Hey Neil, I think what is notably absent in this analysis of worker reproduction is all the work done by Marxist Feminists on this very issue. You are pointing out the contradiction but not who subsidizes the contradiction on the ground with their unpaid or low-paid labour. Women. Women are more likely to do child and elder care because they earn less than men for work of the same value, or they are expected to stop work and provide care simply because they are female. Women lose promotions and pension earnings because of maternity and elder care leaves. Women do their day job and then go home and do the vast majority of domestic work on nights and weekends. And don't get me started on who is doing the majority of community work. On top of that, you have the exploitation of racialized workers who are expected to provide substitute care for children, people with disabilities and the elderly at starvation wages, with no benefits and no pensions. Which means racialized women are being multiply exploited both on the job and at home, and often they are supporting their communities with their unpaid community work. All of this is occurring on stolen Indigenous land, whose nations are paying the price of colonial capitalism and where Indigenous women are also being multiply exploited. We cannot just point to the contradiction, right? We have to be clear about who pays for it. Stolen land, stolen labour.
Yeah, I thought about this. I did not put that into the article because I think that deserves a bigger article to talk about it. I personally feel that issue is so complicated.Especially for me living in two countries within two cultures. In the China side, for example, in the family structure, sometimes it expects the guy will provide everything: the money, the labor, the cooking, and cleaning the home. And also, if you want to get married as a guy in China, you have to pay the female family a lot of money in order to get married, and you have to have a http://car.You have to have a house, better no debt on them. Even with that, when you get married, a lot of female friends I know don't really cook. It's all the guys cooking, and they are also making money, providing income to the family. A lot of Chinese guys don't want to get married. Why would they want to get married? They make the money, they do the cooking. why they want to get a female into their life and to complicate their life? They also have to provide emotional support to the female. So, a lot of guys in China don't want to get married. What's the point.
I can see your perspective, but I also see this from the guys' perspective, from a lot of guys living in http://China.It's a very different culture, and I need to put my thoughts more organized to talk about this kind of issue. So I believe each country or different region has its own pressure in a family structure. That's why I don't know how to address it. I don't see that as a broad umbrella issue to cover everybody. I think everybody has his own issues in this topic.
Neil, this is not a subjective discussion based on subjective experiences. That has never been your approach and nor should it be. Marxist men have a long history of discussing workforce reproduction and failing to include race and gender analysis. A dialectical approach means looking at the stats and the policies on job ghettos, pay equity, child care, elder care, parental leave and domestic work and analyzing how they play out along race and gender lines to create structural inequities. Not doing that makes free and marginalized labour invisible which is the opposite of what Marxist economics is meant to do.
Also interesting to note that some of the same US voices decrying the lack of "worker production" are also trying to stop and reverse immigration; their concern is not just with the number of workers generated, but the color as well. 💀
Wowza. Prolific as usual. The propaganda or indoctrination in the US is an idea that Communisn is like a rampant disease in China.What economic or historical markers are there for the above content?
The Chinese system is not a fully communist system yet. It's not even a full socialist system yet. We're still in the part of capitalism, a mix of a capitalist and socialist society right now. That means there is competition, there is exploitation, and there are class differences. That's why we also experience the same issue as the rest of the world, especially in developed cities and more crowded places. That's what's happening, the social issues might be different, but the stresses are the same
China has 1.4 billion people. China does not have homelessness, drug addicts, school shootings, medical or student debt. No country is perfect, but I’d rather be under the CPC surveillance state than ours.
Hey Neil, I think what is notably absent in this analysis of worker reproduction is all the work done by Marxist Feminists on this very issue. You are pointing out the contradiction but not who subsidizes the contradiction on the ground with their unpaid or low-paid labour. Women. Women are more likely to do child and elder care because they earn less than men for work of the same value, or they are expected to stop work and provide care simply because they are female. Women lose promotions and pension earnings because of maternity and elder care leaves. Women do their day job and then go home and do the vast majority of domestic work on nights and weekends. And don't get me started on who is doing the majority of community work. On top of that, you have the exploitation of racialized workers who are expected to provide substitute care for children, people with disabilities and the elderly at starvation wages, with no benefits and no pensions. Which means racialized women are being multiply exploited both on the job and at home, and often they are supporting their communities with their unpaid community work. All of this is occurring on stolen Indigenous land, whose nations are paying the price of colonial capitalism and where Indigenous women are also being multiply exploited. We cannot just point to the contradiction, right? We have to be clear about who pays for it. Stolen land, stolen labour.
Yeah, I thought about this. I did not put that into the article because I think that deserves a bigger article to talk about it. I personally feel that issue is so complicated.Especially for me living in two countries within two cultures. In the China side, for example, in the family structure, sometimes it expects the guy will provide everything: the money, the labor, the cooking, and cleaning the home. And also, if you want to get married as a guy in China, you have to pay the female family a lot of money in order to get married, and you have to have a http://car.You have to have a house, better no debt on them. Even with that, when you get married, a lot of female friends I know don't really cook. It's all the guys cooking, and they are also making money, providing income to the family. A lot of Chinese guys don't want to get married. Why would they want to get married? They make the money, they do the cooking. why they want to get a female into their life and to complicate their life? They also have to provide emotional support to the female. So, a lot of guys in China don't want to get married. What's the point.
I can see your perspective, but I also see this from the guys' perspective, from a lot of guys living in http://China.It's a very different culture, and I need to put my thoughts more organized to talk about this kind of issue. So I believe each country or different region has its own pressure in a family structure. That's why I don't know how to address it. I don't see that as a broad umbrella issue to cover everybody. I think everybody has his own issues in this topic.
Neil, this is not a subjective discussion based on subjective experiences. That has never been your approach and nor should it be. Marxist men have a long history of discussing workforce reproduction and failing to include race and gender analysis. A dialectical approach means looking at the stats and the policies on job ghettos, pay equity, child care, elder care, parental leave and domestic work and analyzing how they play out along race and gender lines to create structural inequities. Not doing that makes free and marginalized labour invisible which is the opposite of what Marxist economics is meant to do.
Interesting content about the role Chinese men play in the household.
Also interesting to note that some of the same US voices decrying the lack of "worker production" are also trying to stop and reverse immigration; their concern is not just with the number of workers generated, but the color as well. 💀
Wowza. Prolific as usual. The propaganda or indoctrination in the US is an idea that Communisn is like a rampant disease in China.What economic or historical markers are there for the above content?
Please explain why China, nominally communist, is experiencing the same problems and results.
The Chinese system is not a fully communist system yet. It's not even a full socialist system yet. We're still in the part of capitalism, a mix of a capitalist and socialist society right now. That means there is competition, there is exploitation, and there are class differences. That's why we also experience the same issue as the rest of the world, especially in developed cities and more crowded places. That's what's happening, the social issues might be different, but the stresses are the same
Thanks. Seems like the hybrid socialist/capitalist model is prevalent right now - warts and all.
I was hoping N. Zhu would reply. He has lived in both systems and has a rational viewpoint often consonant with my own.
China has 1.4 billion people. China does not have homelessness, drug addicts, school shootings, medical or student debt. No country is perfect, but I’d rather be under the CPC surveillance state than ours.