> It does seem to me Marx presumes a past in which some
> natural, desirable, original relations structed by dualist sexual
> difference take place;
In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Marx says of relations between women and men that they are "the most natural relation of human being to human being" (which does, I think, have a romantic tone about it) and indeed elsewhere, the division of labour is discussed as founded on natural biological difference. Much more so in the case of Engels, as you know.
> that there is a sense in which capitalism has
> corrupted not only somewhat naturalised ideals about 'man' and 'work'
> but fully naturalised ideals about 'woman', 'man' and 'work'.
Those writings framed more emphatically in terms of alienation can be said to rely on a notion of corruption; the writings on India, for instance, drafting a distinction between Nature and History where the former is derogated as inert and passive, the latter active do quite the oppostite; the writings of the Manifesto tracing more deftly the contradictions of progress and capitalism; the comments on rural idiocy; et cetera. So, not quite in an overall sense "the fantasy of desirable original untainted life" unless you want to pick out one text rather than a series, or rather, I think he tried to pay heed to the contradictions at work at both poles, and even writings like those on India remain interesting for that reason.
This is, in part, the stake over whether there was a 'break' b/n early and later Marx, which I tend to think there is; but I also suspect would be an often too-neat way of not having to acknowledge certain writings as 'really Marxist' -- which is an odd kind of move and probably comes from designating a politics by way of a proper name.
So, it seems to me that the more determined case for why Marx did see capitalism, in the 'later writings' as well, as corrupting "not only somewhat naturalised ideals about 'man' and 'work' but fully naturalised ideals about 'woman', 'man' and 'work' ", comes from the discussion of the laws relating to women and children in the workforce in Capital, volume 1.
"Previously the workman sold his own labour-power, which he disposed of nominally as a free agent. Now he sells his wife and child. He has become a slave-dealer. ... By the excessive addition of women and children to the ranks of the workers, machinery at last breaks down the resistance which the male operatives in the manufacturing period continue to oppose to the despotism of capital."
It seems to me that while part of the issue here is the presupposition of natural differences, this is subordinate to, or forms on of the presumptions of, the depiction by Marx of women (and children) as naturally inclined to be, to put it crudely, 'scabs'. Ie., what's left unexamined is the why of 'scabbing', the patriarchal relations of family, the exclusion of women from public life, etcetera, that made the entry of women (and children) a means to break the power of working class, in particular, male working class resistance. It's there, barely, but I think it's easily missed unless you ask the questions of historical presuppositions 'all the way down', which Marx's reference to Engel's doesn't invite.
Unfortunately, failing to ask that question continues, but less so in the case of women workers (although I recall Keating making a big deal about it), and more so in the case of migrant workers, third world workers, and let's not forget the whole child labour issue.
That said, I find the discussion on the struggles over the working day and machinery to be some of the more interesting bits.
Angela _________