Chris wrote
> I think I agree with much of the thrust of the posts by John and Simon. If
> I understand them correctly they are both criticising the social and
> psychological effects of capitalism. I think this is a very important area
> of criticism of late capitalist society, and is essential for the battle
> for ideological hegemony of socialist ideas.

Oh dear! I am personally (and politically) horrified that this is 
what you think I (or Simon) was arguing. I cannot find a single part 
of the above that I would ever say.

I was criticising the economic effects of capitalism. The social and 
especially the psychological effects I was trying to avoid 
completely. The idea of late capitalism smacks of Mandel and Sweezy 
and the Trotskites which I would want to distance myself from and 
'the battle for ideological hegemony of socialist ideas' is the 
mumbo-jumbo of Gramskism which I am equally uninfluenced by.

> To be consistent with Marx's terminology I would not say "private
> production" here. I would say "outside the realm of commodity production". 

Domestic work was always outside the realm of commdoity production 
the point about domestic work under captialism is it moves from being 
'a public, socially necessary industry' to being separated from 
social production. Under capitalism the concrete labour of an 
individual becomes directly social only so far as the product ofthat 
labour aquires an exchange value.

> This is all part of the "social life process" of our species. Only a subset of these
> activities are organised through commodity exchange, and only a subset of this 
> subset are organised for the production of surplus value by capital

Yes, I have pointed out that there is a limited scope for indirectly 
sociallising domesic work as Marx points out when discussing 
unproductive labour. But domestic labour in the home does not even 
fall into this category as it is not even exchanged for revenue as 
the work of a cook or laundress is.

> No the distinction is not that capitalism is about the material, and
> socialists are about the spiritual.

Who said it was? Or is this just a rhetorical flourish on a different 
topic. I don't know about Simon but I am not sure your reply to the 
same conversation. 

How spiritual is WORLD SOCIALISM for you Simon?  :-) 

John (who is look forward to a material communism)

     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Reply via email to