Kelley wrote:
>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?
Right, not profit, none of us to speak of are getting that. It seems to me there are two general ways you can look at this. One is, we women are peasants, we work so many hours a day for the lord and so many for ourselves, raising our own crop. Not sure where that gets us, although men yelled at the feminists at the 1968 Miss America Protest that they were "Mothers of Mao." The other is that the means of our livelihood (including essential parts of the reproduction of labor bits) are controlled by the oinkers. We work so many hours for them, they give us enough to keep us coming to work, we take care of the kiddies on the measly paycheck, incorporating our own labor, of course. Any time we (as a group) can win (a) more pay (in real terms) or (b) more social supports such as public schools or social security, we're gaining more of the product of our labor and some more self-determination.
The family wage point is that they admitted(!) that something needed to be put in for family care--now they're using our equal pay demand to say, fine, we'll drop guys wages down to the level of women's (while everyone's real wages are dropping) and see if y'all can figure out how to take care of a family in half the time. Oh, and, with no social wage to speak of.
As to what is necessary--as you say, the sphere of political struggle--we've made some progress on that, no? Necessary to keep us shutting up and showing up, but in general more than what is necessary to keep us from starvation, thanks to the movement. As our pay (both social and individual) drops, and I think it's still doing that, more force must be applied to us to make sure we reproduce, but that's another, longer, hairier thread.
<snipping a buncha stuff I agree with>
>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.
Yes, In general I agree. But is there a there there? On the left there is so much confusion and defensiveness these days it's all gotten to be about amelioration instead of emancipation.
>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.
As distinct from? Economic, social? Sounds good but help me out here.
Jenny Brown