<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8230; is the value of housework?</title>
	<link>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/19/is-the-value-of-housework/</link>
	<description>A working notebook</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:22:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Nate</title>
		<link>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/19/is-the-value-of-housework/#comment-3220</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:19:42 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/19/is-the-value-of-housework/#comment-3220</guid>
					<description>http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/ope-l/2000m02/msg00032.htm

    * To: ope-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    * Subject: [OPE-L:2344] Re: the black box of the domestic sphere?
    * From: Gerald Levy 
    * Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:41:19 -0500 (EST)

Michael W wrote in [OPE-L:2338]:

&amp;gt; I just am not up to date with the Marxist-Feminist
&amp;gt; literature that no doubt does a better job than a ten-year old book.
(snip) In the
&amp;gt; My last prolonged engagement with this issue was during
&amp;gt; the 'domestic labour' debates of the 1970s. These fought themselves to a
&amp;gt; standstill, and what I walked away with was a conviction that the family is
&amp;gt; not integrated into the value-form determined economy: domestic labour (even
&amp;gt; if this is a felicitous term) produces neither surplus-value nor value. It
&amp;gt; creates people.

Which raises the question: what are the basic *theoretical* questions in
political economy which have been discussed and debated by
Marxist-Feminists since the &quot;domestic labour debate&quot; of the 1970's? (if
anyone is unfamiliar with that earlier debate, a good introduction is Ben
Fine &quot;Reviewing the Domestic Labour Debate&quot;, in Fine 1992). It seems from
my reading that most of the writings by Marxist-Feminists since have been
on more concrete subjects and have centered around economic history, &quot;case
studies&quot;, and class analysis. 

In the early 1980's, the relationship between gender and the
internationalization of capital was a source of discussion and research
(see Young et al eds. and Nash/Fernandez-Kelly eds.). In these
discussions, though, there was not much contact to the earlier debate on
domestic labour or value theory in general. More recently, there has been
a (multi-disciplinary) discussion about the household (Fraad, et al) in
which specifically economic questions are little discussed.

One of the boldest attempts to conceptualize these subjects from a Marxist
perspective is by Mike L (1992). What do you (and others) think about his
analysis?

What other important works on this subject have been written in recent
years?

I have no idea what has been discussed in recent years in Japan on this
topic (Mariko?; Makoto?). Last I knew there was a &quot;marxism-feminism&quot; list
on the Net, but it was pretty inactive -- and dominated by male
subscribers. Does anyone know if this has changed? (Nicole?)

In solidarity, Jerry

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
References:

Harriet Fraad, Stephen Resnick, Richard Wolff _Bringing it all back home:
  class gender, and power in the modern household_, London, Pluto, 1994
 
Ben Fine _Women's Employment and the Capitalist Family_ London, Routledge, 
  1992

Michael A. Lebowitz _Beyond Capital: Marx's political economy of the
  working class_, NY, St. Martin's Press, 1992

June Nash and Maria Patricia Fernandez-Kelly eds. _Women, men and the
  international division of labor_, Albany, State University of New York
  Press, 1983 

Kate Young, Carol Wolkowitz, and Roslyn McCullagh _Of marriage and the
  market: Women's subordination internationally and its lessons_, London,
  Routledge &amp;amp; Kegan Paul, 1981 (2nd edition; 1st edition published by CSE
  books under different title)

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><a href='http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/ope-l/2000m02/msg00032.htm' rel='nofollow'>http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/ope-l/2000m02/msg00032.htm</a></p>
	<p>    * To: <a href="mailto:ope-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx">ope-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><br />
    * Subject: [OPE-L:2344] Re: the black box of the domestic sphere?<br />
    * From: Gerald Levy<br />
    * Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:41:19 -0500 (EST)</p>
	<p>Michael W wrote in [OPE-L:2338]:</p>
	<p>&gt; I just am not up to date with the Marxist-Feminist<br />
&gt; literature that no doubt does a better job than a ten-year old book.<br />
(snip) In the<br />
&gt; My last prolonged engagement with this issue was during<br />
&gt; the &#8216;domestic labour&#8217; debates of the 1970s. These fought themselves to a<br />
&gt; standstill, and what I walked away with was a conviction that the family is<br />
&gt; not integrated into the value-form determined economy: domestic labour (even<br />
&gt; if this is a felicitous term) produces neither surplus-value nor value. It<br />
&gt; creates people.</p>
	<p>Which raises the question: what are the basic *theoretical* questions in<br />
political economy which have been discussed and debated by<br />
Marxist-Feminists since the &#8220;domestic labour debate&#8221; of the 1970&#8217;s? (if<br />
anyone is unfamiliar with that earlier debate, a good introduction is Ben<br />
Fine &#8220;Reviewing the Domestic Labour Debate&#8221;, in Fine 1992). It seems from<br />
my reading that most of the writings by Marxist-Feminists since have been<br />
on more concrete subjects and have centered around economic history, &#8220;case<br />
studies&#8221;, and class analysis. </p>
	<p>In the early 1980&#8217;s, the relationship between gender and the<br />
internationalization of capital was a source of discussion and research<br />
(see Young et al eds. and Nash/Fernandez-Kelly eds.). In these<br />
discussions, though, there was not much contact to the earlier debate on<br />
domestic labour or value theory in general. More recently, there has been<br />
a (multi-disciplinary) discussion about the household (Fraad, et al) in<br />
which specifically economic questions are little discussed.</p>
	<p>One of the boldest attempts to conceptualize these subjects from a Marxist<br />
perspective is by Mike L (1992). What do you (and others) think about his<br />
analysis?</p>
	<p>What other important works on this subject have been written in recent<br />
years?</p>
	<p>I have no idea what has been discussed in recent years in Japan on this<br />
topic (Mariko?; Makoto?). Last I knew there was a &#8220;marxism-feminism&#8221; list<br />
on the Net, but it was pretty inactive &#8212; and dominated by male<br />
subscribers. Does anyone know if this has changed? (Nicole?)</p>
	<p>In solidarity, Jerry</p>
	<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br />
References:</p>
	<p>Harriet Fraad, Stephen Resnick, Richard Wolff _Bringing it all back home:<br />
  class gender, and power in the modern household_, London, Pluto, 1994</p>
	<p>Ben Fine _Women&#8217;s Employment and the Capitalist Family_ London, Routledge,<br />
  1992</p>
	<p>Michael A. Lebowitz _Beyond Capital: Marx&#8217;s political economy of the<br />
  working class_, NY, St. Martin&#8217;s Press, 1992</p>
	<p>June Nash and Maria Patricia Fernandez-Kelly eds. _Women, men and the<br />
  international division of labor_, Albany, State University of New York<br />
  Press, 1983 </p>
	<p>Kate Young, Carol Wolkowitz, and Roslyn McCullagh _Of marriage and the<br />
  market: Women&#8217;s subordination internationally and its lessons_, London,<br />
  Routledge &amp; Kegan Paul, 1981 (2nd edition; 1st edition published by CSE<br />
  books under different title)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Nate</title>
		<link>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/19/is-the-value-of-housework/#comment-1428</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:50:40 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/19/is-the-value-of-housework/#comment-1428</guid>
					<description>hi Mike,
Sorry your comment got moderated. I don't know why that sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't. Thanks for the references. I'm not invested in the &quot;Marx didn't do this&quot; kinds of claims. I'm mildly invested in Marx having done so, because I'm attached to him, but more than that - and more legitimate than that - finding bits where he does talk about this stuff will provide useful material, in so far as Marx is generally useful when he talks about a subject. I'll check out the stuff you recommend when I get a chance, and will post any thoughts.
take care,
Nate</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>hi Mike,<br />
Sorry your comment got moderated. I don&#8217;t know why that sometimes happens and sometimes doesn&#8217;t. Thanks for the references. I&#8217;m not invested in the &#8220;Marx didn&#8217;t do this&#8221; kinds of claims. I&#8217;m mildly invested in Marx having done so, because I&#8217;m attached to him, but more than that - and more legitimate than that - finding bits where he does talk about this stuff will provide useful material, in so far as Marx is generally useful when he talks about a subject. I&#8217;ll check out the stuff you recommend when I get a chance, and will post any thoughts.<br />
take care,<br />
Nate
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Mike B</title>
		<link>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/19/is-the-value-of-housework/#comment-1424</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:08:45 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/19/is-the-value-of-housework/#comment-1424</guid>
					<description>Hi Nate,

Interesting stuff. Boydston is wrong, though, that Marx didn't discuss housework, though I think Engels was more interested in it. Already in the Comm Manifesto there is the bit on how &quot;The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production&quot; and the statement that the communists wanted to &quot;do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production&quot;. Housework is at least implicit in the discussions on the reproduction of labour power in the later economic works.

The biggest Marx-Engels consideration of the issue is in Engels' &quot;The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State&quot;. I googled a summary here: http://www.isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family.shtml

Of course there's been tons of marxist political econ stuff on this since the 1970s. To add to your references above: There is a debate on housework in New Left Review starting with Wally Seccome in the Jan/Feb 1974 issue. Also from David Harvey's Limits to Capital bibliography: a 1976 Conference of Socialist Economists booklet &quot;On the political economy of women&quot;; Himmelweit and Mohun [1977]: &quot;Domestic labour and capitalism&quot; in Cambridge Journal of Economics; E. Malos [1980] &quot;The Politics of Housework&quot;.

Also more recently, on the broader question of non-market dimensions to the reproduction of labour-power, Michael Lebowitz's &quot;Beyond Capital&quot;: http://www.palgrave-usa.com/Catalog/product.aspx?isbn=0333964292
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Hi Nate,</p>
	<p>Interesting stuff. Boydston is wrong, though, that Marx didn&#8217;t discuss housework, though I think Engels was more interested in it. Already in the Comm Manifesto there is the bit on how &#8220;The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production&#8221; and the statement that the communists wanted to &#8220;do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production&#8221;. Housework is at least implicit in the discussions on the reproduction of labour power in the later economic works.</p>
	<p>The biggest Marx-Engels consideration of the issue is in Engels&#8217; &#8220;The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State&#8221;. I googled a summary here: <a href='http://www.isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family.shtml' rel='nofollow'>http://www.isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family.shtml</a></p>
	<p>Of course there&#8217;s been tons of marxist political econ stuff on this since the 1970s. To add to your references above: There is a debate on housework in New Left Review starting with Wally Seccome in the Jan/Feb 1974 issue. Also from David Harvey&#8217;s Limits to Capital bibliography: a 1976 Conference of Socialist Economists booklet &#8220;On the political economy of women&#8221;; Himmelweit and Mohun [1977]: &#8220;Domestic labour and capitalism&#8221; in Cambridge Journal of Economics; E. Malos [1980] &#8220;The Politics of Housework&#8221;.</p>
	<p>Also more recently, on the broader question of non-market dimensions to the reproduction of labour-power, Michael Lebowitz&#8217;s &#8220;Beyond Capital&#8221;: <a href='http://www.palgrave-usa.com/Catalog/product.aspx?isbn=0333964292' rel='nofollow'>http://www.palgrave-usa.com/Catalog/product.aspx?isbn=0333964292</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Nate</title>
		<link>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/19/is-the-value-of-housework/#comment-1421</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:42:38 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/19/is-the-value-of-housework/#comment-1421</guid>
					<description>Thanks Nic, you're kind. I'd love to hear more about that gathering, sounds great. Marx-heavy is cool with me. I'll have to think more about the rest of your comment and respond when I have a bit more time. One thing I didn't quote from that Boydston article is that she has a brief bit about calculating the value of wives' labor. I can see some uses for that kind of thing, but it's not something that really interests me, calculating the value of any labor at all. I'm more into the &quot;letter of blood and fire&quot; side of Marx(ism) than I am in the figuring out &quot;how productive is this _really_ for the bosses&quot; side of things. 
take care,
Nate
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Thanks Nic, you&#8217;re kind. I&#8217;d love to hear more about that gathering, sounds great. Marx-heavy is cool with me. I&#8217;ll have to think more about the rest of your comment and respond when I have a bit more time. One thing I didn&#8217;t quote from that Boydston article is that she has a brief bit about calculating the value of wives&#8217; labor. I can see some uses for that kind of thing, but it&#8217;s not something that really interests me, calculating the value of any labor at all. I&#8217;m more into the &#8220;letter of blood and fire&#8221; side of Marx(ism) than I am in the figuring out &#8220;how productive is this _really_ for the bosses&#8221; side of things.<br />
take care,<br />
Nate
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: nic</title>
		<link>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/19/is-the-value-of-housework/#comment-1420</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:56:02 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/19/is-the-value-of-housework/#comment-1420</guid>
					<description>great post nate (ive decided to make 'great post nate' my theme song)- ive been wondering about this for a while. there was a 'material feminist' gathering here in london a while back that i couldnt make it to because of work, but there were quite a few next-gen and pro-position kids there, so ill see if i can find someone to write up some notes from it: apparently it was very Marx-heavy. I'm still reading Marx, but the problem i've had with the wages for housework stuff to date is twofold - the location of surplus generation: is it direct a.k.a at the popint of production (and therefore housework doesnt produce surplus value, which isnt to say it doesnt have value in a broader sense, we just have to broaden the 'Marxist' conception of sites of struggle beyond the 'economic'). Or, is it the result of the whole cycle, in which case pretty much everything is always productive and always has been....  i guess this ties into one of my 'big' questions on Marx - he starts from labour, but labour is socially defined (as is exchange), and is only one of many productive moments within the broader social environment (I'm thinking of, for example, say the relationship of clouds to day-dreaming to graphic design to magazine production). Do we start from labour time, or is labour time already the first moment of commodification, the imposition of the commodity-form via a process of rendering commensurable..

mmmm, Marxism. tasty beverage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>great post nate (ive decided to make &#8216;great post nate&#8217; my theme song)- ive been wondering about this for a while. there was a &#8216;material feminist&#8217; gathering here in london a while back that i couldnt make it to because of work, but there were quite a few next-gen and pro-position kids there, so ill see if i can find someone to write up some notes from it: apparently it was very Marx-heavy. I&#8217;m still reading Marx, but the problem i&#8217;ve had with the wages for housework stuff to date is twofold - the location of surplus generation: is it direct a.k.a at the popint of production (and therefore housework doesnt produce surplus value, which isnt to say it doesnt have value in a broader sense, we just have to broaden the &#8216;Marxist&#8217; conception of sites of struggle beyond the &#8216;economic&#8217;). Or, is it the result of the whole cycle, in which case pretty much everything is always productive and always has been&#8230;.  i guess this ties into one of my &#8216;big&#8217; questions on Marx - he starts from labour, but labour is socially defined (as is exchange), and is only one of many productive moments within the broader social environment (I&#8217;m thinking of, for example, say the relationship of clouds to day-dreaming to graphic design to magazine production). Do we start from labour time, or is labour time already the first moment of commodification, the imposition of the commodity-form via a process of rendering commensurable..</p>
	<p>mmmm, Marxism. tasty beverage.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
