>>Sure, but first it needs to be pointed out that an individual's class does not depend in any way on whether an that person creates value. For example, I am a dole bludger. I try to avoid creating any value. But I'm still working class.
>
>Tahir: I beg to differ. I am not talking about classifying individuals here so much as characterising the class,
That's putting the cart before the horse. You can't classify the class if you don't know what it is made of.
> and the creation of value is very much part of my notion of the class, just as the extraction of surplus value is part of my notion of capital. As for the dole issue (I'm afraid I don't know what a 'bludger' is)
Bludge: v. (colloq.) 1. to evade responsibilities. 2. to impose on others. 3. to cadge. -n. a job which which entails next to no work. - Bludger n. [Macquarie dictionary]
Check out for the Australian film "The Wog Boy" for background on the cultural background to the "dole bludger".
> this appears to contradict your often repeated definition of the class as people who have to work for a living - if you can collect dole then in what sense are you forced to work for a living?
I'm not exempted from working for a living, I'm required to be available for work, to accept any job offer (luckily no-one has made me one in the last 19 years) and apply for a minimum of 3 jobs per fortnight in order to qualify for the dole. Unlike members of the capitalist class, who owe no reciprocal obligation to society in return for their dividend cheques.
A close examination of the history and rules of welfare actually illustrate class divisions very starkly. The requirement to work is where the class division cannot be disguised. Historically, the subject class class under capitalism has always been required to work, the ruling class never. Obviously if this were not so, there would be no class division, hence no advantage to being a member of the ruling class. Indeed, there would be no one to rule, since the subject class are ruled at the point of production. So the necessity to rigorously enforce the requirement to work.
Of course there are always a substantial number of people who cannot, for one reason or another be expected to work. Those who can demonstrate they are too young, too old, sick or disabled, etc. are exempted, permanently or temporarily as circumstances warrant. Social customs play some part in this, single parents caring for young children are exempt from work in more enlightened societies, but not in the more backward countries, where they are regarded as dependents/chattels of fathers or husbands. The able-bodied, who cannot work due to a lack of available jobs are also temporarily exempted, but usually grudgingly. Of course all exemptions of the working class from work are policed rigorously and always have been. Not so the ruling class.
>Tahir: What if capital decided somehow to remunerate housework and cut the remuneration of the (male) worker accordingly? Isn't this where the wages for housework movement might lead?
This is already happening. In Australia there are universal family benefits paid to mothers of dependent children, see the wbsite of the federal payment agency at: http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/pg_payments.htm for full details.
As for wages, they have already been reduced. Until a couple of decades ago, the level of male adult wages were arbitrated according to the male breadwinner concept. The legal doctrine was that male adult wages should be sufficient to support a husband and wife with two dependent children. That has gone out the window now, unless they have dependent children women are expected to work and expect equal pay for equal work. Wages are commensurately lower for both men and women, with one adult wage no longer sufficient to support a family - however some of the cost of raising children is being socialised, through government benefits.
Perhaps that hasn't happened in the US (you are a backward lot) but it seems a common phenomenon in the advanced capitalist countries that have shed the anachronistic feudal notions of dependency. Its more efficient the modern way of course.
>>Some do of course, I once worked at the BHP steel mill in Whyalla, boarding at the company's single men's quarters. As well as a bed, the company provided all meals, even a cut lunch.
>
>Tahir: Did they provide prostitutes as well?
I was pretty naive back then. I never thought to ask. But it hadn't occurred to me you'd include sex in the definition of "housework". You yanks really ARE backward, aren't you?
>>I'm a little surprised that you would not understand how housework creates value. It really is essentially the same sort of work done in restaurants, hotels, etc by cooks, waiters, laundry workers, maids, cleaners and so forth. Do you doubt that it creates value to prepare raw food for eating, to clean laundry rather than throw away soiled clothes, etc?
>
>Tahir: I was looking to see if you had anything to add to what I already know.
Of course.
>It seems obvious that clean clothes are more valuable than soiled ones, that a meal ready to eat has more value than a raw cut of meat, etc. Or am I missing your point here?
>
>Tahir: I meant value in the marxist sense, value for capital.
I'm still not sure what you imagine the distinction is between Marxist value and ordinary value. Since, according to Marx, the value of wages will average around the cost of maintaining and reproduction of the labourer, the socially-necessary cost of housework to support the labourer must figure as a factor in wages.
Less than a hundred years ago, a full-time housekeeper would have been a socially-necessary support for every worker, especially those with children. The work just couldn't be got through in the time we take today, with modern industrial products. Technological advances have made such a drain on available labour unnecessary, permitting women to be forced into the labour market along with men. Which makes it possible to reduce relative wages, as a single wage no longer has to support two people. In other words, the socially necessary cost of supporting the labourer has been reduced, so wages fall in line with Marx's theory.
The value of housework has been reduced dramatically, but its still the same sort of value it always has been. Its always been essential for the ntenance of the labourer.
>I don't see how you can distinguish between class definitions and class composition. You can't just skip over the question of class definition as being 'too hard'.
>
>Tahir: On the contrary, I find your definition too simplistic, and since I already know it I don't need to ask anymore.
If you say so. I seem to recall that you still haven't provided any reasons for rejecting the definition, or suggested any alternative. Merely made unsubstantiated assertions. You can't be too sure of yourself.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas