slum
4th July 2013, 23:59
so let me see if i can formulate this in an intelligible way; i apologize if i use terminology incorrectly, my acquisition of marxist ideas has been kind of patchwork and i don't always know from which time period or theory they hail:
there are numerous industries that provide services necessary for reproduction of the working class as a class. necessary social services. many of them are privatized or done in the home (most domestic labor and eldercare), some of them have been nationalized through the demands of working people (in the u.s. we have public education, altho the ruling class is of course chipping away at all such services). in any event it is workers who ultimately do this labor, whether they are paid in wages or not.
workers organize to negotiate the terms of their own exploitation, regardless of where you work. but if you work, say, as a teacher or a nurse, you tend to know also that the way work is arranged (esp. under a profit model) does not allow you to adequately provide the service you are ostensibly employed to do. teachers cannot educate holistically, social workers cannot provide for the material needs of their clients, nurses cannot treat people properly or prioritize preventative care. when you make demands, you're arguing that you, as a teacher or a social worker or a nurse, could do a better job than an appointed school board, a board of directors, or a board of wealthy investors in organizing social reproduction. if you're a factory worker, you're not generally arguing that you can make commodities faster and cheaper (which is the only purpose of the factory as a form).
are the demands of nurses/teachers/food service workers/social workers/domestic laborers/etc for control over their own workplaces inherently socialistic? i think they promote the idea that the working class is best qualified to run society. is this true? is it important?
if anyone could direct me towards some reading/theory on this question i'd appreciate it as well.
there are numerous industries that provide services necessary for reproduction of the working class as a class. necessary social services. many of them are privatized or done in the home (most domestic labor and eldercare), some of them have been nationalized through the demands of working people (in the u.s. we have public education, altho the ruling class is of course chipping away at all such services). in any event it is workers who ultimately do this labor, whether they are paid in wages or not.
workers organize to negotiate the terms of their own exploitation, regardless of where you work. but if you work, say, as a teacher or a nurse, you tend to know also that the way work is arranged (esp. under a profit model) does not allow you to adequately provide the service you are ostensibly employed to do. teachers cannot educate holistically, social workers cannot provide for the material needs of their clients, nurses cannot treat people properly or prioritize preventative care. when you make demands, you're arguing that you, as a teacher or a social worker or a nurse, could do a better job than an appointed school board, a board of directors, or a board of wealthy investors in organizing social reproduction. if you're a factory worker, you're not generally arguing that you can make commodities faster and cheaper (which is the only purpose of the factory as a form).
are the demands of nurses/teachers/food service workers/social workers/domestic laborers/etc for control over their own workplaces inherently socialistic? i think they promote the idea that the working class is best qualified to run society. is this true? is it important?
if anyone could direct me towards some reading/theory on this question i'd appreciate it as well.