From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Sat Feb 12 2005 - 16:57:49 EST
> Jerry, perhaps first you (and hopefully others) can provide an > interpretation of Engels here: > ...the equality and equal status of all human labour, because and in > so far as it is human labour, found its unconscious but clearest > expression in the law of value of modern bourgeois political economy, > according to which the value of a commodity is measured by the > socially necessary labour embodied in it. > From Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877 Rakesh, My interpretation is that Engels is confused. To begin with, all human labour under capitalism does not have an equal status. Next, the _clearest_ expression of equality of human labour produced under the bourgeois mode of production is to be found in bourgeois political doctrines, e.g. in "The Rights of Man" or "The Declaration of Independence". Next, the "law of value" as stated above is not that developed by "modern bourgeois political economy" but that developed by none other than Marx and Engels themselves. Note especially the reference to "socially necessary labour." > But I don't understand your point. You do not think that meal sharing > embodies struggles over relative social status or the dissolution > thereof. Sharing a lunch counter in the Jim Crow South? My point is that, contrary to your earlier claim, *dining together does not establish status equality*. In tens (perhaps hundreds?) of millions of households, parents dine together with children. This does not establish status equality between parents and children. In many of those same households, men dine together with women. That does not establish status equality between men and women or between husbands and wives, etc. Indeed, this *lack of equality* is reflected in many culturally-specific customs associated with the meal: e.g. who does the cooking and 'serving', the size of portions, who eats first, etc. At many of those same meals, brothers and sisters dine together. That does not establish status equality between brothers and sisters. That also is reflected in many customs associated with family dining. Also outside of the family, dining together does not establish status equality. When 'dating' there are customs in different social formations that reflect the different statuses of those who are eating together. (E.g. Who pays? Who picks the spot to eat? Who orders?, etc.) We as faculty can dine with students, e.g. in a school cafeteria. No student would be so naive to think that this establishes status equality between students and faculty. We as faculty also have the misfortune of sometimes dining with college presidents and deans. Neither administrators nor faculty would be so naive to believe that the act of dining together establishes status equality between college administrators and faculty. If a worker dines at the same table in a plant cafeteria with her or his supervisor, this does not establish status equality. Etc.Etc. > I am not getting your point. Status equality is not implied by marriage. I'm tiring so I'll leave it at that for now. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 13 2005 - 00:00:01 EST