3
f e
_ \ \
) $
} \ ;
a

2):

extent that the society itself, in which the commodity is prcduced, is
founded cn exchange, is a society where exchange is a common practise....

In capitalist society, commodity production, the production of
exchange-values , has reached its greatest development. It is the first
society in human history where the major part of production consists
of commcdities. It is not true, however, that all production under :
capitalism is commodity production. Two ae of I still re-.
main simple use-value.

The first group consists of all things Drediecd by the peasantry
r its own consumption, a at directly connuned on the farms
wee it is produced....

The second group of products: in einitaliss society which are not
commodities but remain simple use=value consists of all things pro- |
duced in the home. Despite the fact that considerable human labor goes
into this type of household production, it still remains a preduction
of use-values and not of commodities. Every time a soup is made or a
button sewn on a garment, it constitutes production, but it is not;
production for the mrket.

The appearance of commodity production and its subsequent reqular- .
ization and generalization have r radically transformed the way men ele
or and how they organize society.

_ What Mandel may not have noticea is that his last paragranh is precise-_
ly correct. The appearance of commodity prcduction has indeed transformed the way.
that men labor. As he points out, most household lahor in capitalist society (and in
existing socialist societies for that matter) remains in the pre-market stage. This
is the work which is reserved for women and it is in this fact that we can find the
basis for a definition of women.

In sheer quantity, household labor, including child care, constitutes a huge
amount of socially necessary production. Nevertheless, in a society based on commod-
ity production, it is not usually considered as “real “work” since it is outside of
trade and the market place. It is pre-capitalist in a very real sense. This assign-
ment of household work as the function of a special category “women” means that this
group does stand in a different relationship to production than:the group “men”. “e
will tentatively define women, then, as that groun of people who are ie for
the production of simple use-values in those activities. pec aeteteG with the heme and
family.

Since men carry no responsibility for such production, the difference between
the two groups lies here. Notice that women are not excluded from commedity product~
ion. Their participation in wage lahor occurs but, as a group ; they have no struct-
ural responsibility in this area and such participation is ordinarily regarded as
transient. Men, on the other hand, are responsible for commodity production: they
are not, in principle, ‘given any role in household labor. For example, when they do
narticipate in household preduction, it is regarded as more than simply exceptional:
it is demoralizing, emasculating, even harmful to health. (A story cn the. front page
o£ the Vancouver Sun in January, 1969 reported that men in Britain were having their
health endangered bécause thay had to do too much: housework!)

The material basis for the inferior status of women.is to be found in just this
definition of women. In a society in which money determines value, women are a group
whe work outside the money economy. Their work is-not worth money, is therefore val-
ueless , is therefore not even real work. And women themselves, who do this valueless
work, can hardly be expected to be worth as much as men, who work for money. In
structural terms, the closest thing to the condition of women is the condition of oth-
ers who are or were also outside of commodity production;i.e., serfs and peasants.