Tithi Bhattacharya | What is Social Reproduction Theory?

[@quentinnussbaumer8922]

Thank you Tithi Bhattacharya. Very inspiring. I intend to read this book soon, and spread the essential messages Social Reproduction Theory aims to deliver. Have a nice day. Q

[@Limits6]

thank you for the brief summary. Excellent!

[@jopjop44444]

I like her, very clear

[@ScribblebytesWorldwide]

Great clear explanation! Now how do we do it? UBI? Use block chain to vote ❎? Give everyone a device and Internet?

[@arhansen85]

This is SOOOO HELPFUL

[@elizabethingram9784]

Great! Thanks for posting.

[@saimonzakayo8203]

Good!

[@aleciriza]

Muchas gracias!! muy claro

[@neillholley5061]

So is the argument that Social Reproduction is 'production' and that production should/needs to be paid for, because as of right now in our capitalist system, no one is paid for social reproduction.. it's just expected that women will do the majority of the social reproduction labor for free... But the way to 'pay' for social reproduction would be to provide equitable social services such as housing/food/healthcare/child care, etc, paid for with our tax dollars???

[@prestonlee6759]

Solid video Tithy, thank you.

[@PappyMandarine]

Not particularly convinced... Social Reproduction encompasses anything & everything. Doesn't the school system participate into (re)producing the working class (or in fact, any class)? Doesn't the media contributes to (re)produce the labourers as individuals through propaganda? Doesn't any social relationship, whether it be within the family or outside it, contribute to this (re)production? Labor itself does so as well. I don't see how this "theory" would be particularly relevant (in comparison with other theories, such as Orthodox Marxism) if it would be a critique of all the capitalist system and its social relations.

[@mementomori2285]

I think you're "watering down" the theory in somr way. Yes every lived experience contributes to the reproduction of the worker but under capitalism, the labor of reproduction is systemically under-valued and pushed into "private" purview of friends and family, meaning it operates within a different sphere and has different laws of motion than the process of selling labour potential for a wage, thus requiring theorization.

[@PappyMandarine]

@@mementomori2285 Yeah well sure, that's what capitalism does... It is only driven by exchange values, and use values are pushed into the background as you're saying. But this phenomenon isn't exclusive to what is called, within this specific context & theory, "reproduction" (different from what I meant in my message above). This discussion we're having right now is producing a use-value (well, at least for me lol), but since it isn't sold or exchanged in a market, capitalism deems it irrelevant, valueless. However if we were famous people or if we were lecturers and had it in other circumstances (probably in a higher level, no doubt), then it could be encompassed by transactions in a market and considered of (exchange) value. And the list goes on as far as the arbitrary distinctions between what has value and what hasn't go... In any case, it isn't specific to "reproduction", and as a matter of fact, the areas of reproduction that used to be outside the market are now being integrated into it: babysitters, tutors, cleaning services, caretakers, home helpers & so on... Which isn't a great sign of how our society fuctions, but rather a symptom of the collapse of solidarity & socialization. This also incidentally questions the aim and stakes of "reproduction theory", but I'm absolutely not familiar with it, so any further enlightenment & clarifications would be very welcome.

[@tymanung6382]

@@PappyMandarineSee Prof. NancyFraser's many videos + books, especially 3 part lecture (Walter) Benjamin (1930s Germany)Lectures 1) Class, Race Gender 2) 3 Class Beyond Class Expanded 3 part working class A) exploited wage workers, oftehigher pais, unionized B) expropriated low or no wage (slave) workers, expendable cannon (or work environment) fodder C) domesticated = reproduction/care labor C1) unpaid family labor to produce + maintain labor people C2) paid farm food, medical, educational etc. labor C2A) some professionals paid highly--- doctors, lawyers,.etc. more like exploited C2B) others, professionals or not, lower paid, more like expropriated Nancy Fraser says that all 3 sections are different but. necessary, so far only objectively, united----,unity in diversity (vice versa?) They are like different sorts of units in 1 army--- combat-- several sub logistics, transport, communications, medical. food, etc.(My idea, not hersHopefully she agrees or has some better comparison idea). Unity in diversity? Vice versa?

[@NickCarducciNJ]

‘Access’ you say but that is a guild of monopoly beyond commodity monopoly begging for state intervention to have labor-power social properties of social production, not the anarchy of private production for social capital instead of private. Premiums without price controls is social capital., healthcare subsidy doesn’t reproduce itself. Free access is inelastic surplus value over complementary demand in product revenue.

[@avataranonymous]

nice word salad. She is breaking down a theory.

[@MariyamuNamakanda]

Boost

[@TicharwaMasimba]

A petty bourgeois struggle by feminist intelligentsia

[@Shotsfyred]

Bad idea.

[@saimonzakayo8203]

Good!