Are you trying to imply doubling the available workforce is not good? Its usually a good thing. While their motivations are cynical, those leaders are doing good.
…or are you trying to imply that keeping women out of the traditional work force (by only allowing them to work unpaid in the home in domestic servitude, labor that capital does not value) increases the value of male labor through scarcity, which would be preferred?
Sorry that second question kind of reads as an attack. A shitty coworker of mine said that to me unironically and tried to play it off as a joke when I pushed back.
I think this inherently accepts the narrative that the work women were doing before had no or little value.
That care and emotional labour should not fall solely on women and we should all have the opportunity to partake in meaningful work but we shouldn’t accept having to accept less time for care (and leisure) on some trumped up definition of what’s productive/economic or not.
As labor is further socialized (basically centralizing and then running itself without capitalist intervention) you end up having labor done by men and women and women still being responsible for more domestic duties which are labor but not considered labor(because those being done for free subsidizes capitalist profit) the solution though isn’t to keep women in the household, it is to do socialism, where domestic labor can be socialized (it isn’t under capitalism because why would you socialize labor you’re already getting for free?)
It doesn’t matter to me whether the man or woman has the job, what matters to me is that one working person could support a family, kids, owning a home, some vacations and still had enough money to save up and be generally not very concerned with finances.
Sorry for late response and I see the comment is now deleted by a mod but whatever (well we’re on .ml after all).
What I was trying to point out, was the “cynical” part of it. That people in power often don’t do it because they want to empower women or help people, more often than not it’s just that it brings more people into their “meat grinder” - regardless of the regime. In case of capitalism it’s obvious but it doesn’t need to be money necessarily; in the case of Stalin - pardon me if I don’t believe that he did it for “supporting women rights and making the world a better place ✌️”, he did it for the raw economic power to compete with US during cold war and so his own country wouldn’t collapse because of his stupid actions.
Whether doubling the workforce is a good thing - that I’d keep up for a debate. I deliberately didn’t want to say anything in that area, I’m just saying that the motivation of people in power is cynical, not saying if result is good or bad.
But if you’d want my personal stance - I do believe that in order to achieve welfare/prosperity, not all the people have to work. And I do believe that there are more important things in life than working. I’d love to be a stay at home dad, but I can’t. Even though my country sort of supports it, my pay would cut dramatically and we as a family wouldn’t be able to survive.
But honestly thank you for asking. It’s very refreshing to meet a person who asks and tries to understand the motivation of the commenter rather than jumping right to the conclusion (as almost every other response here)
Thank you, mods, for protecting us from different opinions and discussion.
Stalin
The right for women to work wasn’t instituted by Stalin’s government. Women were granted equal rights by the Bolsheviks in the revolution. It is worth noting that, before the revolution, workers had longer workdays, and letting more people into the workforce allowed for less working hours.
Regarding their motivations - their goal was to bring about communism, and they believed that, to achieve this, the working class had to be united, and thus that women and men should be equal.
I do believe that in order to achieve welfare/prosperity, not all the people have to work.
A large fraction of the labour done in the present-day is excess. It is possible to meet every person’s needs with less work in total. If the workload required was distributed equitably, people would have more time outside of their jobs.
Are you trying to imply doubling the available workforce is not good? Its usually a good thing. While their motivations are cynical, those leaders are doing good.
…or are you trying to imply that keeping women out of the traditional work force (by only allowing them to work unpaid in the home in domestic servitude, labor that capital does not value) increases the value of male labor through scarcity, which would be preferred?
Sorry that second question kind of reads as an attack. A shitty coworker of mine said that to me unironically and tried to play it off as a joke when I pushed back.
It would be nice if one salary, no matter the gender of the breadwinner, could sustain a family.
We shouldn’t have to work to sustain a family, this idea is archaic.
I think this inherently accepts the narrative that the work women were doing before had no or little value.
That care and emotional labour should not fall solely on women and we should all have the opportunity to partake in meaningful work but we shouldn’t accept having to accept less time for care (and leisure) on some trumped up definition of what’s productive/economic or not.
As labor is further socialized (basically centralizing and then running itself without capitalist intervention) you end up having labor done by men and women and women still being responsible for more domestic duties which are labor but not considered labor(because those being done for free subsidizes capitalist profit) the solution though isn’t to keep women in the household, it is to do socialism, where domestic labor can be socialized (it isn’t under capitalism because why would you socialize labor you’re already getting for free?)
It doesn’t matter to me whether the man or woman has the job, what matters to me is that one working person could support a family, kids, owning a home, some vacations and still had enough money to save up and be generally not very concerned with finances.
Women not being forced to do the reproductive labour in the family? Good.
Families being coerced into having two incomes to make ends meet, meaning they don’t get as much time with their children as they like? Bad.
Sorry for late response and I see the comment is now deleted by a mod but whatever (well we’re on .ml after all).
What I was trying to point out, was the “cynical” part of it. That people in power often don’t do it because they want to empower women or help people, more often than not it’s just that it brings more people into their “meat grinder” - regardless of the regime. In case of capitalism it’s obvious but it doesn’t need to be money necessarily; in the case of Stalin - pardon me if I don’t believe that he did it for “supporting women rights and making the world a better place ✌️”, he did it for the raw economic power to compete with US during cold war and so his own country wouldn’t collapse because of his stupid actions.
Whether doubling the workforce is a good thing - that I’d keep up for a debate. I deliberately didn’t want to say anything in that area, I’m just saying that the motivation of people in power is cynical, not saying if result is good or bad.
But if you’d want my personal stance - I do believe that in order to achieve welfare/prosperity, not all the people have to work. And I do believe that there are more important things in life than working. I’d love to be a stay at home dad, but I can’t. Even though my country sort of supports it, my pay would cut dramatically and we as a family wouldn’t be able to survive.
But honestly thank you for asking. It’s very refreshing to meet a person who asks and tries to understand the motivation of the commenter rather than jumping right to the conclusion (as almost every other response here)
Thank you, mods, for protecting us from different opinions and discussion.
The right for women to work wasn’t instituted by Stalin’s government. Women were granted equal rights by the Bolsheviks in the revolution. It is worth noting that, before the revolution, workers had longer workdays, and letting more people into the workforce allowed for less working hours.
Regarding their motivations - their goal was to bring about communism, and they believed that, to achieve this, the working class had to be united, and thus that women and men should be equal.
A large fraction of the labour done in the present-day is excess. It is possible to meet every person’s needs with less work in total. If the workload required was distributed equitably, people would have more time outside of their jobs.