LD) (~ \ yo a” based; private nature of the work is the most important. (It is interesting to notice , the cther features: the multi~ourpose functions of the family, the fact that desir- able attributes for women do not center on econcmic orowess, etc.) The raticnaliza- | tion of production effected by a transition te large-scale production has not ‘taken ~. place in this area. : : : as | Industrialization is, in itself, a qreat force for human gocd: exploitation and — dehumanization go with capitalism and not necessarily with industrialization. To advo- caté the conversion of private damestic labor into a public industry under capitalism is quite a different thing from advocating such conversion in a socialist society. © In this seccnd case the forces of production would operate for human welfare, not private profit, and the result shculd be liberation, not dehumanization. In this case we can sveak of socialized forms of production. heel oe - hase Gafinitions are not meant to be technical but rather tc differentiate be- tween two important aspects of industrialization. Thus the fear of the barracks~-like result of intreducing housekeeping into the public economy is mst realistic under capitalism. With socialized production and the removal of the profit motive, with | its attendant alicnated labor, there is no reason why, in an industrialized society, industrinlination £ 1 isawork show i not result in better production, i.e., better’ food, more comfortable surroundings, more intelligent and loving child-care, etc., than in the present nuclear fanily. | ) 2 ' The arcumen: is often given that, under neo-capitalism, the work in the home has s ¢ been much reducei. Even if this is true it is not structurally relevant. Except for the very rich, weo can hire someone to do it, there is for most women an irreducible minimum of necess2ry labor involved in caring for home, husband and children.’ For a. married womea without children this irreducible minimum of work orcbably takes 15 to 20hours a week: for a woman with small children the minimum work is prebably 7° or 80 hours a week. & (There is some resistance to regarding child-rearing as a job. That labor is involved, i.e., the production of use-value, can be clearly seen when” exchange-value:is also involved -- when the work is cone by baby sitters, nurses, child-care centers or teachers. An economist has already vointed out the paradox that if amen marcies his housekeeper, he reduces the national income, since the mon- ey he gives her is no longer counted as wages .) The reduction of housework to the minimums given is also expensive; for low income families more labor is required. In any case, household work remains structurally the same -- a matter of private pro- duction. ey a One furncticn of the family, the one taught to us in school anc the one which is popularly accept=i, is the satisfaction of emotional needs; the needs for closeness, community and waza secure relationships. This society provides few other ways of satisfying such needs; for example, work relationships or friendships are not expect- -ed-to be nearly a= Important as 2. man-woman-with-children relationship. Even other. ties of kinship ace increasingly secondary. This function of the family is important in stabilizing it so that it can fuifill the second, purely econcemic, function dis- cussed above. The wage~earner, the husband-father, whose earnings support himself, also "pays for" ¢ae labor dene by tho mthor-wife anc sunports the children. The’ © wages of a ran buy the labor of two people. The crucial importance of this second” function of the amily can be seen when the family unit breaks down in divorce. The continuation of ine economic functicn is the major concern where children are involved; the man must continue to pay for the labor of the woman. His wage is very often in« © sufficient