In 2003’s Power, Production and Social Reproduction, Stephen Gill and I focused upon the unfolding contradiction between the global accumulation of capital and the provision of stable and progressive conditions of social reproduction—that is, we hypothesized a growing contradiction between the intensified power of capital and its pursuit of profits for accumulation, versus life-making/ sustaining processes, including the condition of bodies (their health, nutritional intake, etc.) and the biosphere. That hypothesis conceptualized accumulation and social reproduction as interlinked although different and contradictory moments in the same system or totality. Since then, and especially after the global financial crisis of 2008, this contradiction has deepened through the politics of austerity, real falling wages (ILO/OECD, 2015) the rise of precarity and informal work (Bergeron, 2015), the food price crisis (Botreau, & Chone, 2019), and rising household debt in the context of intensified globalization and world market forces of competitiveness (Roberts, 2015). All these realities are framed by a neoliberal rationality that “prioritizes economic growth and market logics over all other goals and institutions of governance” (Brodie, 2003, p. 47). Yet, social reproduction today, remains variegated and uneven across scales, locations, and jurisdictions, despite being increasingly shaped by the power of capital in a global process of accumulation that is, in turn, premised on the commodification of labour, society and nature (Bakker & Gill, 2019). This variegated social reproduction is best explored through case studies such as some offered in this volume. With the extension and deepening of economic neoliberalism, the silences in mainstream and heterodox political economy analyses of global restructuring explored by feminist economics help to underscore their incomplete theorizing and understanding of neoliberal policy formulation in the context of intensified globalization. I suggest that analyses need to be linked to the deepening of the power of capital over the structures of not only power and production but also of social reproduction and everyday life. So both the unfinished nature of neoliberalism’s attempts to invade all aspects of nature and life in search of greater competitiveness and economic growth based on the profit motive along with, what I have called “strategic silences” (1994) in mainstream economics, are what feminist economics brings to their analysis and visioning. In this short commentary, I shall briefly touch on five areas where feminist economics has linked the everyday to the highest levels of global finance, production and governance. These are (1). The implications of gender and race blind fiscal and monetary governance; (2). The relationship between economic growth and different regimes of social reproduction; (3). The depletion costs in social reproduction related to policies of austerity; (4). The attack on the social commons and social reproduction; and, (5). The financialization of social policies and households.

中文翻译：

---

新自由主义时期多样化的社会再生产：主流沉默，女性主义干预

在2003年的《权力，生产和社会再生产》中，斯蒂芬·吉尔和我着重研究了全球资本积累与提供稳定和进步的社会再生产条件之间不断发展的矛盾，即我们假设资本的不断增强的矛盾日益加剧。追求利润的积累，而不是生命/维持过程，包括身体状况（健康，营养摄入等）和生物圈。该假说将积累和社会再生产概念化为相互联系，尽管在同一系统或整体中存在不同和矛盾的时刻。自那时以来，尤其是在2008年全球金融危机之后，这种紧缩通过紧缩政治，实际工资下降（国际劳工组织/经合组织，2015）不稳定和非正式工作的增加（Bergeron，2015），粮食价格危机（Botreau，＆Chone，2019），以及全球化加剧和世界市场竞争力的背景下家庭债务的增加（Roberts，2015）。所有这些现实都是由新自由主义理性所构架的，它“将经济增长和市场逻辑置于所有其他目标和治理机构之上”（Brodie，2003年，第47页）。然而，尽管在全球积累过程中资本的力量日益塑造了社会再生产，但今天的社会再生产在规模，位置和辖区之间仍然杂乱无章，而且反过来又以劳动力，社会和自然的商品化为前提（ Bakker＆Gill，2019）。最好通过案例研究（例如本卷中提供的案例研究）来探索这种多样化的社会再生产。随着经济新自由主义的扩大和加深，女权主义经济学对主流和异端政治经济学对全球重组的分析的沉默，突显了他们在全球化背景下对新自由主义政策制定的不完整理论和理解。我建议将分析与资本实力的深化联系起来，不仅包括权力和生产结构，还包括社会再生产和日常生活的结构。因此，新自由主义试图以利润动机为基础，试图侵入自然和生活的各个方面以寻求更大的竞争力和经济增长的未完成的本质，以及我在主流经济学中所谓的“战略沉默”（1994）都属于女权主义者。经济学带来了他们的分析和远见。在这篇简短的评论中，我将简要谈谈女权主义经济学将日常生活与全球金融，生产和治理的最高水平联系起来的五个领域。这些是（1）。性别和种族盲目财政和货币治理的影响；（2）。经济增长与不同社会再生产制度之间的关系；（3）。社会紧缩中的消耗成本与紧缩政策有关；（4）。对社会公地和社会再生产的攻击；并且，（5）。社会政策和家庭的金融化。经济增长与不同社会再生产制度之间的关系；（3）。社会紧缩中的消耗成本与紧缩政策有关；（4）。对社会公地和社会再生产的攻击；并且，（5）。社会政策和家庭的金融化。经济增长与不同社会再生产制度之间的关系；（3）。社会紧缩中的消耗成本与紧缩政策有关；（4）。对社会公地和社会再生产的攻击；并且，（5）。社会政策和家庭的金融化。