opting for this path allowed her to harmoniously blend her passion for intellectual pursuits and politics. Bernstein introduced her to Herbert Marcuse’s “One-Dimensional Man,” a notable figure in the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory.

The «Frankfurters» and their successors endeavor to criticize and change society as a whole, uncovering the underlying conditions in social life that hinder people from participating in «true democracy.» One might conclude that neo-Marxists always attribute various woes to abstract capitalism. However, Fraser suggests looking closely at it to understand how the current economic system truly harms humanity and how its damage can be minimized ultimately to eliminate its root causes.

How, you might wonder, are ovaries connected to the global economy? The relationship runs deep: production and reproduction are intertwined in a continual internal contradiction within any form of capitalism.

Digital capitalism relies on financialization, invisible labor, and the illusion of recognition. Financialization disproportionately benefits those who have already held high positions in the distribution of income and wealth. Currently, capital has shifted from production to asset management. This model exacerbates the divide between the rich and poor, fostering opportunities for oppression and a usurpation of power.

Digital corporations like Google, Meta, and Amazon operate akin to financial entities. They do not generate value in the traditional sense; they trade in emotions and attention, transforming daily life into an «investment product.» Digital capitalism exploits personal data, intensifying racial and gender inequalities through algorithmic discrimination.

Another scholar, Shoshana Zuboff, has written about the economy of affect, where each like, scroll pause, and other interactions can be analyzed, predicted, and monetized in her book «The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.» She posits that digital capitalism extracts value not from immediate activities but from predictable behaviors.

Digital platforms control and monopolize data flows, which serve as a new form of capital. These data not only enable the precise modeling of consumer behavior but also act as tools for social control. We’re not merely dealing with a digital marketplace; we are witnessing a novel form of capitalist institutionalization in which private platforms usurp public functions like communication regulation and the structuring of public discourse. Unaccountable actors in digital capitalism are poised to dictate social order and shape a digital future.

Zuboff’s perspective on post-industrial capitalism has gained mainstream traction because it explicitly invokes fears, touching on issues of personal security. In contrast, Fraser doesn’t indulge in alarmist narratives about how digital giants consume data, including the duration of attention given to certain images on social media, thereby enslaving users’ will. Yet both thinkers agree that the digital economy hinges on labor—often invisible and unpaid—that we contribute daily to the detriment of our interests. Users of various platforms willingly surrender their time, attention, and data to capital, believing they are merely socializing or “spacing out” during breaks from other work tasks.

Fraser’s concept of «cannibalistic capitalism» does not contest Zuboff’s warnings about the dangers of “surveillance capitalism,” but addresses broader issues. Surveillance is just one mechanism of systemic capture by digitalized capitalism invading non-economic domains. What once seemed private and personal, thus economically neutral, is today becoming an asset. We are not just consumers; we are sources of value even at moments when we are ostensibly «just living.» Emotions, attachments, fears, and routine gestures become part of the investment logic directed by private algorithms. Digital capitalism is not a new paradigm but a logical evolution of traditional capitalist principles, with data serving merely as a new resource for «consumption.» Without the political will for an embedded accelerationism within the capitalist system, it morphs into an accelerated extractivism where humanity and technology race forward, yet sink deeper into old exploitative schemes.

Fraser particularly emphasizes that financialized capitalism subjugates states and societies to the direct interests of private investors, demanding a halt to public investments in social reproduction. She believes this institutional arrangement reinforces the gendered division between production and reproduction, severing material good creation from men while relegating birthing and caregiving to women. Unlike past regimes, this new capitalism primarily employs liberal-individualistic and gender-egalitarian narratives. In contemporary Europeanized societies, gender equality is acknowledged, and almost all institutions now proclaim equal opportunity for all talents, including those related to production. Meanwhile, social reproduction is often viewed as a remnant and hindrance to progress. Fraser perceives this framework as a new form of acute conflict driven by capitalism:

“Financialized capitalism has not only curtailed state provisioning and sought to involve women in paid labor but has also reduced real wages, thus increasing the number of paid work hours required by households to support families and creating a desperate urge to offload emotional labor onto others. To fill the ‘care gap,’ the regime seemingly imports migrant labor from poorer nations into wealthier ones. Typically, reproductive and emotional labor historically done by more privileged women is now shouldered by women from racial minorities, often from impoverished rural areas. However, for migrants, this means transferring their familial and communal responsibilities to even poorer individuals, who, in turn, must do the same—resulting in lengthy ‘global care chains.’ Consequently, the lack of care is not addressed but shifted from wealthy families to the economically disadvantaged, from the Global North to the Global South.”

Industrial-era feminists grappled with the notion of the «family wage»—a system where household stability relied on earnings from a «breadwinning father» alongside the unpaid labor of the economically dependent «mother-housekeeper.» They ultimately received a new model that proved not significantly sweeter: the «two-breadwinner family.» Now, everyone must work, yet homes, children, the elderly, and the workers still require daily care. Simultaneously, there has been a drop in wages, meaning that two working parents do not render the family twice as wealthy, and the amount of time needed to earn enough to support at least oneself—if not dependents and pets—has further increased. Many find this acceptable. When your mind is occupied with work for 8 to 12 hours, there is little time to ponder social justice. Philosophers do that for you, including Fraser.

What is happening with women who attain career success in corporations? They fear withdrawing from the process and taking maternity leave, as there’s a risk that returning to their previous roles will not happen swiftly, and promotions would often be a matter of forgetfulness. In Fraser’s view, emancipation then colludes with marketing to undermine the foundations of social protection. Consequently, the capacities for social reproduction are diminished. An interesting trend underscores this: the increasing popularity of egg freezing in the U.S. Major IT companies are willing to cover the hefty costs of this procedure (around $10,000) to retain the potential of women during their “prime years,” leaving the prospect of children for later in life when, perhaps at 50 or 60, they might still wish to have them.

Traditional maternal rituals are also evolving. With a strong push towards breastfeeding in high-income countries, there’s a rising demand for expensive, high-tech breast pumps. The child no longer suckles from the mother’s breast because a nanny feeds them from a bottle. Meanwhile, mothers can drive to work while simultaneously using an advanced machine with dual funnels that requires no manual support to express milk. The evolutionary implications of such changes, whether social or biological, remain speculative. However, it is already clear that progress within financialized capitalism does not emancipate individuals but rather leads to a disbalance between production and reproduction in technologically advanced societies, exacerbating the «care crisis» and deepening inequality.

How did we arrive at this point? Debt plays a significant role in the established system. Fraser regards it as a tool through which global financial institutions require states to cut social spending. Consequently, states enforce strict austerity measures and even collude with investors to extract value from the populace.

Farmers in the Global South lose their land due to debt as corporations embark on a new phase of land grabbing. Capital ends up concentrated in so-called historical centers. Unstable, poorly paid service work replaces industrial labor with well-developed union structures, and wages fall below the socially necessary costs of reproduction. In the emerging «gig economy,» where businesses do not hire employees full-time but engage freelancers for specific projects, constant consumer spending necessitates expanded consumer credit that grows exponentially.

“Today, it is through debt that capital absorbs labor, disciplines states, shifts wealth from the periphery to the center, and extracts value from households, families, communities, and nature. This exacerbates the contradiction inherent to capitalism between economic production and social reproduction. Whereas previous regimes allowed states to subordinate the short-term interests of private firms to the long-term goal of sustainable accumulation—partly stabilizing reproduction through state support—the current regime empowers financial capital to discipline states and societies in the immediate interests of private investors, demanding abandonment of investments in social reproduction. If the previous regime merged commercialization with social protection against emancipation, the current one creates an even more distorted configuration where emancipation aligns with commercialization to undermine social protection,” Fraser articulates the contradictions between capital and care.

Fraser posits that neoliberalism is a contemporary global form of capitalism and believes that adherence to this ideology results in declining wages and a fall in living standards worldwide. Under a neoliberal economic model, only corporate owners, venture investors, highly skilled specialists from high-tech industries, and managers can be satisfied with their living conditions. The resolution of this issue, in Fraser’s view, necessitates the deconstruction of capitalist frameworks within the economy. However, how can we combat something global that seems to stem from the very nature of human relationships? Fraser suggests not reinventing the wheel but instead adopting a class approach based on Marx’s principles, albeit in a modernized form.

“Neoliberal actors have dismantled the social state and conveyed to disorganized laborers that they must resolve their issues independently. They defined their goal as serving the financial markets. Subsequently, various strands of liberal ideology were adapted to the neoliberal worldview. This included key phrases about modernity, openness, the global world, multiculturalism, diversity, and empowerment—with all these trendy buzzwords. However, the overwhelming majority were left out, including many women, people of color, individuals with nontraditional sexual orientations, and others. They are part of the working class. That’s how I see it,” Fraser asserted in one of her interviews.

Thus, she hopes for a class consciousness, class solidarity, and class struggle among all those oppressed by neoliberalism and financialized capitalism.

Together with Cinzia Arruzza and Tithi Bhattacharya, Nancy Fraser has developed a radical anti-capitalist and anti-liberal platform articulated in the manifesto «Feminism for 99 Percent.» The authors base their work on the interests of the majority of women globally—primarily poor, working-class, migrant, racial and sexual minorities, as well as women with disabilities—rather than those of a privileged minority. They propose a radical approach through the unification of leftist movements and the expansion of agendas, establishing democratic control over resource distribution. To overcome social injustice, it is insufficient to combat only poverty or solely discrimination. An integrated strategy is necessary, combining the redistribution of resources with the recognition of the dignity and differences of all groups.

According to Fraser, a just society is one where all its members can equally participate in social life. Social policies aimed at this goal should acknowledge the legitimacy of recognition demands without exacerbating economic inequality, enabling fair resource distribution without increasing status-related issues.

For example, policies aimed at reducing poverty among women currently stigmatize unproductive welfare mothers—those living on benefits—contrasting them with respectable taxpayers who supposedly must work on behalf of those unable to do so for various reasons. Such policies parasite on social statuses. It is not enough to provide economic support to women; it is crucial to do so on a neutral, non-stigmatizing basis through universal benefits or unemployment insurance, preventing the emergence of new forms of humiliation or marginalization.

Moreover, the emotional domain must be liberated from market exploitation. Love should not serve as a basis for unpaid labor. Justice is unattainable without recognizing the cultural status and significance of all labor, including that which is domestic and traditionally female. Formal equality is insufficient if women’s labor continues to be regarded as secondary or «emotional,» rather than professional and valuable.

Fraser asserts that the struggle for economic support for women must align with the fight for recognition of their status and dignity: «There is no redistribution without recognition, and no recognition without redistribution.» Several measures should facilitate this: the expansion and funding of public healthcare, education, social support, and leisure systems, enabling women to balance their professional and personal lives without sacrificing their well-being or that of their families.

Nancy Fraser advocates for a global eco-political framework that connects natural and social reproduction, ecological issues, political power, racial and sexual oppression, and imperial dominance. State-oriented movements favor the national framework for action while clinging to the belief that capital can be «tamed.» Isolated “environmentalism of the affluent” or consumer-focused green initiatives rooted in guilt and individual responsibility for lifestyle choices are wholly insufficient, as they sidestep the real solutions required.

Many key elements for such an eco-socialist policy already exist: movements advocating for environmental justice, the environmentalism of the poor, decolonial and Indigenous movements. Proponents of the «Green New Deal» suggest programs to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Meanwhile, activists critiquing infinite production and consumption often confuse what should grow (such as restorative and caring activities) with what is most valuable to capital but should not grow, as it threatens our survival.

Fraser believes that these alternatives offer valuable insights and prompt a profound reevaluation of our lifestyle and our relationships with nature. Yet none are sufficiently comprehensive or interlinked to adequately address the task of crafting a new hegemonic «common sense» that integrates all facets of our crises and aligns them with feminism, workers’ rights, anti-racism, imperialism, resource exploitation, consumerism, and class consciousness. Developing viable alternatives will require both rigorous analysis and a commitment to democratic forms of public planning.

Critiquing the notion of the «public sphere» proposed by Frankfurt School member Jürgen Habermas, Fraser offers an alternative—the counter-public sphere. She insists on reevaluating contemporary notions of public space as a multitude of differentiated social arenas, some accessible to certain groups while excluding others. Following post-colonial theorists, Fraser introduces the concept of the “subaltern counter-public sphere,” referring to public spaces where marginalized groups can articulate counter-discourses and create alternative interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs.

It seems she wishes to roll back time slightly and embark on a path anew, but now more cautiously. During the 1960s and 70s, the feminist community in the U.S. had its own journals, bookstores, lecture halls, and research centers. There, women indeed crafted the necessary narratives for societal transformations, introducing terms like sexism, double burden, harassment, and marital rape into political and legal discourse.

Fraser’s philosophy itself acts as an active component of the “subaltern counter-public sphere.” The notion that capitalist societies separate social reproduction from economic production—tying the former to women while devaluing its worth—simultaneously places the economy in direct dependence on processes of social reproduction, establishing the direction of a new discourse aimed at discrediting and deconstructing capitalism.

All of this may seem utopian, but if our world can successfully implement dystopias, why should we not hold hope for a reversal?

Fraser openly admits she has no straightforward answers to the pressing questions: “Will the current crisis mobilize the struggle with sufficient breadth and foresight to alter the prevailing regime? Can a new form of socialist feminism disband the mainstream’s love affair with the market and forge a new alliance between emancipation and social protection—and if so, for what purpose? How might we rethink the divide between reproduction and production today, and what could replace the two-breadwinner family?”

If, as Fraser contends, capitalism indeed harbors contradictions that will reproduce themselves at new stages of humanity’s existence, then social policy alone will not suffice. In her view, only a profound structural transformation of the global social order can save all; primary efforts must focus on overcoming the predatory subordination of reproduction to production dictated by financialized capitalism—this time without detriment to emancipation and social protection. Achieving this goal will necessitate reevaluating the boundaries between production and reproduction, as well as restructuring the gender order.

What might she mean by this gender restructuring? Likely, it’s what she elucidates in her reflections on Sheryl Sandberg’s book Lean In:

“For me, feminism is not merely about lifting a small group of women into positions of power within existing social hierarchies. Rather, it concerns the dismantling of those hierarchies. This requires challenging the structural roots of gender dominance in capitalist society—primarily the institutionalized division between two allegedly distinct types of activities: on one hand, so-called ‘productive’ labor historically associated with men and rewarded with wages; on the other hand, activities tied to care, often historically unpaid and still predominantly performed by women. In my view, this gendered, hierarchical division between ‘production’ and ‘reproduction’ constitutes a defining structure of capitalist society and a deep source of gender asymmetry embedded within it. There can be no ’emancipation of women’ while this structure remains intact.”

**Text: comrade-tovarishch**