Re: AUT: Re: Fortunati

["Tahir Wood" <twood@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Harald, I guess what I was wondering is why there wasn't a bit more of what you've said here in Fortunati's book. I think Chris for some reason is not wanting to concede that this is a bit of an omission there. Where she is very useful though is on the transition to capitalism and the way that family and gender relations were transformed in that process. You should read the book, it's worthwhile.
Tahir

>>> haraldba@xxxxxxxxx 08/28/02 12:43AM >>>

----- Original Message -----
From: "cwright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 27. august 2002 04.50
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Fortunati


> Harald,

I wanted to follow up the comments on the wellfare-state. It
will have to wait a bit. I am going away for some days, and
have things I should do prior to that. It would also be interesting
to hear Arianna eleaborate elaborate her view on
"community" in relation to value production. That I am
critical to how this question has been posed by among
Carlo Scarfone, Marrizo Lazzarote and Negri, does not
necessarily mean that there is no truth in their viewpoint,
nor that my expressed "counter-perspective" is
in any way beyond critique.


Here a comment to Chris on the Fortunadi thread:

> Actually, Fortunadi was not trying to add to the 'prophets' (always a bit
> catty on that, eh Harald?).  She was trying to critique the insufficiency
of
> Marx's analysis in capital for failing to adequately take up the
specificity
> of women's relation to the capital-labor relation.  As such, it is an
> attempt at a radical critique of Marx which seeks to keep what is
valuable,
> but correct what is wrong.

That is precisely what I implied by "add to the prophets". It was a
satirical,
and I think appropriate response to the "read englels origins of the
family ..." comment on Fortunadi's book. In my book "a radical critique ..
which seeks to keep what is valuable, but correct what is wrong, "
precisely seeks to add something.

But to substance. You write: "As for the necessity of sexual inequality,
since capital relies on non-waged or indirectly waged labor as much
as waged labor, but treats non- or indirectly -waged labor as inferior,"
we don't disagree, but you do not explain why (Fortunadi might) "that
alone would lead to sexual inequality under capital's rule.
Our disagreement on this point is not empirical. We do not disagree
that it has had this effect. Where we disagree is that it from this
follows that "sexual inequality" also is *necessary* for the
reproduction of capitalist relations. You essentially repeat the same
as the above when you write: "Fortunadi's point is that in the home,
capital exploits women's labor, but through the mediation of men, ie
men do not become capitalists, but the medium through which
capital exploits women."
        Again no disagreement that this does in fact take place.
But is also the truth that at least within some capitalist states (a
question which links up with that of the "welfare-state") an in-
creasing amount of this work has been moved to sphere of
wage-work, in a context where Taylorist principles of effectivity
can be put to use. In som places, "wages for housework" has
also been *partially* achived, to some degree within the
home (prior to and after child birth primarily) but foremost
through bringing much of this work outside the home. Techno-
logical remedies, fewer children, but also the concrete
nature of labour of wage-work itself, has played a role here.
In particular within the states that this process has been taken
the furtherst, as for instance within Scandinavia, there de
facto also has been a considerable change since the
1950-60ies (if not enough) in the sharing between the sexes of
the unwaged "reproductive" work  that remains within the family.
(But also the later has partially, although only partially, been
dissolved.) I have _very hard_  to see why capitalism could not
function perfectly well, even if full equality within non-waged
labour time was achieved. Even if we generally are from this
point today, there are reasons to believe that it might not matter
that much for the "health" of capitalism as such -- in particularily
if  you do not think of this in terms of a complete change
overnight -- who precisely does the unwaged work. There is
also nothing to point to homosexuality in any ways poses a
threat to capitalism. It might even be said that on average the
kind of "life-style" this often entails is more suited to the
"most advanced" sphere of capitalist production, and that the
traditonal family - fro better and worse - also set certain
limits on capitalist colonization of our lives.
        And to further turn this whole  question on its head, it might
also be said to (in part) be a question of to what degree
"reproductional" work can be commodified and/or brought under
direct state control (or in other words with the degree of real
subsumption of labour under capital, as this term is used by
Negri etc.)
        That capitalism historically has been and still continues
to be linked a special sexual division of labour is precisely
as much historical rooted as much as anything else. That of
course _is_ important, and will remain so for a long time still,
which is not to say that the future of capitalism depends on
the continuance of such a state of affairs.

Harald



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---