- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Did I say that?

Posted by: Nikhil Jaikumar ( DSA, MA, USA ) on January 19, 19100 at 01:45:06:

In Reply to: Your intention, I think, is to petty-bourgeoisify Marxist Socialism posted by Barry Stoller on January 18, 19100 at 10:20:05:

: That's right, I'm NOT going to defend women's subordination to men. Communal dining halls, laundries, and child care centers will enable women to work (outside the home) and, thus, be entitled to receive according to need---plus be dependent upon NO ONE.

Some families like to eat dinner at home. Ditto for kids. As for laundries, I think it would be a good idea...

: : In other words, you imply that the nuclear family is synonymous with patriarchy.

: : And that i cannot agree with.

: But I DO believe in the 'nuclear family'---once material foundations are laid to make it completely voluntary.

OK, I'm sorry then. Your original statement made me think you opposed the nuclear family, categorically. Your posts since then convince me that you don't.

: Your definition is different. You want women to stay put in 'traditional' roles.

Did I say that? Who's putting words into others' mouth NOW?

First of all, tradition is not synonymous with patriarchy; most African societies are more patriarchal today than they were prior to colonialism.

Second of all, a guy called Robert Graves had a theory about how matriarchy historiaclly preceded patriarchy, maybe matriarchy is the most 'traditional' thing around?

Third of all, i believe we can pick and choose from the past. We can throw out the patriarchy, but preserve things like low crime rates.

: : I'm saying women should CHOOSE how much time to spend in the workp[lace and working at home.

: I believe child birth should exempt women from work for a liberal period (like the Bolsheviks did). But I categorically reject the idea of career housewives! When communists say that everyone must work, they mean everyone.

OK. I agree. I don't think that too many women want to be 'career housewives' as you put it. For that matter, it's omnly in the West that women HAVE been 'career hosuewives', for the most part; in places liek Africa they were too busy raising crops and selling produce.

: : What would you do if a man, a women, and their kids all WANT to eat at home? Would you FORCE them to do otherwise?

: If we consider a democratic conception of production, such decisions (whether or not to build kitchens in each home) would be left to all working citizens.

THERE! THANK you barry for conceding this to me. I think, horror of horrors, that we actually agree on this.

One last question: Suppose SOME families want kitchens and others don't. Would they be left to build the kitchens in their free time? That's OK, as long as they have enough time, spare parts, etc. to build the kitchens. Would the stoves and suchlike be provcided free of charge? How about the plumbing? Also, how much time would they have? This isn't going to be some kind of Maoist experiment with twelve-hour days, is it? If the (required) workday exceeds eight hours, then that's no advance over capitalism!

Also, given that 'free time' is to be used doing stuff like building kitchens, etc. then how much free time is going to be allowed? it seems to me like, to be fair, we should allow MORE free time than is currently enjoyed (since peopel will be doing productive things).

: But I must say that (Marxist) communism does grant rationalization a large place in its initiating vision.

Side note: I'm glad you qualify 'communism' in that way. It's certainly true that Marxism is only one variant of communism and socialism. as a non-marxist leftist, I appreciate that.

Also, Barry, I don't wnat to disappoint you, but I'll bet anything you like that the vast majority of families, given the option woudl vote to build kitchens in their spare time. So that they could have the OPTION of eating at home. For Christmas, Easter, things like that. (i assume that people in socialist utopia will continue being religious, as we always have been.)

:After all, you feel strongly that transportation would be public (rationalized). But, in your case, not cooking and dining facilities...

And if peopel want to ride their own bikes to work, i say let 'em. After all, didn't the Yugoslavs and the East GErmans make private automobiles?

: I say let the people vote: if men and women want to work extra hours to put individual kitchens in their homes so they can cook and clean up in their own kitchens each night, all the power to them.

They will, Barry, they will.

: My only concern was that you might be thinking that women want to cook and clean up after for men... After all, it was you talking about upholding 'traditional values' in the home and all...

Did I talk about anyone cleaning up after anyone else? And yes, I do believe in SOME traditional valeus. Not eveything old is bad, not everything new is good.

: Not the job of the state. In a Marxist conception, all love-bonds are extra-economic, free of all persuasion and pressure. Only love keeps a couple together.

On consideration, I reverse my position. I agree with you. "Not the job of teh state."

But still, it bothers me that half of all marriages in America end in divorce. A good number of those, of course, are serial divorces, usually the faithless celebrities like Mick Jagger who use women as objects. Nonetheless, I think that we have a problem,a s a society, when marriage is ended so casually.

: : It's an axiom of primate biology that women are more faithful then men, that men are more faithless than women, and so easy divorce is going to hurt women more than men. Ask Middle Eastern women if they think divorce (for men) should be easier of harder.

: I'm not going to ask anyone in semi-feudal culture their opinions on marriage and the family. I'm talking about modern socialistic relations here---with relations completely released from the bondage of private property (something you're not entirely prepared to release).

: I've made my points, no reason to repeat myself, we simply are at a dead end.

: : [M]aking a small profit is not a right, it's a PRIVILEGE that socialist society decides to grant to some people.

: Some 'socialism,' full of privileges and profits! I say to hell with it---opportunism!


What is that, exactly?

And you woudl have no privileges in your socialsit state? Not even for people who serve the state loyally, risking life and limb? Would you treat the same as some selfish, faithless bastard?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup