I realize this particular UA-cam page has long segued into Democracy at Work, but I'm currently reading Capital v1 and watching these videos as well, and I'm gaining a deeper understanding of economics that I don't recall was ever taught me in college econ classes. Or any econ classes perhaps. Re the banks discussion, I'm reminded of what Karl Marx wrote in Capital v1. Quoting Aristotle, Marx says that because banks do not produce anything of concrete use (commodities), that their sole source of gain is money, that banks are inherently unnatural institutions because, again as Aristotle said, "money...is not used for the purposes for which it was invented." Indeed the very existence of banks, which can only profit in an indebted society, "is the most contrary to Nature." The only solution that I can think of is what Prof. Wolff stated in the first half of this video - to socialize/nationalize the banks. Because while I'm certain there would be problems there as well, let's not act like at this point there's this massive benefit to having private profiteers running the system. The country is in need of a change, that (and the healthcare system) is the first place to start. Unless of course American political leaders want this empire they call a democracy to continue collapsing.
The banks are already under national control, effectively, due to The Fed's control over the supply of currency. And banks are not "inherently unnatural institutions." Everywhere goods have been exchanged throughout history, there have been people who see the friction between those looking to sell and those looking to buy and stepped in to facilitate smoother trades for a small fee. There's even evidence that this occurred in Nazi camps, with prisoners of war facilitating exchanges of cigarettes and canned goods between other prisoners, during WW2. The value of the service banks provide is simply a hard concept for most people to wrap their heads around. It's easy to see the loaf of bread the baker makes and associate that product directly with his labor. But it's not easy to notice the access you have to capital when and where you need it unless you've lived in a time or place that doesn't have a well functioning capital market.
You missed that part, he said that men ARE exploited; on the job. They are jobbed out of the surplus value that they create on the job. At the same time, the marriage relationship, is based upon the medieval lord/serf relationship. The wife also creates "surplus value" with her domestic chores, that is she does in excess than what she would for her own consumption. Both are exploited in one form or another.
So the husband spending part of his wage on jewerly, expensive date night dinners, and other romantic gestures, is actually him investing to mantain the conditions of existence of his exploitation of the wife, by making it less likely that she'll leave and reinforcing the notion that she "owes him", and that he loves her etc?
Great videos on Marx. Is there reading that goes with these lectures? If yes, can you post the list of those books? Thanks in advance and thanks for uploading these brilliant videos.
I know your post is 4 years prior to my comment here today, but here goes anyway. Not trying to be a smart ass, but the first book I think is appropriate to get is Karl Marx' Capital volume 1. There are volumes 2 and 3 also, and after those there is his Theory of Surplus Value, which Marx refers to in Cv1 as volume 4. I'm reading v1 now, honestly a bit difficult to read because 1) it was written 140 years ago or thereabouts, so therefore 2) the very language is "old timey" academic and not of today's tongue, and 3) it's been translated from German, which was difficult according to the preface. The first 100 pages or so are the most difficult, because as Marx himself says in the preface, "Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences. To understand the first chapter, especially the section that contains the analysis of commodities, will, therefore, present the greatest difficulty."
I always lose it when he starts explaining the ironies of capitalism. "the bank lends the government money that it uses to bail out the banks" meanwhile performing a jig.
from Romania with love:D.thank you so very much.keep up the good work.im finally starting to understand some basic things about this crappy system we live in.
The problem with this analogy is that marriage is optional and you can live without being married. With a job, it's not optional, you have to do it or else you cannot live. When all businesses use the same system, you are essentially being exploited without option.
You can start your own business or defect into the woods. Either way, you're still going to be working to survive. Undoubtedly more so than you otherwise would if you choose either of the alternatives I just proposed.
@@tomcotter4299 When you propose solutions, you have to make sure they are universalisable too. Sure, some people could start their own business but that doesn't really mean anything. The fact that anyone can start a business doesn't mean that everyone can. All you're doing is moving around within the capitalist system without making any actual changes to people's everyday lives. Also, just because selling your labour is a more efficient method of getting money, doesn't mean that there aren't other more moral and efficient ways to do it. We don't have to choose between living in the woods and being exploited. We can do better.
@@georgepantzikis7988 What is this more "moral and efficient" way of structuring an economy that you're alluding to, and what evidence do you have that it will produce better outcomes than Capitalism?
That's what he's saying. Marriage is becoming rarer. It use to be an expectation (almost an obligation), now its just an option, and one that often ends in divorce
Procreation is not optional for society as a whole. This is why some misguided societies have drastically shrinking population of young people. A crisis decades in the making. Peter Zeihan talks about this crisis.
No, I understand the argument that men are exploited at work. What I meant in my comment was according to this logic, how come men are not considered exploited by their wife because wives use a part of the husband's surplus (women use their husband's house, groceries, utilities, etc,)? The reason why marriage is not exploitation is because it is voluntary and fair!
Though I really enjoy this series I am not fully convinced about the household economics. A capitalist system of employer employee necesitates a certain degree of exploitation for the survival of the employer. Example: if I work 5 hours I will get paid less than 5 hours for the survival of my employer. However, a marriage does not have to function in this manner (although it sometimes does) Example: I work 6 hours, she works another 6 hours. I take 3 hours of her's (as the proffesor correctly pointed out) thus I take her surplus, but then I give her my 3 hours thus she is taking my surplus. Put simply, half of the time I am at work I do it for her and half of the time she works at home she is doing it for me. What the proffesor is talking about is a scenario where the husband pays the minimum amount to reproduce her wife's labour, However this is not neccesarily true as I have shown above. By the way household expenses such as raw materials for the wife to labour cannot count as part of the womens budget otherwise it is exploitation.
The analysis he makes of the "class" relations in the household is clearly incorrect, and is not marxian. He didn't took in consideration the wealth that the husband brought home from selling his labor-power. And the value of the labor power is equal to the labor needed to reproduce it, according to marx. Wolff never talks about this definition. The total labor-power that the household produces is a team effort. The labor to reproduce the labor-power includes housework, raising children, studying, making meals. in a sense, even resting, regenerating the body and mind is something you got to do. Sometimes I'm just too exhausted (or even in pain) from work to do anything useful. In my view, the capitalist (as a class) extract the surplus produced by the whole household. Of course, the work to produce the labor-power may be unequally distributed among the integrants of the family, and that is hard to account. I would say that, in the 50% of the couples, where both work, on average, men have more power, do less work and have more privileges. But economic exploitation of working people over their spouse is not the case at all. The surplus goes to the capitalist, not the male worker. I'm surprised Wolff makes such a shallow and crude analysis of the house. And he has been saying this for years, even today.
The whole Marxist theory of value is flawed, not just feminism. This feminism bullshit just makes it more obvious. It all comes down to the "surplus" theory, where only the worker create surplus. it's a completely arbitrary choice that is just a political view to counter the "We are the job creators" of CEOs. Marx says "it's not the capitalists who create jobs and value, it's the workers". In feminism, "it's the women who create the value". In marxist african race theory, it's african slaves who creates the wealth of the West (which is obviously ridiculous as the parts where there were slaves in America are the poorest and the areas where slavery was non existent are the most prosperous today). Overall, it's bullshit economics that is just political narratives, not actual understanding of what happens in society. Each group saying "bruuuh, it's us who create the value!" In reality it's energy that produces value and machines are the stuff that eats energy. The industrial revolution lead to enormous prosperity because we discovered how to use coal energy in steam engines and the the 50s-70s were prosperous because we started using oil at a large scale. The rise of prosperity had nothing to do with unionism, it's just the result of the colossal growth of oil production. The issue is that neither the capitalists, nor the workers, nor the females, nor the africans like the explanation that value is produced by energy and machines. So we don't hear about it. And machines don't lobby for their own interests yet.
Bvic3 what feminist claims women create all the value? A feminist wants to be seen equally, or as creating an EQUAL value. You may dislike feminism, I don't know, but if you do I have to say that it's not about women wanting MORE rights than men. Men do have more rights in today's society and so in women fighting for equal rights you see it as men losing rights, but really it's just losing PRIVLEGE over them. There is a big difference between the two
Bvic3 also, the reason those parts that had slaves are now poor is because slavery was abolished and the former slaves continued to live there, and systematic racism has kept them poor
Alkis05 he isn't being shallow he's just using the stereotype nuclear family as an example. The rest of what you said is irrelevant, I'm not trying to be rude I'm just saying you're reading too far into it.
I think the analysis of marriage here is a bit one-dimensional as it doesn't really bother to look at what the wife gets back in return for doing housekeeping. AFAIK women in the US spend about 70% of the household income, so she's getting a huge amount of the man's surplus right there. Cleaning the house thoroughly requires a good day's work every week. other household chores combined take 1-2 hours a day. To act like housework is an equivalent drain on time/effort as a fulltime job is asinine.
That doesn't account for the effort involved in properly raising children which many women assume the primary responsibility for. Effective parenting takes a serious level of time and energy.
@@AliRadicali And the solution is to end the human race? I guess we could all just quit reproducing. Also these days most of the time both the man and the woman in a household work. This isn't the fucking 50s.
@@codyp.1184 Now you're just being ridiculous. My comment was a response to Wolff's analysis, I'm well aware that most of the parenting is done by teachers nowadays.
@@AliRadicali What the wife gets back in service to a husband has a lot of parallels that can be drawn to what a serf gets in service to a lord. Now here's the thing both men and women do this shit today its not exclusive to a single gender. Most people these days are overtly self absorbed. They don't consider a bigger picture.
It may well be the case that the traditional wife is typically exploited by the husband. But no valid argument is given to this end. It all depends on how much labour went into producing the materials with which the wife works. Suppose, for example, that the husband works two hours to earn the money to buy some raw carrots. Then the wife spends one hour preparing them into a meal. They both eat half of the prepared food. Who has been exploited?
it's weird. in another presentation you said that socialism is not when the state takes over capital enterprises (you called this state capiitalsm) and in this lecture your alternative to 2008 banking crisis was "socializing" banking and that the government takes over the banks. how is this not "state capitalism" as opposed to what you describe as Marx-described "socialsm" in which workers (society's elected workers to manage capital enterprises) of the banks would direct the banks activities? seems paradoxical
In a socialist model, every worker, either directly or through a labor union, will have a right to initiate a vote to reform a bank or a corporation while in a capitalist model only capitalists that own stocks have the right to do that.
This makes no sense. Women are exploited when they work and provide a clean house, meals, etc. for the husband. But men are not exploited when they work and provide a house, car, clothes, etc. for the wife?? None of this is exploitation. The wife is getting paid a home, car, clothes, food, etc. in exchange for doing the labor of cleaning and cooking.
couldn't you say the same for slaves? they do work they didn't agree with in the first place, but they get a roof above their head and food so i guess it's not exploitation? for a woman it used to be decided that she would do the cleaning, cooking and taking care of the kids; no contract, no salary, nothing. that she gets some things that her husband shares with her doesn't change that.
Left TechnoLibertarian Party of UA-cam ... in this example the wife is not, along with the husband, determining how to appropriate the funds of the household budget...If the husband decides by himself now to appropriate the budget then it is feudalism...Because by doing so what the wife is getting back is “getting taken care off,” which is the feudal arrangement... in medieval times the lord provided the land so the serf could toil so he could eat, he provided security the knight....
If you're still alive listen, in the beginning, he said in some cases not all of them, in addition, if a husband wants to hire someone to do these things in some cases should pay more
I love your videos but... The idea of class in the household is sheer nonsense. The capitalist class system did not create working to the benefit of more than yourself just as it did not create trade or work. It created a class of people for the first time that had only their labour to sell. The woman can work hard in the house and this will usually benefit both herself and others. This does not create a class system. Traditional households had the husband sell his labour and hand his pay to his wife who spent most of it and gave him a small allowance. It would be absurd to say that black slaves in the USA before the Civil War oppressed the slave owners because they had the jobs and the slave owners spent the money. It would be absurd to say that the worker oppresses the capitalist because the capitalist has the burden of spending most of the money out of the enterprise. The wife was a DEPENDENT. A dependent lacks autonomy and might have to contribute they way your children live, for instance, but that does not make a dependent like your children oppressed inside a class system. It might be inappropriate for her to remain a dependent with no autonomy after life is safe and comfortable enough that there is no need to bubble wrap and safeguard her any longer but it does not mean she is oppressed. Her labour for her family is not a commodity like her husband's is in the job market and it does not earn wages that can be a form of exploitation. Don't get me started on the emotional labour nonsense. Vague, unscientific, and really just a way of saying that her genuine love and empathy should be reframed through the lens of resentment. Emotional labour and these ideas feed identity politics which is antithetical to classical Marxism. Poverty is quantifiable. Marx is justified through economic theory. Identity politics is non-materialism. We would want to alleviate or cure poverty but we would not want to eliminate womanhood or blackness etc. A process of oppression based on genetic inborn traits and bottomless resentment based on fuzzy sentiments combined with no thought of eliminating the conditions is a recipe for poisoning society. This is based on poor, sloppy women's studies courses. Identity politics has destroyed class consciousness of the left and been extremely counterproductive. This is where modern types calling themselves Marxists went wrong. It has to stay a concrete economic analysis.
Look at that sweaty bastard, hardest working economist on the planet! Vintage Wolff, he nails it as always! Cheers
I realize this particular UA-cam page has long segued into Democracy at Work, but I'm currently reading Capital v1 and watching these videos as well, and I'm gaining a deeper understanding of economics that I don't recall was ever taught me in college econ classes. Or any econ classes perhaps.
Re the banks discussion, I'm reminded of what Karl Marx wrote in Capital v1. Quoting Aristotle, Marx says that because banks do not produce anything of concrete use (commodities), that their sole source of gain is money, that banks are inherently unnatural institutions because, again as Aristotle said, "money...is not used for the purposes for which it was invented." Indeed the very existence of banks, which can only profit in an indebted society, "is the most contrary to Nature."
The only solution that I can think of is what Prof. Wolff stated in the first half of this video - to socialize/nationalize the banks. Because while I'm certain there would be problems there as well, let's not act like at this point there's this massive benefit to having private profiteers running the system. The country is in need of a change, that (and the healthcare system) is the first place to start. Unless of course American political leaders want this empire they call a democracy to continue collapsing.
The banks are already under national control, effectively, due to The Fed's control over the supply of currency. And banks are not "inherently unnatural institutions." Everywhere goods have been exchanged throughout history, there have been people who see the friction between those looking to sell and those looking to buy and stepped in to facilitate smoother trades for a small fee. There's even evidence that this occurred in Nazi camps, with prisoners of war facilitating exchanges of cigarettes and canned goods between other prisoners, during WW2. The value of the service banks provide is simply a hard concept for most people to wrap their heads around. It's easy to see the loaf of bread the baker makes and associate that product directly with his labor. But it's not easy to notice the access you have to capital when and where you need it unless you've lived in a time or place that doesn't have a well functioning capital market.
You missed that part, he said that men ARE exploited; on the job. They are jobbed out of the surplus value that they create on the job. At the same time, the marriage relationship, is based upon the medieval lord/serf relationship. The wife also creates "surplus value" with her domestic chores, that is she does in excess than what she would for her own consumption. Both are exploited in one form or another.
Amazing lectures!
So the husband spending part of his wage on jewerly, expensive date night dinners, and other romantic gestures, is actually him investing to mantain the conditions of existence of his exploitation of the wife, by making it less likely that she'll leave and reinforcing the notion that she "owes him", and that he loves her etc?
Cant say your wrong, but This is a sad way of viewing the love and union of souls which should be a marriage.
Great videos on Marx. Is there reading that goes with these lectures? If yes, can you post the list of those books? Thanks in advance and thanks for uploading these brilliant videos.
I know your post is 4 years prior to my comment here today, but here goes anyway.
Not trying to be a smart ass, but the first book I think is appropriate to get is Karl Marx' Capital volume 1. There are volumes 2 and 3 also, and after those there is his Theory of Surplus Value, which Marx refers to in Cv1 as volume 4.
I'm reading v1 now, honestly a bit difficult to read because 1) it was written 140 years ago or thereabouts, so therefore 2) the very language is "old timey" academic and not of today's tongue, and 3) it's been translated from German, which was difficult according to the preface. The first 100 pages or so are the most difficult, because as Marx himself says in the preface, "Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences. To understand the first chapter, especially the section that contains the analysis of commodities, will, therefore, present the greatest difficulty."
@@whompbiscuits8930 Checking in 4 yrs later. Did you ever end up finishing capital?
I appreciate these lectures. they really helped
Extremely interesting. Thanks for this.
This is gold
At 1:16:00 it always cracks me up when he says "Bingo - it's called COMMUNISM!"
I always lose it when he starts explaining the ironies of capitalism. "the bank lends the government money that it uses to bail out the banks" meanwhile performing a jig.
Excellent!
from Romania with love:D.thank you so very much.keep up the good work.im finally starting to understand some basic things about this crappy system we live in.
Beautiful.
1:16:06
is there any chance we move away from the banking system? or is it permanently engrained at this point?
SuperRoycethe59 we have to realize that making money out of money is amoral, once we do that then it becomes easy to do away with it
Love this prof ❤❤❤❤❤
fascinating
At 36:35, a guy asks a question, could have sworn it's an NZ accent.
It's a south african accent.
The problem with this analogy is that marriage is optional and you can live without being married. With a job, it's not optional, you have to do it or else you cannot live. When all businesses use the same system, you are essentially being exploited without option.
You can start your own business or defect into the woods. Either way, you're still going to be working to survive. Undoubtedly more so than you otherwise would if you choose either of the alternatives I just proposed.
@@tomcotter4299 When you propose solutions, you have to make sure they are universalisable too. Sure, some people could start their own business but that doesn't really mean anything. The fact that anyone can start a business doesn't mean that everyone can. All you're doing is moving around within the capitalist system without making any actual changes to people's everyday lives.
Also, just because selling your labour is a more efficient method of getting money, doesn't mean that there aren't other more moral and efficient ways to do it. We don't have to choose between living in the woods and being exploited. We can do better.
@@georgepantzikis7988 What is this more "moral and efficient" way of structuring an economy that you're alluding to, and what evidence do you have that it will produce better outcomes than Capitalism?
That's what he's saying. Marriage is becoming rarer. It use to be an expectation (almost an obligation), now its just an option, and one that often ends in divorce
Procreation is not optional for society as a whole. This is why some misguided societies have drastically shrinking population of young people. A crisis decades in the making. Peter Zeihan talks about this crisis.
The proletariat needs to take back the air conditioning. Poor people sweating profusely.
We're now called the precariat. RESIST!
He looks and sounds like FDR. That's kinda cool though :D
BINGO!!
No, I understand the argument that men are exploited at work.
What I meant in my comment was according to this logic, how come men are not considered exploited by their wife because wives use a part of the husband's surplus (women use their husband's house, groceries, utilities, etc,)?
The reason why marriage is not exploitation is because it is voluntary and fair!
Husband provides a house, utilities etc in the same way as a feudal lord provided the land and tools to the serfs.
Though I really enjoy this series I am not fully convinced about the household economics.
A capitalist system of employer employee necesitates a certain degree of exploitation for the survival of the employer.
Example: if I work 5 hours I will get paid less than 5 hours for the survival of my employer.
However, a marriage does not have to function in this manner (although it sometimes does)
Example: I work 6 hours, she works another 6 hours. I take 3 hours of her's (as the proffesor correctly pointed out) thus I take her surplus, but then I give her my 3 hours thus she is taking my surplus.
Put simply, half of the time I am at work I do it for her and half of the time she works at home she is doing it for me.
What the proffesor is talking about is a scenario where the husband pays the minimum amount to reproduce her wife's labour, However this is not neccesarily true as I have shown above.
By the way household expenses such as raw materials for the wife to labour cannot count as part of the womens budget otherwise it is exploitation.
The analysis he makes of the "class" relations in the household is clearly incorrect, and is not marxian. He didn't took in consideration the wealth that the husband brought home from selling his labor-power. And the value of the labor power is equal to the labor needed to reproduce it, according to marx. Wolff never talks about this definition.
The total labor-power that the household produces is a team effort. The labor to reproduce the labor-power includes housework, raising children, studying, making meals. in a sense, even resting, regenerating the body and mind is something you got to do. Sometimes I'm just too exhausted (or even in pain) from work to do anything useful. In my view, the capitalist (as a class) extract the surplus produced by the whole household.
Of course, the work to produce the labor-power may be unequally distributed among the integrants of the family, and that is hard to account. I would say that, in the 50% of the couples, where both work, on average, men have more power, do less work and have more privileges. But economic exploitation of working people over their spouse is not the case at all. The surplus goes to the capitalist, not the male worker.
I'm surprised Wolff makes such a shallow and crude analysis of the house. And he has been saying this for years, even today.
Alkis05 He responded to that exact comment from one of the students
The whole Marxist theory of value is flawed, not just feminism. This feminism bullshit just makes it more obvious.
It all comes down to the "surplus" theory, where only the worker create surplus. it's a completely arbitrary choice that is just a political view to counter the "We are the job creators" of CEOs. Marx says "it's not the capitalists who create jobs and value, it's the workers".
In feminism, "it's the women who create the value".
In marxist african race theory, it's african slaves who creates the wealth of the West (which is obviously ridiculous as the parts where there were slaves in America are the poorest and the areas where slavery was non existent are the most prosperous today).
Overall, it's bullshit economics that is just political narratives, not actual understanding of what happens in society. Each group saying "bruuuh, it's us who create the value!"
In reality it's energy that produces value and machines are the stuff that eats energy. The industrial revolution lead to enormous prosperity because we discovered how to use coal energy in steam engines and the the 50s-70s were prosperous because we started using oil at a large scale. The rise of prosperity had nothing to do with unionism, it's just the result of the colossal growth of oil production.
The issue is that neither the capitalists, nor the workers, nor the females, nor the africans like the explanation that value is produced by energy and machines. So we don't hear about it. And machines don't lobby for their own interests yet.
Bvic3 what feminist claims women create all the value? A feminist wants to be seen equally, or as creating an EQUAL value.
You may dislike feminism, I don't know, but if you do I have to say that it's not about women wanting MORE rights than men. Men do have more rights in today's society and so in women fighting for equal rights you see it as men losing rights, but really it's just losing PRIVLEGE over them. There is a big difference between the two
Bvic3 also, the reason those parts that had slaves are now poor is because slavery was abolished and the former slaves continued to live there, and systematic racism has kept them poor
Alkis05 he isn't being shallow he's just using the stereotype nuclear family as an example. The rest of what you said is irrelevant, I'm not trying to be rude I'm just saying you're reading too far into it.
I think the analysis of marriage here is a bit one-dimensional as it doesn't really bother to look at what the wife gets back in return for doing housekeeping. AFAIK women in the US spend about 70% of the household income, so she's getting a huge amount of the man's surplus right there. Cleaning the house thoroughly requires a good day's work every week. other household chores combined take 1-2 hours a day. To act like housework is an equivalent drain on time/effort as a fulltime job is asinine.
That doesn't account for the effort involved in properly raising children which many women assume the primary responsibility for. Effective parenting takes a serious level of time and energy.
@@codyp.1184 When you're stuck arguing that spending time with your own offspring is equivalent to (unpaid) labour you ought to know you're reaching.
@@AliRadicali And the solution is to end the human race? I guess we could all just quit reproducing. Also these days most of the time both the man and the woman in a household work. This isn't the fucking 50s.
@@codyp.1184 Now you're just being ridiculous.
My comment was a response to Wolff's analysis, I'm well aware that most of the parenting is done by teachers nowadays.
@@AliRadicali What the wife gets back in service to a husband has a lot of parallels that can be drawn to what a serf gets in service to a lord. Now here's the thing both men and women do this shit today its not exclusive to a single gender. Most people these days are overtly self absorbed. They don't consider a bigger picture.
It may well be the case that the traditional wife is typically exploited by the husband. But no valid argument is given to this end. It all depends on how much labour went into producing the materials with which the wife works. Suppose, for example, that the husband works two hours to earn the money to buy some raw carrots. Then the wife spends one hour preparing them into a meal. They both eat half of the prepared food. Who has been exploited?
it's weird. in another presentation you said that socialism is not when the state takes over capital enterprises (you called this state capiitalsm) and in this lecture your alternative to 2008 banking crisis was "socializing" banking and that the government takes over the banks. how is this not "state capitalism" as opposed to what you describe as Marx-described "socialsm" in which workers (society's elected workers to manage capital enterprises) of the banks would direct the banks activities? seems paradoxical
In a socialist model, every worker, either directly or through a labor union, will have a right to initiate a vote to reform a bank or a corporation while in a capitalist model only capitalists that own stocks have the right to do that.
This makes no sense.
Women are exploited when they work and provide a clean house, meals, etc. for the husband. But men are not exploited when they work and provide a house, car, clothes, etc. for the wife??
None of this is exploitation. The wife is getting paid a home, car, clothes, food, etc. in exchange for doing the labor of cleaning and cooking.
couldn't you say the same for slaves? they do work they didn't agree with in the first place, but they get a roof above their head and food so i guess it's not exploitation? for a woman it used to be decided that she would do the cleaning, cooking and taking care of the kids; no contract, no salary, nothing. that she gets some things that her husband shares with her doesn't change that.
Left TechnoLibertarian Party of UA-cam ... in this example the wife is not, along with the husband, determining how to appropriate the funds of the household budget...If the husband decides by himself now to appropriate the budget then it is feudalism...Because by doing so what the wife is getting back is “getting taken care off,” which is the feudal arrangement... in medieval times the lord provided the land so the serf could toil so he could eat, he provided security the knight....
If you're still alive listen, in the beginning, he said in some cases not all of them, in addition, if a husband wants to hire someone to do these things in some cases should pay more
I love your videos but... The idea of class in the household is sheer nonsense. The capitalist class system did not create working to the benefit of more than yourself just as it did not create trade or work. It created a class of people for the first time that had only their labour to sell. The woman can work hard in the house and this will usually benefit both herself and others. This does not create a class system. Traditional households had the husband sell his labour and hand his pay to his wife who spent most of it and gave him a small allowance. It would be absurd to say that black slaves in the USA before the Civil War oppressed the slave owners because they had the jobs and the slave owners spent the money. It would be absurd to say that the worker oppresses the capitalist because the capitalist has the burden of spending most of the money out of the enterprise. The wife was a DEPENDENT. A dependent lacks autonomy and might have to contribute they way your children live, for instance, but that does not make a dependent like your children oppressed inside a class system. It might be inappropriate for her to remain a dependent with no autonomy after life is safe and comfortable enough that there is no need to bubble wrap and safeguard her any longer but it does not mean she is oppressed. Her labour for her family is not a commodity like her husband's is in the job market and it does not earn wages that can be a form of exploitation. Don't get me started on the emotional labour nonsense. Vague, unscientific, and really just a way of saying that her genuine love and empathy should be reframed through the lens of resentment. Emotional labour and these ideas feed identity politics which is antithetical to classical Marxism. Poverty is quantifiable. Marx is justified through economic theory. Identity politics is non-materialism. We would want to alleviate or cure poverty but we would not want to eliminate womanhood or blackness etc. A process of oppression based on genetic inborn traits and bottomless resentment based on fuzzy sentiments combined with no thought of eliminating the conditions is a recipe for poisoning society. This is based on poor, sloppy women's studies courses. Identity politics has destroyed class consciousness of the left and been extremely counterproductive. This is where modern types calling themselves Marxists went wrong. It has to stay a concrete economic analysis.