not that I disagree with the below, but i have to disagree. profit goes to lining the pockets of capital with the dead bodies of labor, not in reproducing labor--not any more than that which is necessary and it is here, where defining what is "necessary" is the sphere of political struggle as delimited by a class system which defines the terms of debate, yah?
in a socialist economy those profits go to everyone for the reproduction of labor. AND, you luscious thang you, for the reproduction of labor broadly understood in just exactly the ways you've described: painting, mopping, cooking, eating, working out, cleaning, fixing the %&#(@ disposal, writing, mowing the lawn, wiping bottoms, arguing on LOB, shoveling the driveway, fucking, refinishing furniture, dusting, sitting on your ass reading romance novels while eating bon bons, and helping the kiddles with homework.
because, as i think you've suggested, the notion that reproductive labor is somehow only and always drudge work is really annoying. i don't know about anyone else, but when i'm doing work for other people, especially people i love and care about, and if I'm fulfilled and not overworked in my paid labor, scrubbing pots (which believe me, I really hate) and mopping up my lover's vomit after a bout with the flu aren't the worst things in the world and can even be enjoyable to me because i see it as caring for others and keeping my and their surroundings beautiful. it's especially lovely to do these things when others in your life are doing them for you, too.
but go figure. maybe it's just me. years ago i used to scrub the sink room for a fish company, scrubbing scales off the sink, walls, and floors. it wasn't the most fun job in the world but it was flexible and i was paid under the table. what made me whistle while i worked was this thought: the next day, people i liked and cared about by virtue of working with them would have a nice clean place to work in and they appreciated that. and, i thought about the people who would eat the fish: hence, i wanted to keep the place nice and germ-free.
under this capitalist system, this way of viewing the world can be understood as "manufacturing my own consent" (from Michael Burawoy). But, why on earth must it be that way when we aren't being exploited? It always strikes me--and i'm no pollyanna--as really foolish to assume consciousness won't change and that people won't view work as sheer drudgery when you start to see it as doing it for yourself and others.
but as i noted in my response to Gar: i don't think we will magically see a change of consciousness by simply changing our (macro-level) relationship to the means of production once we all share in that ownership. it is only through practice as we are moving from here to there that this will happen. unlike carrol, though, I don't define practice so narrowly. So, in the end, while i think it important to think about what the world might look like (because any critique of contemporary society contains an implicit vision of what the "good life" _ought_ to be), those ideas need to be considered/elaborated/debated/etc in terms of praxis. a praxis which encompasses far more than mere political praxis.
more, below:
>--sometimes
>explicity as in the famous 'family wage' which was supposed to provide for
>the woman's work at home as well. Sexist, cause the money went through the
>guy. Sexist, cause it justifies paying women less. Progress, cause it
>recognized some need to pay for the work done at home. Now they got us
>working 3 jobs for the price of 2--the job at home, the two jobs of the two
>spouses and nothing for the extra time, not even time.
>
>Some Marxists were against wages for housework, weren't they, cause the idea
>was that in a collective working sitch you could at least organize with
>others but isolation at home made that difficult. I think paid parental
>leave and extended half-time parental leave for both men and women (and the
>men use it or lose it as they figured out they had to do in Sweden) would be
>a start. Also more personal days to spend as you wish (to spend time at
>kid's school, to visit sick friend, to spend day in bed with new sweetheart,
>to finish lingering mural, etc.)
you said it sistah!
>Oh the guys won't do the work unless we push 'em
i think this is changing, slowly but surely. i had to laugh several years ago. we were cleaning up after dinner, listening to NPR. The author of a study was on with the revelation that men got more sex from their female partners/wives when they shared the household labor.
uhm... duh?
but hey, what about the recent study about men pleading headaches and more often the primary reason why they are in no- or near no-sex marriages? i just heard it on the radio, didn't investigate. know anything about it? (why i wonder? it's probably a shite study and/or shite reporting.)
> but now it's economically
>self-defeating for a couple to arrange things equally--for example with a
>small child--2 part-time no-benefit jobs? The usually higher paid guy leaving
>his job? Both work and one person's paycheck goes to childcare?--the choices
>we get under U.S.-style capitalism are simply dazzling.
>
>Jenny Brown
bring it on sistah!
kelley