Isn't that just what supers are? Or Stanley Steamer? Or Merry Maids? Making these services something operated and organized by the community would be better, but it's not like industrialization of housework doesn't exist, it's just locked behind a paywall.
Yeah I just wanted to point out that the point she made was exactly correct and you can see it directly today because the service that exists actually provides very little good to the people who need it most, because it's locked behind the paywall.
Yeah its not particularly relevant to this post, I just remembered this line when I saw the post and now am tricking people into reading Davis. The capitalist involvement in the system does however make it somewhat of a luxury item though, so we are faced with a lot of the same problematic stuff of wealthy people's housework being outsourced to black and poor people. Nonetheless, you are correct that massively building this sort of nationalized Stanley Steamer would alleviate the issues she lays out.
I just read this but im not sure if I understood it well. Is capital hostile to industrializing housework because "housewives" already work for free? Therefore there is no incentive for it? I feel like I'm missing something. The south africa bit was where I started to get confused, i think.
Teams of trained and well-paid workers, moving from dwelling to dwelling, engineering technologically advanced cleaning machinery, could swiftly and efficiently accomplish what the present-day house-wife does so arduously and primitively. Why the shroud of silence surrounding this potential of radically redefining the nature of domestic labour? Because the capitalist economy is structurally hostile to the industrialisation of housework.
Isn't that just what supers are? Or Stanley Steamer? Or Merry Maids? Making these services something operated and organized by the community would be better, but it's not like industrialization of housework doesn't exist, it's just locked behind a paywall.
So what you're saying is that the capitalist economy is structurally hostile to the industrialisation of housework? :angela: she don't miss.
I'm not disagreeing lol, just showing that there exists a solution already. Nationalize Stanley Steamer and Merry Maids
Yeah I just wanted to point out that the point she made was exactly correct and you can see it directly today because the service that exists actually provides very little good to the people who need it most, because it's locked behind the paywall.
Yeah its not particularly relevant to this post, I just remembered this line when I saw the post and now am tricking people into reading Davis. The capitalist involvement in the system does however make it somewhat of a luxury item though, so we are faced with a lot of the same problematic stuff of wealthy people's housework being outsourced to black and poor people. Nonetheless, you are correct that massively building this sort of nationalized Stanley Steamer would alleviate the issues she lays out.
deleted by creator
I just read this but im not sure if I understood it well. Is capital hostile to industrializing housework because "housewives" already work for free? Therefore there is no incentive for it? I feel like I'm missing something. The south africa bit was where I started to get confused, i think.