Anti-Capitalist Chronicles: Social Reproduction - Part 2

[@shelbylongbottom5865]

Please apply Marx's Theories of Alienation to the modern day school system (primary, secondary, postsecondary) and make a video about that! Thanks!

[@ShredMota]

I've just finished listening Pt. 1 in Spotify. Perfect timing. Thanks DaW and professor Harvey!

[@eve36368]

i know russell means back in 1980 said that marxism's favoring of industrialization was the "same old song" as capitalism. therefore, this discussion about social reproduction & social infrastructure is giving me hope about a way towards using marxism &or anti-capitalism to combine with indigenous liberation. but alas, i might be wrong still.

[@joshuah.8364]

I love how much her perspective gives us actionable meaning to this passage from Marx: "The worker can create nothing without nature, without the sensuous external world. It is the material on which his labor is realized, in which it is active, from which, and by means of which it produces. But just as nature provides labor with [the] means of life in the sense that labor cannot live without objects on which to operate, on the other hand, it also provides the means of life in the more restricted sense, i.e., the means for the physical subsistence of the worker himself. Thus the more the worker by his labor appropriates the external world, sensuous nature, the more he deprives himself of the means of life in two respects: first, in that the sensuous external world more and more ceases to be an object belonging to his labor [because he turns it into a commodity for the capitalist] - [ceases] to be his labor’s means of life; and, second, in that it more and more ceases to be a means of life in the immediate sense, means for the physical subsistence of the worker."

[@bernardheathaway9146]

Great discussion!

[@rosaluxemburg1670]

I Love You!💗

[@Zen-rw2fz]

I like how the intro song is unapologetically the sovjet anthem

[@psalc1]

that is the Internationale. find it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3LaYYWfaauGmq8 , the soviet/russian national anthem can be found here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIrakK2Xoqt6nJI

[@amyjones2490]

Check out Permaculture practices and Toby Hemenway books. Connects the dots.

[@clarestucki5151]

Might be helpful were they to define what they mean by "social reproduction"? How does it differ from 'private reproduction'??

[@Bisquick]

So someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe social reproduction is basically the compounding of generational wealth (or the lack thereof) and consequently societal status, social interactions, etc. Basically everything that follows from that materialization solidifies itself within the foundation of all societal interaction and becomes increasingly more difficult to resist as a result.

[@clarestucki5151]

@@Bisquick OK, thanks, but that's still over my head. Seems lik a seriously nebulous concept to me.

[@eve36368]

@@clarestucki5151 i would summarize @Bisquick's reply meant: social reproduction answers the question: how does inheritance happen? however, the actual definition is the basic premise of harriet fraad's democracy at work series "capitalism hits home" (although that series also generally expands into feminism & "the lavender coalition"). it refers to homemaking & healthcare, which under patriarchy was assigned to wives for little to no pay. However, now women are part of the paid workforce so it also includes what are usually framed as benefits regarding childcare, sick leave, mediation of conflicts within families, etc.

[@clarestucki5151]

@@eve36368 I feel safe in assuming that a great many of the people who undertake investigations into questions such as you raise by your observation regarding Bisquisk's response, are seriously deficient in understanding of basic principles of economics. In order for the human species to avoid going extinct, somebody has to tend the kids. The cost to society as a whole of raising the next generation is exactly the same regardless of whether the kids are raised by their mothers, by their fathers, by nannies, or perhaps in the future by robots.

[@eve36368]

@@clarestucki5151 I'm not denying we need to take care of people including children. what this question is saying is our economic records & figures need to account for & recognize that "house work" is work. it's literally part of survival, so the cost/setup of which is important to know

[@skapunkoialternativeliving6522]

What you have to understand whether a capitalist socialist or communist they do work at some point.. but they are now failing capitalism is the main one out there now but that's also failing now look around the world and you see that.. but capitalism but a lot of people out of poverty socialism did not...

[@bartholomewesperanza3442]

ska punk OI! alternative living incredible insight. Truly. Thank you for expanding my feeble mind

[@davidwogen434]

We've never had a truly socialist country so there's no valid comparison.

[@skapunkoialternativeliving6522]

@AJA BOOBOO I love your come back come back commentary I love what you said you make a lot of great great points and you'll kind of right I didn't think about it like that but now you mention it like that that is true but I know. Isn't really anyway because capitalism attract greed that's what it's all about that's my point as well but I'm just simply saying other systems like socialism and communism do work but also don't work that makes sense...

[@tbb4023]

There is no such thing as domestic LABOUR. Making a home is WORK. It is TOIL. The farther you go back in history the more it becomes hard work or even back breaking toil. Labour is work as a commodity. The exploitation inherent in labour is in its commodity value. If I volunteer to help my dad paint his house I am a VOLUNTEER and my work is neither a commodity nor exploited. If my wife does housework on a volunteer basis for the home that is hers and mine, it is VOLUNTEER work. Feminists have been trying to gender this economic discussion for decades and it is social studies gobbledygook and not economics seen through the lens of class. This woman is taking the wrong tack. If she wants to argue that women needed to be emancipated from domesticity as a civil rights fight that is valid. But please do not try to tell me this is labour.

[@beehivecity]

domestic laborers dont "volunteer" to do housework any more than manual laborers "volunteer" to work in a factory. when the choice is bend or starve its no choice at all

[@tbb4023]

@@beehivecity I did not say people volunteer to sell their labour. I said that housework is not a commodity because it is not sold to a bourgeois class so investors can extract economic rent. You are not paid to work you are paid when you sell your labour for its commodity value. Just because you are working hard, even if it is due to necessity, does not mean you deserve pay. I used the word "volunteer" not because it is unnecessary but because that is how most people conceive of a difference. It prevents descending into babbling about the bourgeoisie, renters and labour as a commodity.

[@tbb4023]

Besides, you sell your labour to the beneficiary of the fruits of that labour. If that is YOU and your loved ones, which increasingly does not include a husband, then you and your family would be the ones paying you a wage. This lady is spouting bad social science based on a picture of the world from over 50 years ago. Besides, if you do want to dial it back to life over half a century ago, if 1950s housewives earned no income and yet controlled 85% of consumer spending, I would say they are paid more than the husband for their work, which was less taxing if you are past the 1920s. This is nonsense to compare labour and employer relations to wife and husband. It is a valuable civil rights discussion but it is not founded on the same things.