What we deserve. Towards a general theory of labour (original) (raw)

In this Master's thesis, I start on the long and winding road of considering what can we refer to as labour. In short, there seems to be no good reason to reject Karl Marx's definition of this activity as basically a set of actions that people undergo using their various naturally endowed or acquired faculties and abilities, which are consciously aimed at changing our surroundings according to a certain mental image we have. I said there is no problem in accepting this definition, other than the fact that it seems to trivialize the concept, that is. What I argue for, however, is that this problem of trivialization arises not from this definition, but from the image of work that capitalism as a mode of production imposes. under the current system, the only labour that is actually seen as such is the one that contributes towards the valorization of capital - towards, that is, creating surplus value. Starting from the very well developed idea of 20th century Marxist feminist authors - that unproductive labour, in the form of domestic work, is the basis for production - I argue that we can see that other activities - resolving ethical problems in everyday life, expressing one's non-dominant identity, and play - as forming part of the same category. Realizing that each part of the above mentioned argument requires more time than I was able to dedicate to it at the time, I turn towards a related problem: although by definition some activities are labour, we should not see them as work, i.e. as we see that specific portion of our days which we are forced to dedicate towards earning a living. There is a particular capitalistic push to see every relation as an exchange one and, therefore, see every activity as we see work. It is imperative that we do not give in to this ideology, that we at least keep what little non-transactional connections we have, if we are ever to create a better system.