Introduction
Tonight’s Anti-Capitalist Meetup is the second part of my talk in Amsterdam and also the second part of the piece on the exploitation of labour in class societies, concentrating on capitalism. Tonight’s piece is an introduction to social reproduction theory; it is not complete and there is a lot of work going on that is trying to develop the theory. This is literally my understanding so far of the basics of the discussion.
The piece tonight discusses the economic oppression of women in class societies and specifically refers to women’s role in social reproduction. This economic oppression is not separate and distinct from women’s political and social oppression; in fact it could be argued that it conditions this social and political oppression and provides a justification for it. Developing a unitary theory of women’s oppression due to their role in social reproduction is essential, but the political and social forms in which this oppression is manifested has been closely tied to our specific role in social reproduction which depending on your class means differences due to your (or your family’s) ownership (or lack of it) of private property. As such, while all women are oppressed, how that oppression plays out depends on your class. Additional impacts, of course, to women’s oppression are conditioned by racism and the role that it plays in the societies in which live, the power of religion in societies in which we live, disablism and gender roles. Tonight, while I will mention the additional political and social issues, the concentration will be on the basis of women’s economic oppression.
Just to remind comrades, in part one on the exploitation of labour in Capitalism, we discussed a simple way to understand the notion of worker’s exploitation in the capitalist economic system. Marx divided the working day into two parts:
- Socially Necessary Labour Time
- Surplus Labour Time
Socially necessary labour time is that amount of labour power that is used to reproduce the economy at the exact same level (you may have heard the term simple reproduction). So what would be included here? The raw materials and intermediate goods (constant circulating capital) used in production that are used up in 1 production period, a portion to replace the fixed capital (constant fixed capital) which depreciates over time and will need replacement. The third component of socially necessary labour time and that part which we are concerned with in this discussion is the social replacement of labour.
Surplus labour time is that amount of labour power which is used to produce anything over and above that level; this is the amount that if the good is sold where its total value is realised, that would go towards profits, rent (this is a cost to the capitalist, but is part of the surplus), and any surplus portion of wages over and above the socially and historically determined subsistence level of wages. Unlike in Smith and Ricardo, Marx argues that this can only be obtained by workers through class struggle.
In the first part we discussed that the capitalists are concerned with increasing the surplus labour time and hence the surplus value portion of the value of the commodity. We had discussed the creation of absolute surplus value (e.g., lengthening the working day) and then we discussed in detail the creation of relative surplus value and the introduction of machinery and the attempt to decrease the portion of the working day spent on socially necessary labour time as they were concerned with increasing surplus value.
Social Reproduction and Socially Necessary Labour
Let’s return to socially necessary labour as that is what we need to understand for a discussion on Social Reproduction.
Socially Necessary Labour essentially consists of 3 things:
- Maintenance and renewal of workers
- Subsistence and care of non-working members of the family
- Reproduction of the labour force through generations
Some of these activities are part of the capitalist production process, so the wages paid to labourers for their ability to labour partially cover general maintenance and renewal of the members of the working class. Wages need to cover reproduction of the working class itself.
However, there are clearly parts of necessary labour that are not done in the context of the capitalist production process. This labour, which forms part of social reproduction, is done at home without pay. As such, the labourers are not exploited as exploitation occurs in the context of capitalist labour process where labourers produce commodities that have more value than what they receive as wages. In the context of the capitalist economic system, surplus labour time and hence exploitation only can occur in the context of the capitalist labour process. Yet, this domestic labour is an essential part of the reproduction of the working class and is done outside the capitalist labour market itself and this is an essential part of necessary labour although it is unwaged.
“There is a part of necessary labour that is done domestically as domestic labour; it is the portion of necessary labour performed outside the context of the capitalist economic system. For the reproduction of labour power to take place, both the unpaid domestic component and the social component must be performed. That is, wages may enable a worker to purchase commodities, but additional labour – domestic labour – must generally be performed before these commodities can be consumed. In addition, many of the labour processes associated with generational replacement of labour-power are carried out as part of domestic labour. In capitalist societies, then, the relationship between surplus and necessary labour time has two aspects. On the one hand, the demarcation between surplus-labour and the social component of necessary labour is obscured through the payment of wages in the capitalist labour process. On the other hand, the domestic component of necessary labour becomes dissociated from wage-labour which is the arena in which surplus labour is performed (Lise Vogel (2013) Marxism and the Oppression of Women, Haymarket Books, p. 159).”
Food needs to be prepared from its raw constituents so that it actually provides nutrition, clothing needs to be cleaned, houses need to be cleaned, care needs to be provided to children, the infirm and sick and to elderly members of the family (or the society) who either cannot work or are no longer able to do so. This goes on at the individual level and on the society wide level as well. Most of these processes are independent of the sex of the individual doing it; there is absolutely no reason why a man (of any age) could not take care of the first two.
It is only a very specific part of necessary labour that part of reproduction that requires that women actually do it. That is, the actual physical reproduction of the child, the physical birth process itself is something that can essentially be done only by women; in addition there is the actual act of breast feeding which is an important part of the social bonding process of children (but breastmilk can be pumped and children can be fed by anyone in that case, but we should mention that as it is an essential part of the mother-child relationship and relates to the bonding process itself). In any case, the fact that during portions of the pregnancy and for the immediate period afterwards, women are unable to sell their labour in the marketplace and must essentially be maintained by the wages of her partner (or through maternity leave money which is why that is so important for women) along with the child.
This dependence of women on men has a biological component relating to reproduction of the working class during which time (and it is a limited time) where women are essentially dependent upon men. However, this biological component which is based upon a difference between men and women doesn’t necessarily imply oppression. It is perfectly plausible and it has been the case in previous modes of production that there is a sexual division of labour that is not oppressive in nature.
What is different in capitalism?
The main difference that is clear is that capitalist relations of production only provide for a portion of necessary consumption; the domestic labour portion is done outside the market and consists of unpaid labour. The exploitation of labour is done in the capitalist production process, but the wage only covers part of the subsistence and reproduction of the working class. Not only is exploitation disguised as the worker receives only the value of their power; but necessary production is separated into social production and private reproduction in the home.
Social reproduction is not only physical reproduction of giving birth to children; even those who have not done so understand that the physical birth is just the beginning of the process. It includes education and socialisation, nursing and loving care of the children, ensuring they are clothed, fed, clean, and able to develop as individuals irrespective of what potential role they have in our societies. Social reproduction involves a whole series of activities to ensure that children can survive in the societies in which we live. Moreover, social reproduction includes caring for the family and the family home, caring, nursing and support for the elderly (in the absence of pensions or inadequate pensions, this is part of general caring in societies), for the sick (children and extended family), and for those with infirmities (the vast majority of caring for its disabled members is done by family members). In the vast majority of cases, this is done by mothers, by daughters, by wives and partners.
This work is still predominately undertaken by women; usually mothers of the children and in cultures which have a strong extended family, sisters, aunts and grandmothers share this responsibility. Moreover, this work (which involves a wide variety of tasks and skills: cooking, cleaning, sewing, teaching, nursing, caring, socialisation – think what would happen if children are not toilet trained for example or that children do not know that fire can be dangerous, or that they do not understand the terms “safe” or “dangerous”) is not seen to be work, but falls under the name of social responsibility and there is no financial compensation for this work, it is essentially unpaid labour.
Social reproduction in the context of a modern nuclear family are tasks that primarily done by women at home for no pay; it is unpaid labour. Moreover, this preserves the absurd idea that women’s paid labour is only “pin money” as it is men that are the primary “bread-winners.” Women are viewed (incorrectly) as only working to supplement their partner or husband’s earnings, but not as supporting the household. This is absurd in many senses: the stagnation (and lowering) of wage incomes throughout the advanced capitalist world requires both parents to work (if there is a couple) to cover needs (our incomes are not dispensable), single mothers’ earnings are the main support for her family, and hey, guess what, sometimes women actually have the larger income … so a reality check is in order. We are not living in the past (and even then it was not true as women have worked as paid labourers since capitalism has developed) and we need to understand, yes, that women actually do paid labour outside the home. In fact, our incomes are not pin money they are essential to ensure that our family’s incomes enable not the purchase of little luxury goods, but a decent standard of living.
As this traditional women’s labour is deemed “women’s work,” if it is done for payment, invariably, its skills and importance to society are underrated and wages are low. There is still significant gender job segregation both in terms of type of employment and whether paid labour is full-time or part-time (overwhelmingly, women are over-represented in part-time work deriving from their responsibilities to home and family). It is assumed that anyone can do traditional women’s work and that skills used are low level, and hence there is a surfeit of people that can do this type of work. Add to that the fact that a lot of this work is unpaid labour done at home, then why should employers hire people to do it?
If sold in the marketplace, women’s traditional labour is used in the production of goods (e.g., sewing, clothes making, and food production) where labour is highly exploited and women’s labour has always been in use since the beginnings of the capitalist mode of production.
In its more socialised forms often done in the public sector and of a more relatively recent creation in such as in education, child-care, care for the elderly and infirm and in nursing; this work has been socialised due to the need to ensure that not only are women able to be in paid employment, but also to reduce the amount of their labour tied up in work at home due to need for them in paid employment during periods of economic growth, war-time, and post-war scenarios where as they were needed to work in the production process itself. Some of paid women’s traditional labour forms part of what is known as socially necessary labour time (labour that is required to reproduce the economy and society and for that matter, the working class; it is not all of socially necessary labour time as that also relates to workers’ consumption goods, but it is socialised traditional women’s labour).
Parts of traditional women’s labour have been socialised and brought out of the home especially around the issues of caring. If sold in the market, sometimes it is a luxury good affordable to the wealthy only (i.e., nannies) or those with higher incomes (e.g., child care when there is no free childcare), education and nursing (once performed by women as part of their tasks in social reproduction) have been socialised. However, most often it is considered low skilled labour done by women. Think about sweated women’s labour in the garment trades doing cutting and sewing, while tailoring was considered a skilled job done by men.
For a lot of it and especially the parts that fall into the service sector, it is a form of work where there are serious limits to profits that can be obtained if any (that means that it is not “productive” of a surplus product; everything is consumed and there is not extra produced and, as such, it is not “productive” labour where more than is needed to reproduce things exactly is needed). Productive labour has a very specific meaning in political economy which relates to the production of a surplus product (classical theory) or surplus value (in Marx).
What is important to understand is that these forms of work are necessary both that done in the labour market and that at home are extremely important (downright essential) and in its absence, society cannot be reproduced (and we are not only talking about the labour force here). The capitalist economy - like all other class economies preceding it - requires a labour force to do the work as that is from where goods and services are produced and this is from where surplus is derived which if sold can be realised as profit.
In the absence of human labour deliberately applied in production this just does not happen. Food does not exist, clothes do not exist, and the houses we live in would not exist; unless they are deliberately produced for human use and consumption.
One of the main problems is if these types of labour are brought into the private sector, that they will only be used if they fulfil a profitability criterion for those hiring the labour and selling it as services. What that means is that domestic workers will only be employed as such if their labour can earn a profit for the capitalist or their employer. It also means that it will be demanded only by those that can pay for this labour; that is other workers with higher incomes or directly doing the work for a woman of the ruling classes. As a result, we find women (usually women of colour and migrants) doing the work that they did at home for free for someone else while their children do not have the same – their mother takes care of someone else’s family and their extended family needs to cover their own children. Moreover, since this is not labour that produces a surplus product the only way to make money on it is to underpay the labourer. This happens for private domestic workers (nannies, house cleaners), those in the privatised care sector, employed as cleaners in hotels, etc.
If done outside the marketplace (that is, at home) there is no value produced as value is only produced in the context of the sale of labour power in the market for use in production. However, there is no question that this labour indirectly is a part of necessary consumption and if it were paid for it would increase the time needed for the working class to subsist and reproduce and will as such, decrease surplus labour time.
This brings us to an important consideration. If, as Marx argued (and for that matter so did Smith and Ricardo) the wage (which in Marx is the value of labour power) must account not only for subsistence but for the reproduction of the working class, shouldn’t wages cover this if workers are actually paid the value of their labour power (as discussed in part one, they can receive less, but that would start bringing the issue of inter-generational reproduction into difficulties especially if this lasts for a long time)?
However, while this labour clearly is a portion of worker’s subsistence, it is not done in the context of the capitalist labour market and is unwaged; not only does it not produce a surplus (everything is consumed) it is provided for free at home. The maintenance of family and home being paid for out of wages (the idea of a family wage) is an issue that is important; if this wage is supposed to cover subsistence and reproduction, it means that it should contain enough to enable the latter while recognising that non-working members have to be provided for.
If that is the case, what are the wages earned by working women for? Is that where the idea of “pin money” comes from? Women have always worked in the context of capitalism (usually as unskilled labour), so does the value of labour power earned by working men and women together constitute what ensures subsistence and reproduction? Or is it only the wages earned by the main bread winner, i.e., men? A proper family wage (where the income earned by one working member of the family covers subsistence and reproduction) has really only existed for those in skilled work and it is more generally tied to wages above the average level of wages (those wages above the value of labour power).
So how do we account for the reproduction of the working class? One thing is the daily maintenance which must be provided (subsistence) or the working class cannot continue working; another is the long-term need for reproduction of the class itself.
In many senses, as Lise Vogel says, the need for domestic labour conflicts with the need for workers to produce surplus value. So if women are needed in the labour force, the more time domestic labour takes, the less time available for work in the workplace. However, unless the capitalists plan to use a completely migrant work force in the future, then the working class itself needs to be reproduced. For that to happen, wages must be abundant for support of the woman and children (or a social welfare state exists to sustain women or maternity benefits are provided to cover these periods). The women and child need to be sustained during this period or generational reproduction cannot occur.
In the period following World War II where wages and productivity were linked (and workers received part of the value of the surplus product), the need for women to work as paid labour was lessened as the wages brought home were higher. Yet, many women still worked as paid labour while continuing their unpaid labour at home.
Moreover, the fact that women needed to be brought into work meant that their unpaid work at home actually needed to be made easier. The impossibility of baking bread as you were working in factories meant that prepared bread had to be available to be purchased. Making clothing also takes time; ready-made clothes had to be made available as well if women were to be working in factories.
This question is especially important if we consider the context of the reality of current capitalist production where the wages of women are essential for a family income as wages have been essentially stagnant and falling since the 1970s.
The Oppression of Women under Capitalism
While there are certainly disagreements among feminists on their understanding of the causes of women’s oppression and how to address it, there is no question that we agree on the fundamental idea that in a world rife with inequality, women still face oppressions that are specific to their sex and gender. The understanding of women’s oppression is further complicated by the fact that women’s oppression affects women differently due to different class backgrounds, the different experiences of racism, and their access to wealth and political power. The aims of the different strands of the movement and their understanding of women’s oppression reflect those differences.
On some issues, clearly we can agree and fight together to obtain reforms. On others, our different histories, classes and experiences produce different needs and hence require different solutions. If the nature of women’s oppression is simply inequality in accessing political, social and economic rights in a specific context, simple reforms may be able to alter things for the better. Will that solve the problem of women’s oppression? That depends on what you believe are the causes of women’s oppression.
However, the issue of whether the problems that women experience derive from more than the inability to accessing political, social and economic equality, but are conditioned by other things, such as race and class adds additional dimensions to the question. In order to understand this, we need to understand the role that racism plays in colonialism, imperialism or neo-colonialism and what role racism serves in this process.
In terms of class, clearly those whose role is solely to ensure the continuation of control over property (and to enable their access to that wealth and power) have different wants and needs than those who also have to work in order to bring income into the home as well as to ensure the social reproduction of their class.
If we go back to the first struggles around women suffrage, equal access to property, and equal rights, we can see differences among women from the beginning. An early struggle for women’s suffrage was led by working class women in the Chartist movement after it became rather clear that the 1832 Reform Act in Britain was not going to benefit the working classes; women’s Chartist groups existed and advanced a call for universal suffrage; this was not accepted by most working men of the time, of course; the argument of everything in its time and place is an old one and we always come in last.
The struggle for voting rights in the US split upper class white women from women of colour and led to a split in the liberal feminist movement; with some women arguing along class lines, saying that poor and uneducated men and black men had the right to vote before they did, they being women of education and property.
Instead of arguing for accessing the vote for all irrespective of education and property ownership (which was the position fought for others fighting for suffrage), they concentrated on their own needs. Many women activists of the hard left argued for supporting the extension of suffrage as part of the completion of bourgeois democratic processes; but they never believed that the vote in and of itself would create full equality for women in the context of capitalism (this was the case for Emma Goldman, Clara Zetkin, Alexandra Kollantai and Rosa Luxemburg; see: www.dailykos.com/...) . Some women of the hard left, like Mother Jones, never supported the extension of suffrage as she didn’t believe that equality for the working class could be found in the ballot box.
Moreover, when working class women struggled to form trade unions to fight for better wages and working conditions that did not apply to upper class women in the least. They did not have to work and, if these struggles were successful, they would threaten upper class women’s interests as their wealth, power and prestige was tied to their husbands; they wanted equality, not to lose access to that which gave them power. In the Introduction to “The Social Basis of the Women's Question” Alexandra Kollantai speaks of feminists in Russia trying to organise women servants and domestic labourers who then saw these workers trying to get better working conditions and wages against their employers (their selves). So, while the issue of getting suffrage was important, there were things that were of immediate concern to women workers which brought them into conflict with women from other classes.
For socialist feminists, women’s oppression is caused by the existence of property relations and that as long as private property (in the sense of private ownership of capital and land) exists, women will be oppressed. However, the types of oppression that women face are not ones that all women bear equally and in the same way.
Moreover, depending on the nature of the societies in which we live, the way in which things are produced and distributed, it means that women’s oppression differs in different societies and that depends on how those societies and economic systems reproduce themselves.
Socialist feminists argue that it was the creation of private property and its reproduction and inheritance that has led to women’s oppression. This is certainly the case for women of the upper classes that had to keep that private property in their family. But what about women of the non-propertied class, how are they oppressed?
The form in which women’s oppression appears are not ones that all women bear equally and in the same way.
Given the existence of private property, an obvious point arises and that brings us back to control over material conditions; once that private property exists and you have control over it, how do you know that it is going to your children rather than the children of someone else? Enforcement of monogamy and control over women becomes enshrined in society and then in religions to maintain control over that labour which produces that surplus and control over that property.
Women’s oppression begins with the creation of the surplus produce and private property; it is maintained in the family where we bear the primary responsibility for social reproduction and our secondary status is enshrined in religions and also maintained by the State, whose purpose is to preserve the societies and economies in which we live.
In different societies, with the existence of private property, women’s roles in society were determined by their class.
The role of women of the upper classes in physically producing the next generation of the ruling class was predominant; this also meant controlling their reproduction and limiting their unfettered access to the real world (think of foot-binding in China, purdah in Islamic areas, and the seclusion of royal women) to avoid children born on the wrong side of the sheet for example (unless that was needed for the production of heirs). Their wealth, inherited from their fathers (or their husband if they survived them) was part of dowries that added to the power and prestige of their husbands and not under their control. They may have controlled the running of the households they lived in, they may have even controlled spending, but political and economic power derived from the power of their husbands and families.
On the other hand, non-propertied women (the vast majority) worked and created the next generation of those to labour in the field, factories, etc. In the US south before the civil war, female slaves worked the fields next to men; there was no gender segregation for the slaves. In earlier economic systems, the labour of women was part of the labour of the extended family, we may have had different tasks, but it was not less essential (and it is still essential). In some countries, (not in all), peasant women worked the fields alongside their husbands. Moreover, they also produced subsistence goods for home consumption; they produced clothing, bedding, and food and also raised the children, and took care of the family and the elderly.
In the early stages of capitalism, the textile industry in Britain was a putting-out industry done at home in periods off harvest season by all members of the family. Children carded fibres; women spun the wool which was then woven by their husbands. The raw materials were provided by employers and the final product was given back to their employers; they owned their spinning wheels and hand looms.
The first part of the industry which entered the factories was spinning, done traditionally by women. Why was this put in the factories? Because the amount of wool or cotton that was spun was far less than that woven (it took 3 spinners to provide enough for 1 weaver to use) – this produced a blockage in supply of output; while the spinning jenny (1764) still could be used at home, the invention of the water frame meant that spinning could only be done in a factory (located near water) and women entered the factories first. It was only in the 1820s that the power loom ended the craft status of weaving done by men and weaving entered the factories. The introduction and generalisation of the power loom put a lot of men out of work and lowered wages in the field substantially. Attempts to get women out of the labour force to hire men unemployed by the introduction of machinery can be seen in the first factory acts.
We actually see quite clearly in writings of the time, the beginnings of the argument that it is women’s employment which lead to men’s unemployment rather than recognition that women rarely competed for the same jobs as men. Inevitably, we were employed in extensions of traditional women’s work for low pay and treated as unskilled labour. Additionally, and this is relevant, the large level of male unemployment created by the introduction of machinery (especially in the textile industry) and the lack of skill required to now do this job once the power loom was generalised created divisions among the working class itself.
Women’s oppression is seen in social and political relations and their linkage to the economic system of production and reproduction that underlie and reinforce women’s oppression.
Although it is the existence of property relations (that also underlie class relations) that force all of the direct producers to labour in order to survive, what is it specific to the system of capitalism that facilitates women’s oppression?
That relates to their responsibility for reproduction and for caring for the family. It also lies in political and social oppression which is linked to this; this includes a whole host of issues relating to reproductive rights and autonomy of women’s bodies, access to the same rights that men have in the social and political sphere and the economic exploitation in which we do not have access to the same better remunerated work that men do (there is gender segregation), we do not earn equal pay for the same job and even though we may use the same skills that men do in our work, “women’s work” is treated as low-skilled and remunerated accordingly. There is also our predominance in part-time work due to our domestic responsibilities.
For socialist feminists, women’s oppression under capitalism is two-fold. On the one hand, like all members of the working class, working women are exploited under the capitalist economic system. They are exploited as what they receive as wages differs from the value of what they produce as workers as they only get the value of labour power. The surplus portion of the goods and services they produce is taken by employers. On the other hand, all women face an additional oppression and that relates to the process of social reproduction. Working class women not only produce the next generation of workers, they are also responsible for socialisation and raising their children, they are responsible for maintaining home and household and they are responsible for the care of the infirm and elderly members of the family that are unable to work in the labour market. Moreover, their labour in the home is unpaid; they do it with no recompense.
The fact that women do work in the labour market for wages (and they have always done so in the capitalist economic system), but are still overwhelmingly responsible for social reproduction at home has impacted women seriously and we can still see this today in the predominance of women in part-time work and in women’s labour force participation rates being smaller than men especially in countries where support in the form of free crèches and pre-school do not exist and women working outside the home are dependent upon the support of other family members to take care of children, the sick and infirm that we are responsible for and the elderly members of society.