Re: M-TH: Whither the Family
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] ---
Re: M-TH: Whither the Family
Simon wrote (before the discussion was side-lined slightly): In general, the family is communal living which is resistant to mass production, a bit like reproducing labour in a series of small factory lots rather than one big factory. But if by mass production you are trying to indicate that an non-family method of housework could be provided within capitalism which generate surplus value or was productive labour, then I do not think that is possible. Although some capitalists may put some domestic workers to work capitalistically (while also carrying out their own domestic toil) this merely results in money being circulated not surplus value being created. This process will always be limited as domestic work cannot be socialised under capitalism. Domestic work is part of private production and falls outside the realm of social production. On top of this as capital comes to rely on women and children to entering the labour market so surplus value increase as well as the rate of exploitation. But this brings about a fall in the rate of profit and hence leads to a capitalist crisis resulting in an increase in the reserve army of labour and women are rapidly and easily thrown back into domestic drudgery. Hence the stuggle for women's liberation, and the abolition of the family as an economic unit, will always be united with the struggle against capitalism. 'nough said, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Whither the Family
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. However I have differences with the precise wording of the distinctions they make and would like to discuss this more. It is an area that Marx did not illuminate particularly strongly as his interests lay elsewhere. Domestic work is part of private production and falls outside the realm of social production. To be consistent with Marx's terminology I would not say "private production" here. I would say "outside the realm of commodity production". This BTW is not completely true. Capitalism has been able to produce commodities that save on domestic labour, like vacuums and washing machines. Companies may sell as a commodity the service of visiting your home and power-cleaning the carpets. Domestic servants may hire themselves for a few hours a week. Human beings meet many needs for each other. 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. Nevertheless the incessant drive for capitalist accumulation means that this compartment constantly eats into the quality of the other life processes with damaging effects, even at the same time as it produces an over-abundance of consumer durables. Nor do I think the distinction is quite that capitalism deals with material reality and human intercourse deals with sentiment. The majority of commodities meet needs of the imagination, especially now as the social surplus rises. Growth areas are in "quality" products that somehow have associated with them the smell of social richness that capitalism actually destroys. Designer labels give a sense of community with those to whom you wish to belong. Electronic gadgets create groups across the internet. Massive expansion of air tourism pollutes the atmosphere and carries people to idyllic settings which they do not enter with any organic relationship, but merely photograph for their cosy social charm and leave, without any understanding of the contradictions which their hosts have to work through to make their own social life process coherent. No the distinction is not that capitalism is about the material, and socialists are about the spiritual. The critique of what capitalism does to the spiritual/social, needs to grasp the essence of how commodity production under capitalism eats like a cancer into all other compartments of an organic "social life process". Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Whither the Family
Simon wrote: I would agree with you that communal living is far cheaper for the reproduction of labour than individual consumption. But we were talking about the family, which is effectively communal living minus. Did you mean to add anything to this sentence 'minus.' what? If communal living is far cheaper and if capitalism has proved that the maintenance of drudgery is possible within the institution of the family then surely it must be in its interest to defend the family. The ideal for capitalism is what it has pushed the lower end of the working class towards - and which I am now in - communal houses where workers share in the facilities, cleaning, etc. but there is no institutionalized resistance to the capitalist economic process. I would have thought the communal houses DO offer the possibility of institutionalised resistance or are you referring to the family here. Again this is not a new Marx well knew the existence of the workhouse and the asylum where those who could not maintain a proper family household could be provided for - in poor conditions - on mass. One of the classic features of the family is the "housewife"performing tasks individually for her family which would be more efficiently done communally by creches, launderettes, etc. Yes more efficiently done but not profitably done. Again these communal facilities are nothing new. The launderette has - and is - the centre of many working class communities, as is the voluntary playgroup or some form of inter-family childcare. the point is that these task are paid for by free labour based on the sole income of the worker (and / or the 'housewife's' part-time employment). the campaign for paid housework has already progressed as far as capitalism wants it to, in the shape of strict benefits like family credit, covering the reproduction of the family as a contract. Well the welfare state in Britain may be able to provide family credit but the rest of the world's working class (who provide the profit to the West to allow such extra benefits) have only starvation to look at if they do not provide these service for free. Only if that drudge is fooled into having an artificially low standard of living. Feminism destroys the patriarchal family, which is the family as a unit with a worker and a drudge. They are not fooled they are force there are not enough full-time jobs in the system most of the time to provide any employment to a vast proportion of the population, so they are forced into drudgery, just like single people were forced into the workhouse (or now onto the streets!) The one great blow to the family was not feminism (which IF it had succeeded within capitalism would have had the effect you suggest) but the 2nd Imperialist War where women left the family (or the family left them) and filled the factories. But my argument would be that the call for wages for housework is already answered, as pointed out above. Many of the jobs that person then does are, as I have pointed out, paid for by the state as if as a contract. I do not think the call for wages for housework (I presume you mean the concept rather than the organisation, but either way) has been met at all. You refer to family credit but the work of the houseworker if it only took 10 hours a day (from preparing breakfast to clearing away after the evening meal) and was paid for at the rate of the minimum wage would cost capitalism over £220. This does not take into account the fact that they are on call 24 hours a day, they may have elderly relatives or people with disablilities who need extra care, it does not pay for clothing or materials, it does not include tax contribution, sickness benefit, extra pension contributions, holiday pay... I think that if it was totalled up - and Wages For Housework did a calculation via the UN of the cost globally - I expect it would come as a great shock to many of us and would deal a near fatal blow to capitalism if those houseworkers demanded it. I've never really had to deal with the question before - though I would fit the argument on needing a non-capitalist sector of the family as broadly Luxembergian (on the "capitalism needs non capitalist societies" approach). Do you have a reference? I know nearly nothing about Luxembergianism. One other point on which I am not clear is whether you are mourning the loss of the family in history or whether you are merely pointing out its decline due to capitalism. Does it have any validity? Comradely regards John Walker P.S. I'll try to be less verbose next time... === John Walker email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] === --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Whither the Family
As I said I would deal with your points on the family spearately I origionally wrote: What I actually said was that 'point of the family in bourgeois society should IDEALLY be one that puts up with the worker's long hours and difficult conditions and to selflessly (and at little or no cost to capitalism) maintain and reproduce the worker.' That the present crisises of capitalism make it more and more difficult to maintain such an institution (even with the help of the Church) is merely demonstative of its structural decline. Also I think you will find that, far from an atomised society maintained by packaged homecare utilities, for the most part many couples still have one person who works as well dealing with the household maintanence. For all the talk of 'new men' this role is still generally performed by women working in low-paid part-time evening work and whatever form it takes it is rarely paid for directly by capitalism. and Simon replied: Hmm... I accept that that may be the position today. What I was saying is that the family is continuing to fragment, and capitalism's own raison d'etre supports that. The family would ideally do all the things you mention, but then again ideally the workers would reproduce their labour as work units in the cheapest manner possible. Capitalism has no particular use for the family unless it cheapens reproduction of labour, and I would say that it probably doesn't. Have you ever tried maintaining yourself alone. To clean a kitchen, bathroom etc used by just one person is not much less effort than for a a number of people. To make a meal for several is proportionally far cheaper and easier than to make one each. The same is true of housing, to a limited extent clothing (depending on who the group is!), heating etc. I just cannot see anyway in which capitalism could benefit if people all lived in separate units - feeding, cleaning and maintaining themselves - all working in the labour market or recieving direct state support.On top of that, as part of the reserve army of labour, it will always be more efficient that the worker devotes all their time and efforts to working for the capitalist and have their reproductive (in the widest sense) need supplied by someone outside the capitalist labour market. It is the weaknesses and contradictions within capitalism, not because it is in a position of strength, that the institution of the family is breaking down. Nor is it a new phenomena we saw it is Weimar Germany with mass prositution, a significant gay culture and the loss of many of the traditional head-of-the-household who were killed or mutilated in the 1st Imperialist War. I have only one qualifier to what is a pretty standard position (shame there are not more women or people fromthe feminist tradition on this list as these are really very old arguments, presently thrown into sharp relief) and that is that my understanding of the family is not that it need be biologically or religiously constituted. Only that some form of division of labour be present to allow some to work for capitalism and some to work for free to maintain the workforce (with the added advantage of allowing the latter to be called upon to swell the ranks of the working class in times of need). The call for wages for housework has never been one capitalism has been able to concede to. I could go on but i think for the time being it is best to leave it there as for many this will be a familiar argument within Marxism. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
