Silicon Valley Disrupted: Nancy Frasers Feminist Critique of Digital Capitalism

**Translation and Rephrasing:**

The integration of artificial intelligence into manufacturing processes, the ESG agenda, and policies promoting diversity and inclusion may signify a shift towards a new, fairer form of capitalism. Some leftist accelerationists, like Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek, argue that technological progress can be harnessed “against capital.” In their 2013 manifesto, “#Accelerate: Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics,” they contend that the rapid advancement of technology drives the automation of production, ultimately leading to shorter workdays and, in the long term, a reconfiguration of the labor market.

In contrast, Nancy Fraser believes that the tangible outcomes of progressive, modernized capitalism—which she characterizes as having a “human face”—have resulted in increasing social inequality, climate crises, and global sociopolitical turmoil. She refers to this phenomenon as «cannibal capitalism,» a system that not only seeks profit but also devours the very foundations that allow it to exist: nature, labor, trust, and care.

Fraser warns that capitalism has the ability to co-opt any criticism as a means to legitimize its power. This is evident in discussions surrounding neoliberal feminism, identity politics, and various movements focused on environmental issues, decolonization, and anti-patriarchy.

To grasp what Fraser critiques within the realm of activism advocating for all things positive, it is important to delve into her concept of justice. Fraser suggests a tripartite understanding of justice that encompasses redistribution (economic), recognition (cultural), and representation (political).

In contemporary society, being represented, visible, and engaged is crucial for securing a place in the economy of attention—an observation even those distant from marketing would acknowledge. The ability to curate a personal brand has become essential for the economically disadvantaged, as otherwise they risk being overlooked in the distribution of aid. Hence, the quest for recognition can become an end in itself for many marginalized groups defined by their identities.

Contrary to the notion that Fraser seeks to dismantle identity politics, she indicates that a focus on identity alone fails to fundamentally alter established power dynamics and production relationships. The preoccupation with cultural recognition, she argues, tends to be superficial, often distracting from deeper issues of economic inequality and inequitable resource distribution, thus perpetuating or even reinforcing existing systems of oppression.

Fraser’s commitment to comprehensively analyzing the interconnections between gender oppression and capitalism has gained renewed importance as political crises have become more apparent than economic and social ones. In her 2017 article «The End of Progressive Neoliberalism,» she explored the «rightward shift» in developed European countries and Donald Trump’s rise to power in the U.S.:

“Progressive neoliberalism has evolved over the last three decades in the United States and was officially embraced with Bill Clinton’s election in 1992. Clinton became the chief architect and standard-bearer for the ‘New Democrats,’ the American equivalent of Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour.’ Rather than uniting unions from the ‘New Deal’ era, which included organized production workers, African Americans, and urban middle classes, he forged a new coalition of entrepreneurs, affluent suburban dwellers, new social movements, and youth—all proclaiming their genuine commitment to contemporary progressive values, welcoming diversity, multiculturalism, and women’s rights. Despite endorsing such progressive ideals, Clinton’s administration still served the interests of Wall Street financiers.”

Notably, Fraser emphasizes the «interests of financiers» in her critique. According to her, these interests have been catered to not only by presidential administrations since the 1990s but also by human rights activists, all while distinctly leftist socialist narratives have been glaringly absent from public discourse. Progressive American neoliberalism has enabled 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 has allowed the latter to co-opt their charisma:

“Ideals such as diversity or empowerment, which can serve various ends, have become a glitzy cover for policies that have decimated the livelihoods and living conditions of those once considered part of the middle class.”

Feminism, in particular, has been effectively co-opted by contemporary capitalism. Those seeking representation may receive it, but often still far from achieving equality with men. Nonetheless, it is no longer uncommon to find female directors, Ph.D. candidates, and programmers. This kind of recognition—acknowledging individual women rather than women as a collective—served to stabilize an unjust system. We witness gender inclusion without undermining the economic foundations of inequality.

Such an expansion of rights merely signifies the fight for women’s freedom to exploit others—and often, that is precisely what occurs. Appointing more women to corporate executive and leadership roles or electing them to political offices, or otherwise endowing women with special powers within existing corporate or governmental frameworks may seem like milestones of feminism. In reality, they perpetuate patriarchal patterns by merely including women in positions of power.

Fraser argues that liberal feminists are preoccupied with false objectives—namely, the possibility of becoming capitalists or presidents. She posits that feminism’s true challenge lies not in securing women’s access to the peaks of hierarchy but in dismantling those structures.

Similar critiques can be found in Fraser’s examination of how corporations and politicians have usurped the environmental agenda. The idea that one could deny the reality of climate change has become increasingly marginal: even Vladimir Putin has publicly acknowledged that attention must be paid to warming, which poses «serious consequences» for Russia. Such acknowledgment is sometimes driven by populist motives, marketing strategies, fashion, or practical benefits. At times, it is simply a recognition of a consensus on what expert communities have deemed common sense. However, mere recognition of a problem does not contribute to its resolution. Moreover, Fraser contends that ecological disaster is interwoven into the very logic of capitalism:

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

Under «green capitalism,» personal responsibility becomes limited to shopping at «eco-friendly» stores, while eco-labeled products are relegated to the niche of elite consumption. Naturally, this does not impact climate change, just as corporate ESG ratings fail to do so: instead of reducing emissions, it merely facilitates the trade of pollution rights.

“A new common sense must avoid reductionist ‘ecologism.’ It should not treat global warming as a trump card that overrides all else but rather trace this threat to the underlying social dynamics that also drive other facets of the present crisis. Only by addressing all main aspects of this crisis—both ‘ecological’ and ‘non-ecological’—and unveiling their interconnections can we begin to construct a counter-hegemonic bloc that endorses a common project and possesses the political weight to implement it effectively,” Fraser advocates.

When Nancy Fraser was born in 1947 in Baltimore, Maryland, Jim Crow laws enforcing racial segregation were still in effect. Politically, her secular Jewish parents were liberals who supported Franklin Roosevelt. However, Nancy felt a disjunction between their way of life and the values they proclaimed.

Her youthful rebellion evolved into political activism and a fight for civil rights, where she actively participated in the anti-Vietnam War movement. As a student at Bryn Mawr College, Fraser encouraged young Americans to burn their draft cards and refuse military service. The reports of Buddhist monks in Vietnam self-immolating in protest against the war left a lasting impression on her. In one interview, Nancy Fraser admitted she seriously contemplated, “If you’re truly against the war, why haven’t you set yourself on fire yet?”

This maximalist and radical approach remained part of her character, but she was fortunate enough to survive the activist fervor and reach 78 years while becoming a respected professor. She met several Trotskyists who informed her of alternative means of political struggle aside from self-immolation. Nancy joined the SDS and became a feminist—a typical path for young intellectuals whose parents could afford prestigious education.

Bryn Mawr College was precisely that—an elite women’s educational institution (such segregation also existed in the U.S. during the 1960s). Initially, Fraser aspired to study classical philology. Her mentor was poet and translator Richmond Lattimore, who translated the «Iliad»—a dream fulfilled. But if she had settled there, it would have been too bourgeois by her standards. The tumultuous atmosphere of the time demanded deviations from predetermined courses, leading Fraser to another professor—philosopher Richard Jacob Bernstein. This choice allowed her to harmoniously blend her passion for intellectual pursuits with her political engagement. Bernstein introduced her to Herbert Marcuse’s «One-Dimensional Man,» a notable representative of the Frankfurt School of critical theory.

The Frankfurt School and its successors aim to change and critique society as a whole by uncovering the fundamental premises within social life that obstruct people from participating in “true democracy.» It may seem that the neo-Marxists have a one-size-fits-all answer to seven woes: it’s all the fault of abstract capitalism. However, Fraser encourages a closer examination to comprehend how the current economic system harms humanity and how to minimize that harm in an effort to ultimately eliminate its root cause.

One may question how ovaries and the global economy could possibly be connected. In truth, the bond is remarkably strong; production and reproduction intersect and exist in ongoing internal contradiction under capitalism.

Digital capitalism relies on financialization, invisible labor, and the illusion of recognition. Financialization disproportionately benefits those already at the top of income and wealth distribution. Capital has shifted from production to asset management. This model exacerbates the wealth gap and creates opportunities for oppression and power usurpation.

Digital corporations like Google, Meta, and Amazon act as financial entities. They do not create value in the form of traditional goods; instead, they trade emotions and attention, transforming everyday life into an “investment product.” Digital capitalism exploits personal information, intensifying racial and gender inequality through algorithmic discrimination.

Researcher Shoshana Zuboff discussed the economy of affect, where each like, scroll pause, and other data points are ripe for analysis, prediction, and monetization in her book «The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.» She argues that digital capitalism derives value not from direct activity, but from anticipated behavior.

Digital platforms control and monopolize data flows, which function as a new form of capital. These data not only allow for precise consumer behavior modeling but also serve as tools for social governance. We are not merely dealing with a digital market, but with a new form of capitalist institutionalism wherein private platforms usurp public roles, such as regulating communication and structuring public discourse. Uncontrolled by state and society, the actors of digital capitalism can determine the social order and shape the future digitally.

Zuboff’s take on post-industrial capitalism has gained mainstream traction as it directly rouses fears concerning personal security. Conversely, one will not find Fraser voicing ominous concerns over how digital giants accumulate data, including metrics on the length of user attention to specific social media images, and then manipulate users’ will. Nevertheless, both thinkers converge in recognizing that the functioning of the digital economy secures invisible and unpaid labor that we sacrifice daily in detriment to our interests. Users on various platforms willingly offer their time, attention, and data to capital, mistakenly believing they are merely socializing or “vegging out,» often in breaks between other work.

Fraser’s concept of “cannibal capitalism” acknowledges the threats posed by Zuboff’s “surveillance capitalism” but encompasses a broader array of issues. Surveillance is merely one mechanism of systemic capture by digitalized capitalism in non-economic realms. What was once perceived as private, personal, and, therefore, economically neutral is today transformed into an asset. We are not merely consumers; we are sources of value, even in moments when we merely «live.» Emotions, attachments, fears, and routine gestures all become part of an investment logic driven by private algorithms. Digital capitalism represents not a new paradigm but a logical evolution of traditional capitalist thinking, wherein data has become simply another resource for «consumption.» Absent the requisite political will, embedded within capitalism, accelerationism turns into rapid extractivism, as people and technologies race ahead while sinking deeper into old modes of exploitation.

Fraser emphasizes that financialized capitalism subjects states and societies to the immediate interests of private investors, necessitating the cessation of public investment in social reproduction. She contends that this situation institutionalizes a gendered divide between production and reproduction, effectively designating the sphere of material goods creation to men, while confining childbirth and caregiving to women. Unlike previous regimes, the new capitalism predominantly employs liberal-individualist and gender-egalitarian images. Modern Europeanized societies acknowledge gender equality, with nearly all institutions now proclaiming equal opportunities for talent realization across various sectors, including production. Meanwhile, social reproduction is often viewed as an anachronism obstructing progress. Within this framework, Fraser discerns a new form of acute conflict instigated by capitalism:

“Financialized capitalism has not only curtailed public provisioning and drawn women into paid labor but has simultaneously diminished real wages, thereby increasing the number of hours of remunerated work required by households to sustain families, exacerbating a desperate desire to offload emotional labor onto others. To compensate for the ‘lack of care,’ the regime ‘imports’ migrant labor from impoverished nations to affluent ones. Typically, reproductive and emotional labor, previously performed by more privileged women, is taken on by women from racial minorities, often hailing from the rural poor. However, for this to happen, migrants must transfer their familial and community obligations onto even poorer individuals, who in turn must do likewise—and so forth along long ‘global care chains.’ As a consequence, the care deficit is not resolved but rather displaced from affluent families to impoverished ones, from the Global North to the Global South.”

Industrial-era feminists fought against the “family wage” system, wherein household stability relied on a «breadwinner father» earning a monetary wage while dependent “mother-housewives” provided unpaid care work. The outcome was a new model that was only slightly better—“dual breadwinner families.” Now, ostensibly, everyone must work, while homes, children, the elderly, and the laborers themselves remain in perpetual need of everyday care. Simultaneously, wages have fallen, meaning that two working parents do not render a family twice as wealthy; they actually require more hours to earn enough for at least themselves, if not also dependents and pets. Many accept this reality. When your mind is occupied for 8 to 12 hours with work, you simply do not have time to ponder social justice issues. Philosophers, including Fraser, can take on that responsibility for you.

What happens to women who achieve career success in corporations? They fear dropping out of the race and going on parental leave, for there is a risk of not returning to their position for an extended period, and they would most likely have to give up any hopes of advancement. Here, as Fraser argues, emancipation aligns with marketization, undermining the foundations of social protection. Ultimately, the potential for social reproduction is minimized. This assertion aligns with an interesting trend—the rising popularity of egg-freezing procedures in the U.S. Large tech companies are willing to fund this expensive procedure (around $10,000) for their employees, hoping to retain access to their «best years» while postponing motherhood until they are 50 or 60 years old, if they desire children at all.

Traditional motherhood rituals are transforming as well. With the intensive promotion of breastfeeding in affluent nations, there has been a surge in demand for expensive, high-tech breast pumps. Children no longer suckle at their mother’s breast but are fed from a bottle by a nanny. Mothers can drive to work while simultaneously expressing milk using advanced pumps with dual funnels that don’t require manual holding. The evolutionary consequences of such changes, whether social or biological, are yet to be fully discerned. However, one thing is clear: progress under financialized capitalism does not emancipate individuals but creates an imbalance between production and reproduction in technologically advanced societies, exacerbates the “care crisis,” and deepens inequality.

How did we arrive at this point? Debt plays a significant role in the current system. Fraser frames it as a tool through which global financial institutions compel states to reduce social spending. In turn, states impose austerity measures and even collude with investors to extract value from the population.

Farmers in the Global South, burdened by debt, lose their land as corporations initiate a new phase of land grabbing. Capital ends up concentrated in so-called historic centers. Unstable, low-wage service jobs replace industrial work 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 permanently but engage freelancers for specific projects and tasks, ongoing consumer expenses generate an expanding need for consumer credit, which escalates exponentially.

“It is through debt that capital today absorbs labor, drills states, transfers wealth from the periphery to the center, and extracts value from households, families, communities, and nature. As a result, the inherent contradiction in capitalism between economic production and social reproduction intensifies. While the previous regime allowed states to subordinate the short-term interests of private firms to the long-term goal of sustainable accumulation—partly stabilizing reproduction through state provision—the current one empowers financial capital to discipline states and societies according to the immediate interests of private investors, not least demanding that the state relinquish investments in social reproduction. Whereas the previous regime combined commercialization with social protection against emancipation, the present one creates an even more distorted configuration in which emancipation is interwoven with commercialization to erode social protection,” Fraser elucidates regarding the contradictions of capital and care.

Fraser identifies neoliberalism as a contemporary global form of capitalism and claims that adherence to this ideology results in declining wages and quality of life worldwide. Under the neoliberal economic model, only corporate owners, venture capitalists, and highly skilled professionals in tech industries can be satisfied with their standard of living. She believes the only way to address this issue is by deconstructing capitalist frameworks in the economy. But what methods can be employed to combat that which envelops us globally and appears to stem from the very nature of human relationships? Fraser suggests not reinventing the wheel, but instead revisiting a Marxist class approach, albeit in a modernized version.

“Neoliberal actors dismantled the welfare state and made it clear to disorganized workers that they must address their problems individually. The neoliberal agenda has been defined in service of financial markets. Subsequently, various strains of liberal ideology were adapted to this neoliberal worldview—with its catchphrases emphasizing modernity, openness, globalization, multiculturalism, diversity, and empowerment—all those buzzwords. Yet the overwhelming majority remained sidelined, including large numbers of women, non-white populations, LGBTQ individuals, and others. They are part of the working class. This is how I see it,” Fraser stated in one interview.

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

Fraser, along with Cinzia Arruzza and Tithi Bhattacharya, created a radical anti-capitalist and anti-liberal platform articulated in the manifesto «Feminism for the 99 Percent.» The authors center their arguments around the interests of the majority of women worldwide—primarily poor women, workers, migrants, racial and sexual minorities, women with disabilities, not the privileged minority. They advocate for radicalizing and taking action by uniting left movements and broadening the agenda, establishing democratic control over resource distribution. To overcome social injustice, it is insufficient to combat poverty alone or discrimination; an integrated strategy combining resource redistribution with the dignity and acknowledgment of differences among all groups is necessary.

According to Fraser, a just society is one in which all its members can participate equally in social life. Achieving this requires social policies that recognize the legitimacy of recognition demands without escalating economic inequality, as well as creating opportunities for fair resource distribution without exacerbating status-related issues.

For instance, current poverty reduction policies targeting women often stigmatize unproductive welfare mothers—those reliant on benefits. They are contrasted with respectable taxpayers who seem to work for those unable to do so for various reasons. Such policies often prey on status. It is insufficient simply to provide economic support to women; it is crucial to do so on neutral, non-stigmatizing grounds through universal benefits or unemployment insurance to avoid generating new forms of humiliation or marginalization.

Moreover, the emotional sphere needs liberation from market exploitation. Love should not serve as the basis for unpaid caregiving. Justice is impossible without recognizing the cultural status and significance of all forms of labor, including traditionally female domestic work. Formal equality is inadequate if women’s labor continues to be viewed 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 can be no redistribution without recognition, and no recognition without redistribution.” To facilitate this, there should be an expansion and funding of public systems in healthcare, education, social support, and leisure, allowing women to balance work and personal life without detriment to themselves or their families.

Fraser advocates for a global ecopolitics that interlinks natural and social reproduction, ecology, political power, racial and sexual oppression, and imperial dominance. State-oriented movements favor the national framework for actions and cling to the belief that capital can be «tamed.» Isolated «eco-activism of the affluent» or consumer-driven environmentalism rooted in guilt and personal responsibility for lifestyle choices fall woefully short as they sidestep genuine solutions to the issue.

Many vital elements for such an ecosocialist policy are already in place: movements for environmental justice, eco-activism by the impoverished, decolonial, and indigenous movements. Advocates of a «Green New Deal» propose initiatives to spur the economy and create jobs. Activists calling for a slowdown criticize the relentless accumulation of production and consumption; however, they sometimes conflate what should grow but cannot (such as restorative and caregiving activities) with what is most valuable for capital but should not increase, as it threatens our survival.

According to Fraser, all these alternatives contribute essential ideas and prompt a profound re-examination of our lifestyles and relationships with nature. Yet none of them is currently sufficiently substantive or interconnected to adequately address the challenge of forging a new hegemonic “common sense” that integrates all facets of our crises with feminism, workers’ rights, anti-racism, imperialism, the exploitation of natural resources, consumerism, and class consciousness. Crafting viable alternatives will require both rigorous analysis and a commitment to democratic forms of public planning.

Challenging Jurgen Habermas’s concept of the “public sphere,” Fraser proposes an alternative: the counterpublic sphere. She insists on rethinking contemporary notions of public space as a multitude of differentiated social arenas, some of which are accessible while others are excluded. Following postcolonial theorists, Fraser introduces the term “subaltern counterpublic sphere,” referring to social spaces where marginalized groups can articulate counter-discourses and create alternative interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs.

It seems she aims to turn back the clock slightly and begin anew, but this time without veering off course. In the 1960s and ‘70s, the feminist community in the U.S. had its own magazines, bookstores, lecture halls, and research centers. There, women crafted the narratives crucial for societal transformations and introduced concepts such as sexism, the double burden, harassment, and marital rape into political and legal discourses.

Fraser’s philosophy also acts as an active component of the “subaltern counterpublic sphere.” The idea that capitalist societies separate social reproduction from economic production, linking the former to women while denying its value, and simultaneously rendering the economy directly dependent on social reproduction processes, sets the stage for a new discourse aimed at discrediting and deconstructing capitalism.

All of this may appear utopian, yet if dystopias can be implemented successfully in our world, why should we not hold hope for the reverse as well?

Fraser candidly admits she lacks straightforward answers to questions such as: “Will the current crisis activate a struggle with sufficient scope and foresight to transform the existing regime? Can a new form of socialist feminism sever the mainstream’s ties to the market and forge a new alliance between emancipation and social protection—if so, with what end? How might we today rethink the division between reproduction and production, and what could replace the dual-breadwinner family model?”

If, as Fraser argues, capitalism is indeed rife with contradictions that will continue to reproduce themselves through new phases of human existence, then social policies alone will not suffice. She posits that only a profound structural transformation of the entire global social order can rescue us, primarily by addressing the predatory subjugation of reproduction to production dictated by financialized capitalism—but this time without compromising emancipation and social protection. Achieving this goal will require rethinking the boundaries between production and reproduction, as well as reconfiguring the gender order.

What does she mean by this gender reconstruction? Likely what she explains in her reflections on Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s book «Lean In»:

“For me, feminism is not just about advancing a small group of women to privileged positions within existing social hierarchies. Rather, it’s about overcoming those hierarchies. This necessitates challenging the structural sources of gender dominance in capitalist society—primarily, the institutionalized division of two supposedly distinct types of activities: on one hand, so-called ‘productive’ labor linked historically to men and compensated with wages; and on the other hand, activities associated with care, often historically unpaid and still predominantly performed by women. In my opinion, this gendered, hierarchical division between ‘production’ and ‘reproduction’ is a defining structure of capitalist society and a deep source of the gender asymmetry embedded within it. There can be no ‘women’s emancipation’ while this structure remains untouched.”

**Text by comrade-tovarishch**