Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[ymu]

I don't think anyone is arguing that, are they?

That would appear to depend on semantics.

 

[sihhi]

I read summat a while back about the move from skills-based unions to workplace-based being in response to corporations bypassing the unions and training their own workforces?

I don't follow what exactly is grouped as the first versus the later.

Where did the T&GWU fit in? What is UNITE now? What is GMB? In fact where do all unions fit in?

 

[cesare]

In that case I must have misrepresented you at least partially - I think I've said consistantly on this thread that the structures are not fit for purpose and it is them and inertia that are the real problems in the union movement - not a lack of belief in revolution now...

Yes non TU work struggle is really interesting - and is always a good reminder to everyone of what a union actually is -

A group of workers coming together to take action to defend and promote their interests collectively...

Ie it doesn't have to be a TRADE union. TRADE unions were what they were (and some of them still are) and there's nothing wrong with that. But Trade doesn't necessarily equal class especially in the highly skilled trades.

 

[sihhi]

Single parenthood might be covered in the EHRC report.

Dunno where you'd find the figures for childcare, but the cost of it must be a major contributor to the pay-gap being so much smaller for middle-class mothers. If you earn enough to pay a nursery or child-minder (without also needing to cut your hours or take a more flexible job) having children doesn't affect your lifetime earnings very much.

That's my commonsense view too, but it might be wrong.

Free childcare is key for equality, I think.

It's the first step.

If men were as likely as women to take responsibility for childcare then the pay-gap might more or less disappear*, but there'd still be half the country put at a massive economic disadvantage.

In this theoretical world, a new pay gap might emerge between couples with and couples without children.
There's no reason why the costs of childcare will be imposed upwards if men participate in its wholly and unreservedly (not that they shouldn't do that).

 

[cesare]

In this theoretical world, a new pay gap might emerge between couples with and couples without children.
There's no reason why the costs of childcare will be imposed upwards if men participate in its wholly and unreservedly (not that they shouldn't do that).

Again I think it would be helpful to make a differentiation between w/c and m/c here.

 

[ymu]

I don't follow what exactly is grouped as the first versus the later.

Where did the T&GWU fit in? What is UNITE now? What is GMB? In fact where do all unions fit in?

I don't know enough union history to answer that!

VP described it happening here:

Class stratification of membership has become a bigger issue since the consolidation of unions into "super-unions" over the last 30 years, IMO. It could be that the mechanism supposed to reinforce the ability to "get the job done" for the membership has actually made it harder to do so. Unions before then were much more job/trade-specific, which was why you originally had dozens of different railway unions: One for the boiler-makers; one for the engine drivers; one for the firemen; one for the guards; one for the janitorial staff etc etc. Now I think there's about a round half dozen.

Although I think the process started around the turn of the last century. Presumably due to Fordism and development of the modern corporation.

 

[sihhi]

Again I think it would be helpful to make a differentiation between w/c and m/c here.

A small pay gap for mc a large one for w/c.

In general I believe privatised child-rearing and the primacy of the household unit are central to Western capitalism. I can't see it changing without other massive changes cracking happening at the same time, so it's a bit hypothetical.
It's impossible to live like a super-extended family, if you're on benefits you get asked where what income is coming from.

 

[cesare]

A small pay gap for mc a large one for w/c.

In general I believe privatised child-rearing and the primacy of the household unit are central to Western capitalism. I can't see it changing without other massive changes cracking happening at the same time, so it's a bit hypothetical.
It's impossible to live like a super-extended family, if you're on benefits you get asked where what income is coming from o

Which is why I think it's better to differentiate between w/c and m/c when asking these questions (putting aside the argument about modern day class demarcations). Lots of working class use extended family for childcare though, which is another reason why it's so hard to get proper figures. Ordinary people can't always afford privatised childcare unless they're truly isolated (which of course happens but you can't just assume it), so although there isn't the same extent of extended family caring provision that there was a hundred years ago it's still very much there which is why getting hard figures is so difficult because the reporting just isn't even set up that way.

 

[sihhi]

Which is why I think it's better to differentiate between w/c and m/c when asking these questions (putting aside the argument about modern day class demarcations). Lots of working class use extended family for childcare though, which is another reason why it's so hard to get proper figures. Ordinary people can't always afford privatised childcare unless they're truly isolated (which of course happens but you can't just assume it), so although there isn't the same extent of extended family caring provision that there was a hundred years ago it's still very much there which is why getting hard figures is so difficult because the reporting just isn't even set up that way.

That's why I asked if anyone had reliable figures, I agree with everything you're saying.
I meant privatised as in the opposite of genuinely socialised - so unpaid neighbour childcare as much as the posh private centres that ring you up every time your baby starts sneezing - sure start grants are only free for a year i think (even then they are drawn by extraction from surplus of the wider workforce, as all 'free' government services are).

 

[ymu]

In this theoretical world, a new pay gap might emerge between couples with and couples without children.
There's no reason why the costs of childcare will be imposed upwards if men participate in its wholly and unreservedly (not that they shouldn't do that).

There already is a pay gap between couples with and without children. Mitigated to some extent by child benefit and child tax credits.

I didn't argue that the costs would be imposed upwards if men took more responsibility. I don't see any reason to believe that this would happen.

Parents who stay at home whilst a partner works will earn less when they re-enter the workplace, be less likely to have any career progression upon entering the workplace, won't have been able to contribute to a pension, and if the partner fucks off they are really screwed. If your work has been to stay at home and make it possible for your partner to go out to work, they take all the accumulated earnings potential with them.

Replacing some impoverished women with some impoverished men might be a blow for equality, but it doesn't leave us any better off as a class.

Hence, free childcare.

 

[love detective]

(even then they are drawn by extraction from surplus of the wider workforce, as all 'free' government services are).

as would be the case in a genuinely socialist/communist society - surplus labour would still be required/extracted from labour at both the individual and societal level

 

[sihhi]

There already is a pay gap between couples with and without children. Mitigated to some extent by child benefit and child tax credits.

There is but it's not taken seriously as an 'issue' which must be reformed or addressed.

I didn't argue that the costs would automatically be imposed upwards. I don't see any reason to believe that this would happen.

I didn't say you had but the author of that paper seemed to be suggesting it, by implying a resolution of problems by simply splitting childcare 50-50 men-women.

Parents who stay at home whilst a partner works will earn less when they re-enter the workplace, won't have been able to contribute to a pension, and if the partner fucks off they are really screwed. If your work has been to stay at home and make it possible for your partner to go out to work, they take all the accumulated earnings potential with them.

Yes, I agree, lots of single mum households face this.

 

[cesare]

That's why I asked if anyone had reliable figures, I agree with everything you're saying.
I meant privatised as in the opposite of genuinely socialised - so unpaid neighbour childcare as much as the posh private centres that ring you up every time your baby starts sneezing - sure start grants are only free for a year i think (even then they are drawn by extraction from surplus of the wider workforce, as all 'free' government services are).

I think it's nigh on impossible to get reliable figures because the agendas of those reporting are often driven by m/c interests. And whenever I see the latest "statistics" I get very terse and fuck off and back in the real world

 

[cesare]

as would be the case in a genuinely socialist/communist society - surplus labour would still be required/extracted from labour at both the individual and societal level

Ie someone's always going to take the piss/extract the labour value

 

[ymu]

There is but it's not taken seriously as an 'issue' which must be reformed or addressed.

Child benefit and child tax credits do address it. Not enough, I grant you.

I didn't say you had but the author of that paper seemed to be suggesting it, by implying a resolution of problems by simply splitting childcare 50-50 men-women.

Ah, OK. I didn't link to a paper in that post - Joshi 2002?

From an identity politics point of view, that would be fine. But it is precisely parallel to the liberal obsession with social mobility: we don't care how many people are living in abject poverty, as long as everyone gets a fair shot at being privileged.

Some kinds of feminism are like that, but not any kind I want to be part of.

 

[sihhi]

as would be the case in a genuinely socialist/communist society - surplus labour would still be required/extracted from labour at both the individual and societal level

Yes, but it is happening under capitalist terms now, so that the value of the labour extracted (from foreign workers as much as Britain-bounded ones) doesn't equal what you get - and Sure Start schemes are under massive cuts aswell as being means-tested.

 

[love detective]

Ie someone's always going to take the piss/extract the labour value

No not because of that, it's just a fundamental fact that regardless of the way of organising society, surplus labour will always be required/extracted

just because surplus labour exists in a society though doesn't mean that that society is necessarily exploitative (at the individual or social level) however

All societies whether pre-capitalist, capitalist or 'communist' will have surplus labour as the basis of their existence, reproduction & development. So the existence of surplus labour in and off itself tells us nothing about the nature of that society - what tells about the nature of that society is the way in which the surplus labour is extracted, the form which it then takes, and the manner & basis of its distribution

On its own it's like saying 'air is needed in society' i.e. it doesn't really tell us anything specific/useful about that society (other than the obvious)

 

[Smokeandsteam]

It's also to do with having to operate on the right side of restrictive laws around industrial action, or see the unions' (i.e. the meberships') assets sequestrated.

No, unions can still take targeted action over sustained periods lawfully. What would be unlawful would be action deemed as 'secondary'. It's hard to see where the current tactic of one day periodic strikes followed by months of inactivity can lead - except to demoralisation, defeat and yet more disengagement.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Ie someone's always going to take the piss/extract the labour value

In practice probably. But even in theory, even if nobody is taking the piss, there would still be a need for the surplus to be extracted and redistributed so that we can care for the elderly and infirm, hospitals, education, etc. The question is who extracts/controls the surplus and how.

 

[cesare]

No (ymu). Child benefits and child tax credits subsidise employers not paying enough. It's as simple as that.

 

[ymu]

Ie someone's always going to take the piss/extract the labour value

Not necessarily. Collective purchasing via taxation is a great deal more efficient than individual purchasing (true under a system with no money or wages as much as one with money and wages), and some output has to be reinvested to ensure future output. You can take profits out of the picture, but a system where workers keep literally everything they produce seems closer to Ayn Rand than anything the left might come up with.

 

[cesare]

Not necessarily. Collective purchasing via taxation is a great deal more efficient than individual purchasing (true under a system with no money or wages as much as one with money and wages), and some output has to be reinvested to ensure future output. You can take profits out of the picture, but a system where workers keep literally everything they produce seems closer to Ayn Rand than anything the left might come up with.

Point me toward where I said that workers should keep everything that they produce, please.

 

[sihhi]

Child benefit and child tax credits do address it. Not enough, I grant you.

Ah, OK. I didn't link to a paper in that post - Joshi 2002?

Yes Heather Joshi on the basis of 1958 and 1970 'cohorts' of women I think.

 

[cesare]

In practice probably. But even in theory, even if nobody is taking the piss, there would still be a need for the surplus to be extracted and redistributed so that we can care for the elderly and infirm, hospitals, education, etc. The question is who extracts/controls the surplus and how.

I agree. But in practice someone is always taking the piss, and it's usually people with power and money.

 

[sihhi]

No not because of that, it's just a fundamental fact that regardless of the way of organising society, surplus labour will always be required/extracted

just because surplus labour exists in a society though doesn't mean that that society is necessarily exploitative (at the individual or social level) however

It's workers having to pay for the childcare services via tax contributions and lower wages.
It's not a very good system anyway - relying on unpaid L1/L2 trainees as much as paid workers (hear less about it on the news due to media fixation on media/creative industry interns).

 

[ymu]

No (ymu). Child benefits and child tax credits subsidise employers not paying enough. It's as simple as that.

As does every other benefit. Parents are entitled to additional benefits, which does mitigate the with/without children pay gap.

Not sure you could call child benefit a subsidy to employers when it was universal. It just redistributed from the childless to parents. I would support that even if everyone was earning enough to bring up eight kids in Westminster without state help.

But the point is ... couples with children do get some reduction in the pay gap via child benefit and child tax credits. They do not, as a couple, face the same kind of pay gap problem as women the main child-carer faces.

 

[cesare]

It's workers having to pay for the childcare services via tax contributions and lower wages.
It's not a very good system anyway - relying on unpaid L1/L2 trainees as much as paid workers (hear less about it on the news due to media fixation on media/creative industry interns).

Not just childcare but also domestic and caring labour.

 

[ymu]

Point me toward where I said that workers should keep everything that they produce, please.

It's how I read this (in the context of the post it quoted)

 

[cesare]

It's how I read this (in the context of the post it quoted)

Me saying that someone's always going to take the piss/extract the labour value is not the same as saying that workers shouldn't contribute to the care of the young, old, infirm and impoverished. When I say someone's always going to take the piss/extract the labour value I mean that "someone" will always try and make a profit for themselves at the expense of the class.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Not necessarily. Collective purchasing via taxation is a great deal more efficient than individual purchasing (true under a system with no money or wages as much as one with money and wages), and some output has to be reinvested to ensure future output. You can take profits out of the picture, but a system where workers keep literally everything they produce seems closer to Ayn Rand than anything the left might come up with.

Nah it's not - Rand would still have the extraction of surplus value through capitalist relations of production. Rousseau's absolute state of nature is the only example of anything like that in political thought that I can think of. A system where people secure the full fruits of their own labour and nothing else - and he doesn't think it's possible to ever go back to that once you've got society. And that's the rub - you can't reproduce society without redirecting the social surplus.

Maybe some of the weirder mutialist anarchists want something like that though, I'm not sure.