|
THE RED CRITIQUE |
||
|
Are Marxian categories adequate to understand "Gender" and "Caste" questions? Ranganayakamma
|
|
|
|
Are Marxian categories adequate to
understand "gender" and "caste" questions? My answer to this question is an
emphatic "YES"! My answer will be in two parts. In
the first part, I will introduce the main categories of Marxism and
explain how they enable us to understand and propose solutions to the
questions of "Gender" and "Caste". In the second
part, I will respond to some points of criticism that Feminists and
Dalitists raise against Marxism. Marxian
Categories Briefly speaking, the fundamental
conceptual category in Marxism is "Production Relations" or
"Property Relations". In other words, "Labour
Relations". We may elaborate this category as follows: For their existence, human beings
need products that are obtained by expending different kinds of labour
on the substances available in Nature. The fundamental difference
between animals and human beings is "performance of labour".
Human beings make use of the land that exists in nature and produce
substances and articles that they need for subsistence. In the course of
this activity of performing "labour", human beings enter into
Production relations (or Labour relations). If all persons perform
labour then the Labour relations will acquire the character of
"equality". If only some persons perform labour and others do
not perform any labour, the Labour relations will acquire the character
of "inequality", that is the character of exploitation of
labour. Owing to exploitation of labour, one class does not perform
labour while another performs labour. The class that does not perform
labour occupies land and all other means of labour as its Private
property. That class becomes the owner of that property. The
property-less class becomes the "Labouring class".
The very first classes in history were slaves and slave masters. Class struggle began since the days
of slaves and slave masters. The class struggle alone liberated slaves
from slavery. But that class struggle has not yet liberated workers from
the exploitation of labour. The present classes are Workers and
Capitalists. We may also find sections like feudal lords and feudal
peasants. The class of exploiters lives on
three kinds of income, which they get not from their own labour but from
the rents on land and profits and interest on capital. The labouring
class loses a large part of its labour to the class of owners. Owing to the problem of
exploitation of labour, distinction (inequality) of master and servants
arises between human beings. The exploiting class gets riches and wealth
and the labouring class faces poverty. This means, riches and poverty,
masterhood and servitude are the consequences of the exploitation of
labour. The solution for this problem is to abolish the rights of
private property and the exploitation of labour and make the class of
masters live on their own labour by means of class struggle. In
order to appreciate the explanatory adequacy of Marxism with reference
to questions of Gender and Caste, one has to understand several aspects
concerning "Labour", namely, Production Relations, Property
Relations, Division of Labour, Distribution Relations, Value, Money,
Surplus Value, Manual Labour, Mental Labour, Wages, Land Rent, Interest,
Profit, Productive Labour, Unproductive Labour, Independent Labour,
Family Labour, etc. All human beings (men and women) in
society enter into Labour relations. People who work at places of
production, domestic workers, women confined to housework, people
staying in prisons, orphanages and religious institutions; rowdies,
prostitute and beggars¾all
people enter into Labour relations. We need to know all these things in
order to understand Marxism. We can analyze any problem in any country
in the world with the help of Marxian categories. Not only can we
understand and explain the problems but we can also propose scientific
solutions. In the course of his investigation
into the nature of modern capitalist society, Marx proposed these
conceptual categories based on a critical analysis of economists and
philosophers that preceded him. Marxism on the
"Gender" question: As all the human beings in the
primitive times were "equal", men and women too were
"equal". "Male domination" began due to the
"exploitative property system" (We cannot examine the entire
history here). In the exploitative society, "patriarchy" (rule
of the father) got established. In the family, man is the master and
official over women and children. This means, the relation between wife
and husband is the relation between the "master" and the
"servant". There are no conditions of equality between men and
women in the capitalist society. There are no equal rights in many
matters. Except, as the wife of a particular man there is no scope to
recognize woman as an independent person in many countries.
The mother will not have equal rights over the children along
with the father in many countries. The same is the case with men and
women of the two classes. Men and women are not directly
"classes". Here there is no such division as "women are
one class" and "men are another class". "Class"
is the relation that exists between the owners who give "work"
and the labourers who do the "work".
This means, it is a relation of the "exploitation of labour". The relation between men and women
is not such a "class" relation. It is a social relation, which
is not a class relation. Or, it is a family relation. This "unequal
relation", however, is a consequence of the "emergence of
classes" in the society. (This is also one of the many results).
Hence, elimination of inequality between men and women is linked with
the elimination of exploitative relations. The
beginning stage for the abolition of this "inequality" is that
all women should engage in outside (wage) labour. In addition to women
who are already engaged in outside labour, women who are
"dedicated" to the home should also go into outside labour.
When the private right over means of production is abolished, when lands
are distributed among the agricultural population and only when new jobs
are created in the factories, only then it is possible for all the women
to go into the outside labour. As a result, women will begin to get
incomes and attain the capacity for "self-maintenance". They
will be free from the condition of dependence on men for maintenance.
Even for those women who live on "prostitution" due to dire
poverty, employment itself will be the beginning stage of their
liberation. Just as men of the capitalist class
enter into labour, women of their class also enter. We need not
specifically focus on this. If women also participate in wage
labour outside of the home, social organizations—especially those that
take care of children—should emerge. The next stage involves the change
of old divisions of labour between men and women. Women should have
equal opportunities to participate in any job that men do in the
production processes. At home, all the household chores should be the
"responsibilities" of both men and women. They should
discharge with equal responsibility all such household duties as
cooking, childcare, care of the aged, house cleaning etc. Words like
"woman's work" "man's work" should disappear both at
home and outside. They should have equal rights and duties in law. One of the aspects of the equal
rights of men and women is an equal right in respect to
"identifying" children. We "identify" a person
through a name that includes two aspects, namely, the "given
name" and the "surname". In the exploitative societies,
children get their name through their father. This means, a child is
identified through its father only! The mother will not have a place in
this regard. Since both mother and father are responsible for the birth
of a child, we have to bring in their identities into the names of the
child in such a way that both the mother and father find a place. We
have to follow a consistent path for equality.
Thus we have to change all the features, which the exploitative
society has created in man-woman relationships. When both men and women attain the
capacity for self-maintenance and to maintain their children, their
"co-habitation" will no longer be similar to the
"co-habitation" of the old times. It will become cohabitation
based on equal labour relationships. It will be the cohabitation of men
and women who are independent and equal. It will change the old
character of the institution of the family. This means, the
"family" will exist in the society firmly but its character
will become just and equal.
Along with it, the entire terminology connected with the old
life style of men and women also changes. In this "transition
stage", however, men will cooperate with some of these changes
only. The working class male, who wants equality with the
"master" will be averse to giving up his "masterhood"
in the family. He will act obstinately against completely giving up his
male-domination for the sake of equality with his wife.
Men who quickly realise the features of the New Society will open
their eyes quickly. They will quickly leave the throne of domination.
But those who cannot do so will go on clinging and clinging to its
edges. Just as a great deal of struggle is
necessary to drag the non-labouring class into labour, and as much
struggle is necessary to drag the class of mental labourers into manual
labour, similarly so much struggle is also necessary to drag men into
the "work of women" and to get rid of their male domination. Women will be emancipated
completely only when they learn self-respect to fight against male
domination, wherever and whenever it appears. Just as many wrong solutions arise
for any problem, so also various kinds of wrong solutions have arisen
for the problem of "male domination". All of these have been
bourgeois solutions. One "solution" for the sake of women who
dedicated their life to their "home" argues thus: "As a
wife does all the household chores, the husband should pay
"wages" to his wife. He has to calculate and pay wages for
cooking, childcare and all other work. Or, the Government should pay
wages to the housewives". These are solutions that the bourgeois
feminists discovered. Both wife and husband are
responsible for the family. Out of the work that women do for the
"family", half of it is anyway the responsibility of women.
Further, it is the full responsibility of a woman to maintain herself
and half of her responsibility to maintain children. When women cannot
discharge their responsibility, men must undertake it. This means the
expenditure connected with the maintenance of the woman and the
expenditure, which the mother has to share in respect to the children
come from the income of the "man". (Man does that "labour"
outside). If men undertake the responsibility which women are expected
to do in respect to maintenance, women are then obliged to undertake the
responsibility that men are expected to do in respect to
"housework". This is a division of labour, which says,
"housework for women, outside work for men". The solution for
this problem is: "housework for both! Outside work for both!"
Then both will discharge the responsibility of maintenance as well as
housework. If both men and women have
conditions of equality whereby both of them receive education and learn
labour-power, right from the beginning, women too would attain the
capacity to "maintain herself" like men. Whatever is the solution between
two men, the same is the solution between men and women. Such a solution
does not appear to the bourgeois view because the solution of
"equality" between two men also does not appear to it. To say "wages for the
housewife" means "to confine women to housework only". It
means to save men from doing the housework! This means that a housewife
remains a housewife. For women, always housework! For men, always
outside work! Both will
never become equal! This is the struggle of the bourgeois feminist
fighters for "equality". Marxism
on the "Caste" question: The "lower" castes do not
possess the means of production. Only the "upper" castes
possess them. Even among these, only few people possess them. The majority of people in the lower
castes do the low-level manual labour including various kinds of unclean
jobs: less unclean and more unclean. The majority of people in the upper
castes who do labour are engaged in the high-level manual labour and
mental labour. Hence, the problem of
"castes" in this kind of society should be solved by such
changes as: abolition of the private right of the upper castes over the
means of production and changes in the old division of labour.
As a result of the abolition of private right over the means of
production, the conditions whereby upper caste people stand as masters
over low caste people will be abolished. The non-labouring upper caste
population too will enter into labour. Later, owing to the abolition of
the old division of labour, upper castes will come into manual labour
and lower castes will come into mental labour. Which means, the division
of labour must be changed in such a way that every individual does
perform certain kinds of mental labour and certain kinds of manual
labour (including unclean jobs: both less unclean and more unclean) that
are necessary for the existence of society. Superstructural changes like
intercaste marriages are also part of this change. But intercaste
marriage cannot become a generalized phenomenon unless property
relations and the existing division of labour are radically transformed. Take any of these changes, it is a
class struggle. To say that landless lower castes
require land is a class struggle. To say that lower castes, which
always do manual labour, should come into mental labour is also a class
struggle. The basis for caste distinction is
class distinction. Therefore, the disappearance of
castes depends on the class struggle only. If we do not grasp the class
struggle, there would not be any programme that can eliminate castes. If
class struggle is absent, the lower castes will always have to remain as
servants of the "masters" who possess means of production and
will have to remain in manual labour.
Gender relations are connected with
the "Superstructure". Labour
relations alone constitute the "Base". First, we have to
recognize that society is divided into two classes: the class that
performs labour and the class that exploits labour. The class that
performs labour receives only some portion of its labour as
"wages", loses a large part as "Surplus Value", and
lives a life of dire poverty. The class that exploits labour, while
sharing and consuming surplus value in the form of profit, interest,
rent, merchant commission etc., lives in comfort, luxury and leisure
without doing labour. It is the working class that performs the labour
necessary for both classes. Sections of labourers who perform
various kinds of manual labour, mental labour, productive labour,
unproductive labour¾all
of them together constitute the "working class". Women and
children too perform labour and are part of the "working
class". Relations that exist at the place where labour is performed
constitute relations between the class that performs labour and the
class that exploits labour. We find men and women in the working class
as well as the exploiting class. The nature of gender relations in every
class is identical. We find male domination as well as subordination of
women in both of the classes. However, they exist in various forms
depending upon the conditions of those classes. Gender relations are not relations
that constitute the Base. They are Superstructural relations that arise
in accordance with the nature of the Base. If any change in any aspect
of the Superstructure has to take place, it will invariably be connected
with the changes that take place in the Base. This does not mean that we
must first change the Base completely and only then initiate the changes
in the Superstructural aspects. Anybody can respond anywhere to any
problem and struggle for its solution. But we cannot locate the root
cause and the solution to the problem if we cannot understand the
connection between the Base and Superstructure. The struggle will not
proceed along the right path. It won't yield a desirable result even
temporarily. On
the distinction and interaction between the Base and Superstructure: The Base consists of "labour
(production) relations" while the Superstructure includes politics,
art, literature, education, religion, philosophy, culture, ideology,
social consciousness etc. It is necessary to explain Superstructural
relations in accordance with the Base relations. Suppose there is no
distinction between the Base and Superstructure in society. Let us
assume that all aspects (labour relations as well as Superstructural
aspects) of society stand side by side and influence each other to the
same degree. To see the consequence of such a
situation, let us consider only two aspects of society, namely, A and B.
These are able to influence one another in an equal measure. This means,
if A could influence B 100%, B too could influence A 100%. What will
happen then? If B transforms into A due to the influence of A, A
transforms into B due to the influence of B. The two interchange. They
remain as before after changing their names. This means, when the
influences of two things are in the same measure, it amounts to the
non-existence of any influence. Even when we assume the level of their
influence to be less than 100%, it amounts to the non-existence of any
influence if we take their influence in equal measures. It follows that
the two things are standing side by side wholly as two different things.
But if we understand the materialist principles in a proper manner,
phenomena of either nature or society do not exist in isolation and
without interrelationships. Those who talk of mutual influence
and interaction too acknowledge this fact. But even among the
materialists, we find the following argument: "We too acknowledge
the fact that there exist mutual connection, influence and interaction
among phenomena of society. We don't agree with the assumption that one
is Base and the other is Superstructure. We further disagree with your
assumption that Base alone influences Superstructure". But, when one accepts the fact that
there exists "mutual influence", the issue does not end there.
One has to arrive at a correct understanding on the question of whether
the mutual influences would be in equal measure or vary. What would be
the result if we combine the two facts: (1) Phenomena influence one
another. (2) The influences will not be in equal measure but vary? The primary aspect would be the one
that influences most (whatever be that phenomenon). The rest will
inevitably become secondary phenomena that are subsumed under the
primary phenomenon. Although all the secondary phenomena too have their
own influence, although each of the secondary phenomena shows its
influence on the primary phenomenon and although these mutual influences
travel in both directions, the ultimate result of the totality of these
interactions is that all the secondary phenomena will be subsumed under
the primary phenomenon. If we apply this to society, we
have to arrive at the conclusion that one particular aspect of society
constitutes the Base and the rest of the aspects constitute the
Superstructure. In case we assume that there is not one but several
Bases for society, even then we find the same result which we have
already seen. Of all those several Bases, one particular aspect that
influences the most becomes the primary Base and the rest of them become
secondary Bases in varying degrees. According to Marx, "Labour
relations" constitute the "real foundation". What is the
nature of that "foundation" is a different question. Whatever
be its nature, it is the Base. Labour relations alone would
constitute the Base even when the exploitation of labour ceases to
exist. The influence of the Base on various components of the
Superstructure is necessarily a logical process and not a mechanical
process. Those who do not accept the Base of "labour
relations" which Marx assumes should also posit some other Base in
its place. This means, they have to posit some primary aspect that could
influence all other aspects. If they say that "there exists no Base
and all the phenomena exist in equal measure", it means that they
don't stick to a proper logic. On the argument
that Marxism is not adequate to eliminate oppression of women since it
does not consider "Patriarchy" as the root cause: Patriarchy is the immediate cause
of the oppression of women. Well, then, what is the basis of patriarchy?
Private property! The basis for private property is exploitation of
labour. The present-day exploitation of labour is taking place in the
form of profit, interest and rent. Marxism has caught hold of this
exploitation of labour. We can eliminate private property only when we
change its basis. Man (the male person) is able to
exist as a master over the family because of his ownership of property.
As the ruling class is the class that possesses property, the
propertyless working class too has to follow the laws and traditions of
the ruling class. Therefore, in order to eliminate oppression of women,
it is not enough if we utter the term "patriarchy",
"patriarchy" and "patriarchy"! We need a path that
eliminates patriarchy. Do Feminists have any path for this? There isn't
anything. We find that path only in Marxism.
It attacks the property relations that give men the right over property.
No one can do any thing to patriarchy without attacking property
relations. Marxism does not stop at patriarchy
only. It showers its fury on the property relations, that is, on the
exploitation of labour. If women too exist as workers, both
women and men will be free from exploitation by means of the same path.
In the case of women who are confined to the home, their entry into
social labour and men's participation in housework will be the solution.
Marxism shows this path clearly. Man's hold over property
ownership/control will be shaken by the abolition of relations of
private property. With a change in the Division of Labour between men
and women both at home and outside, the privileges of men will
completely vanish. What will all these changes achieve? They achieve
equality. Women too are human beings.
If any one says that the path which eliminates exploitation and
make humans equal is useless, it amounts to saying that exploitation is
useful and human beings need not live as equals. It means that they are
defending the man's ownership and control over property and family and
are arguing that men and women should live as Unequals as before. Those who ignore the basis that
gives men power cannot do any good to women simply by shouting
"Patriarchy"! "Patriarchy"! Moreover they do good to
men only. On the
existence of so-called "Sex-Classes" and the existence of
antagonistic contradictions between men and women: One cannot identify men and women
as two different classes (Sex Classes) since classes are based on the
exploitation of labour. All men as a class do not exploit the labour of
all women just as Capitalists as a class exploit the labour of workers.
However one can use the term "Sex Class" loosely to highlight
the fact that exploitative society created an antagonistic (enemy)
relation between men and women. Private property and right of
inheritance to the male offspring arose on the foundation of the
exploitation of labour. This resulted in male domination and female
subordination. In the exploiting class, man alone is the owner of the
property. He alone is the "master" of all women in his family.
The working class too has to adopt the same laws and traditions that the
ruling class follows. Thus even in the propertyless working class, man
is the master of his family. If we examine man-woman relations
both in the exploiting class and the working class as well, we find
their character akin to that of master-slave relations. Men have many
special rights, which women do not have in law or in social traditions.
Man alone is the "master" of the entire family. Society
recognizes women and children only through that master. If we find, in
any relation, masterhood on the one side and servitude on the other,
such a relation¾wherever
we find it¾is
a relation involving "antagonistic (enemy) contradictions".
When we speak of "antagonistic contradictions", we do not mean
that wives and husbands cut each others" throats. Antagonistic
contradiction means the existence of mutually contradictory conditions. When
we speak of the elimination of Sex Classes, we mean the elimination of
the conditions of domination by men and conditions of subordination of
women. It does not mean that all men should perish and only women should
remain. The division of men and women into distinct "Sex
Classes" would be correct if and only if the division had nothing
to do with the exploitation of labour, and was only a question of the
masterhood of man in the family and subordination of women to men. The
relations of domination and subordination between men and women,
however, are connected with production relations. Gender relations are
based on the production relations that constitute the "Base".
Therefore, the struggle to change gender relations will proceed along
the right path only if the struggle to change production relations
proceeds along the right path. We cannot accomplish the task of changing
gender relations without reference to the class struggle that changes
the production relations. The working class men, too,
exercise domination over the working class women. Against this
domination, some women keep fighting at a personal level. Such women are
able to improve their conditions to some extent. Similarly some men give
up many of their rights which society gave them to dominate women. When
men and women who cherish "equality" become husband and wife,
the antagonistic contradiction at the level of family disappears and
friendship and harmony flourish. But antagonistic contradictions at the
level of society still remain as before. To change them, we have to wage
struggles to change the social foundation. The working class men will realize
the unjust nature of their domination over women when they realize the
unjust nature of the domination of exploiters over them as well as the
entire working class that includes not only male workers but also female
workers. The men and women of the working class, who fight with class
consciousness in order to get rid of the domination of their masters,
will realize the relation of domination and subordination that exist
between them. Here, we will find women waging a struggle of self-respect
to get rid of their subordination. We will find demands in accordance
with the goals of their struggle. On the other hand, we will also find
men waging a struggle of self-criticism to get rid of their domination
over women. In
the course of that struggle, we will find weakness, vagueness, ignorance
and defeat in both of the parties. Both of the parties have to strive to
make themselves eligible for "equality". It is not men alone
who have to change; women too have to change. Women will acquire class
consciousness to fight for their rights and equality in proportion to
the level of class consciousness with which the class struggle proceeds
to eliminate relations of exploitation. Accordingly men too cooperate
with the struggle of women and change themselves so that women's
struggles need not continue for a longer time. The
disappearance of Sex Classes is a programme that is intertwined with the
abolition of economic classes. Based on this understanding, if someone
refers to men and women as "Sex Classes" and speaks of the
antagonistic contradictions between them, there is nothing wrong in it
except that it uses the term "class" loosely. When changes
take place in such a way that the contradictions are eliminated, then
the classes themselves will vanish. Then we will find relations of
equality. When seen in terms of nature, they are men and women; when
seen in terms of society, all will live in the same conditions. The
conditions that divide men and women into classes will disappear. On
the assumption that the "reproduction of human beings" is also
a production activity like the production of goods: This assumption is totally false.
The two are not identical. The reproduction of human beings is natural
while the production of goods is social. The latter involves labour and
the exploitation of labour. No sane person can talk of reproduction of
human beings in terms of production activity. One need not know any
science to understand this point. But, male domination operates in the
sphere of the reproduction of human beings since men dominate women in
the family. People have a belittling attitude towards female children.
They want the birth of male children only. The husband will be ready for
a second marriage if the wife does not give birth to children in general
or male children in particular. But the wife cannot think of a second
marriage when there is a defect in the reproductive functions of her
husband. One morality for the husband and another for the wife.
Everywhere things happen in favour of men. While the situation within
the family is so, the over-all politics of the ruling class that governs
society declares theories of population that facilitate exploitation.
For example, the modern capitalist system based on production by
large-scale machinery does not need a working class population in large
numbers. The capitalist class, however, needs some unemployed persons
because it gets workers for low wages if there is constant competition
among workers. The population exceeding this need is a "surplus
population" in the view of the capitalist class. The population of the
"exploiting class", however large it may be, will not become a
surplus. Only members of the working class can become a redundant
population. When over-population of the working class becomes a headache
to the capitalist class, it raises a huge cry about the increasing
population. Theories that prevent the reproduction of human beings
begin. However, when the working class population is less in numbers in
some capitalist countries, then they begin to offer incentives to those
who give birth to many children. Thus, all the rights concerning human
reproduction are vested directly or indirectly in the hands of the
exploiting class at the societal level and in the hands of men at the
family level. Thus there is a connection between a society based on
exploitation and human reproduction, which is an important aspect of the
woman's life. On the
criticism that "Marx includes the expenditure connected with the
maintenance of the wife in the value of the labour power of a male
worker and this implies that Marxism projects the male worker as the
breadwinner of the family and woman as dependent on him":
Marx takes the male worker as an
example in his discussion and as a representative of the working class.
Likewise, he takes a manual labourer instead of a mental labourer. Marx's observation that the value of the labour power of a
worker includes his wife's maintenance refers to the period that
precedes modern large-scale industry. Marx himself notes that women and
children entered in large numbers into wage-labour outside of the family
since the days of large-scale industry based on modern machinery. Well,
the question is whether men took care of the maintenance of women in the
working class families before modern industry. (It is needless to say
that the same situation still exists in the majority of the so-called
"middle class" families). Even if we consider present day
working class families, the fact is that the number of female workers is
not equal to that of male workers in any given country. If we consider
the same point during the period of manufacture, the number of women
workers was much less. If we go back further in time, the number of
female workers would be much less than that of male workers. It is
possible to say that a woman maintains herself only when she is able to
earn the cost of her own maintenance as well as half of the cost of
maintaining children. Only when this situation exists, can we say that
women share half of the responsibility of family maintenance. Did this situation, which is absent
today, exist in the past? Has the number of female workers been equal to
that of male workers since the past? Although women too performed some
kinds of labour, weren't the annual earnings of female workers less than
those of male workers? Owing to this fact Marx took the male worker as a
general example. This is not a decision that Marx took according to his
own wishes. He did not decide that men should take care of women's
maintenance. He is simply depicted a fact concerning the earnings of
individuals in society. He is not arguing in favour of the status quo.
He is not defending it. Even in cases in which wife and
husband are wage earners who work for a master, each of their wages
consists of only the value of labour-power. Each wage gives the master
surplus value. A working class family, which receives two wages, will be
able to use more products than the family that receives only one wage.
Marx depicted the situation of both
men and women since the time of modern industry. When women too
participate in various kinds of labour like men, they too will become
either productive or unproductive labourers. If they are confined to the
home, they become people who do "family labour". Or, they
become "independent producers" or "independent
traders" depending upon the specific situation. All aspects of
labour apply to women in the same way as they apply to men. Marxism is a theory that teaches
human equality. If women are also human beings like men, then human
equality is also equality between men and women. When the general
"Division of Labour" in society changes, the particular
division of labour between men and women will also change. Nowhere does
Marx defend the slavery of women and children in the family. One can
cite many instances from Marx's writings. Let us see two quotations: "...in
private property of every type the slavery
of the members of the family at least is always implicit since they are
made use of and exploited by the head of family." (Capital,
Vol.1, Penguin edition, 1083). "However terrible and disgusting the dissolution, under the capitalist system, of the old family ties may appear, nevertheless, modern industry, by assigning as it does an important part in the process of production, outside the domestic sphere to women, to young persons, and to children of both sexes, creates a new economic foundation for a higher form of the family and of the relations between the sexes…. Moreover, it is obvious that the fact of the collective working group being composed of individuals of both sexes and all ages, must necessarily, under suitable conditions, become a source of humane development; although in its spontaneously developed, brutal, capitalistic form, where the labourer exists for the process of production, and not the process of production for the labourer, that fact is a pestiferous source of corruption and slavery." (Capital, Vol.1, Moscow 1974, 460).
On
the criticism that Marxism does not consider the value that women create
in the form of housework:
Marxism
has provided conceptual categories to understand all kinds of relations
and labour that exist in society. If it did not have such an
understanding, it wouldn't have become a science. The only answer to
such criticism is, to use a Telugu idiom, "bend your body",
and read Marx's Capital. Although
the housework done by women in the family represents a substantial
amount of labour, it does not take place in a relation where its value
is calculated in terms of money and a wage is paid or received. A wife
is obliged to perform half of the housework for herself. She is
compelled to perform the second half, which in fact the husband ought to
do, because the husband is giving her the expenditure which she ought to
spend on her own maintenance as well as her share in the maintenance of
the children. Hence the entire responsibility of housework falls on the
woman. The solution for this problem is outside work for both men and
women and housework for both men and women. Then both husband and wife
will be able to share equally the household responsibilities and do
housework equally.
Confining women to housework, calculating value for every aspect of
housework and demanding wages from the husband is a vulgar argument and
no one except modern bourgeois women, who view every problem in terms of
money, can make such an argument.
No man is confined to the house and housework. He does not receive wages
from his wife. By confining herself to housework and receiving wages
from her husband, the husband becomes a master who gives employment and
pays wages to his wife and the wife becomes a wage labourer for her
husband. Once this payment of wages in return for a wife's housework is
introduced, the relationship of wife and husband and children and
parents will vanish and a relationship of wages begins. Even then, the
wife will be confined to the house. Her situation won't change and she
won't have a life outside of the domestic sphere.
There are two perspectives from which to understand any problem: the
perspective of "use-value" and the perspective of
"exchange-value". The former is natural and the latter is
unnatural. This is the first lesson in Marxism. Those who oppose Marxism
too have to learn it. If they learn this, they will acquire some common
sense so that they won't make such vulgar arguments.
On the class position of women:
What will be the answer to the question "to which class do men
belong?" We should know whether those men are doing "labour"
or profit from the labour of others.
If they do labour they are the class of labourers.
If they are not doing labour they are the exploiting class.
Class is determined only by "labour".
Which means, all men do not constitute the same class.
The same is the case with women also. If someone asks "to which
class do women belong?" we cannot answer it. We should know whether
those women are doing labour or not.
All the women do not constitute the same class. The class is
determined by the relation to labour. But not according to whether
they are men or women. Every aspect that applies to men "who do labour" also applies to women who do labour. Similarly, all the aspects that apply to men who don't do labour also apply to women who don't do labour. Women
who do "labour", either in governmental institutions or
private institutions or at the houses of government officials or at the
houses of the private capitalists or any other place and earn a
"wage" will, like men of the same type, become either
"productive labourers" or "unproductive labourers".
That means, they would belong to the "class of labourers". Women who produce and sell the products independently will become "independent producers".
Women who don't do any labour like men of the same type would belong to
the "exploiting class". Most of these women don't even do
"family labour". The
unproductive labourers alone will do all kinds of labours for them. Some of the women belonging to the "exploiting class" also do outside jobs. Those jobs are invariably connected with "mental labour".
Women
who don't do outside labour and who are confined only to "household
labour" belong to the classes of those individuals from whom they
receive the articles of subsistence.
If the husband of a woman who is confined only to "household labour"
is a labourer, that woman also belongs to the "Class of labourers".
Or, if the husband of that woman is an exploiter who earns interests or
profits, then that woman also belongs to the "exploiting
class".
The answer to the question, "to which class and which section of
the class does a person belong" depends on such things as these:
whether the person-- man or woman-- is doing "outside labour"
or not? In case that person
is not doing outside labour, what sort of income is it by means of which
he or she subsists?
On the relationship of housework with "Social Labour":
If we understand social labour to be that labour which is required for
society, then housework will also be a part of social labour. Or, by contrast, if we interpret social labour as that labour
which converts into value, then housework will not become a part of
social labour.
Such forms of work as cooking, house cleaning, childcare are natural
labours which society always needs. Society can never dispense with
these labours. What would happen if part of this labour was simply
shifted outside of the home? That
is, if a certain part of the total "cooking work" is done in
the home, and certain portions are carried out at common kitchens and in
canteens at work places? This only means dividing the place where
cooking is done but not dispensing with the work itself.
The total cooking work that is necessary for the whole society
would be done somewhere or the other in the whole society.
It is the same case with regard to other labour concerning the family.
Those kinds of labour too will be divided but will never be dispensed
with.
The
unproductive labour does not produce any value. But as it also converts
into money, to an ordinary viewer who sees things superficially,
unproductive labour also appears as labour that produces
"value" (as if it is also productive labour), that is, it
appears as if there is no difference between the kinds of labour in
producing value. Productive
Labour:
It produces "value". It converts into "money". A
portion of that "money" goes to the person who performed the
labour and the remaining portion to the master. Independent
Labour:
It produces "value". It converts into "money". The
person who performs that labour alone receives that money. Here, the
productive and unproductive distinction does not apply. According
to Marx, the tendency of earlier societies was to make trades hereditary
either to "petrify" them into castes (as in India) or to
"ossify" them into exclusive guilds (as in Egypt). Marx
observes that the division of labour under the caste system was
according to "fixed rules". These rules were not
"established" by a legislator. He further observes that these
rules were originally born of the conditions of material production and
were raised to the status of laws only much later. Legislation allocates
labour as a hereditary privilege and consolidates it into a caste
system. The heredity of castes, according to Marx, is ordained as a law
of society only when a certain degree of development has been reached. Marx observed that the caste distinctions "contaminated" the Indian society by standing as "decisive impediments to Indian progress and Indian power".
Here
we need to understand first the questions: what is division of labour?
What is division of labourers?
Though
3 aspects appear here, there are only 2 aspects in reality. The
first one is the division of labour. The second one, division of
labourers is due to the division of labour (castes). These two are the
same. We have seen that the division of labour means the
"performance of different kinds of labour by different
persons". This we find at any place, in any region and in any
country. If
we take the "lowest" manual labour (e.g., toilet cleaning) and
the "highest" kind of mental labour (e.g., the work of a
doctor), there will be a vast difference between their values. All this
is correct according to the law of value. It
is natural that there exists some difference between the value of labour
of a toilet cleaner and that of a doctor. No one can remove that
difference. But it is not necessary that the difference is as wide as it
exists in a society based on exploitation. However, these two kinds of
labourers cannot become equals even if we consider their difference as
natural because that naturally existing difference is also a difference.
Hence they constitute two different categories. This is the basis for
the division of labourers into different categories. (Translated from the Telugu by B.R. Bapuji) THE
RED CRITIQUE 2 (January/February 2002) |