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
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
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
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
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
