{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"bde76793-4c65-415a-a237-6ccacc2e0802","title":"Labor and Monopoly Capital The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"0853459401","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"bde76793-4c65-415a-a237-6ccacc2e0802","id":"bde76793-4c65-415a-a237-6ccacc2e0802","uuid":"bde76793-4c65-415a-a237-6ccacc2e0802","title":"Labor and Monopoly Capital The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century","normalized_title":"laborandmonopolycapitalthedegradationofworkinthetwentiethcentury","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"0853459401","isbns":["0853459401"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":183,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/bde76793-4c65-415a-a237-6ccacc2e0802","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Labor%20and%20Monopoly%20Capital%20The%20Degradation%20of%20Work%20in%20the%20Twentieth%20Century","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/bde76793-4c65-415a-a237-6ccacc2e0802/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/bde76793-4c65-415a-a237-6ccacc2e0802/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/bde76793-4c65-415a-a237-6ccacc2e0802","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/bde76793-4c65-415a-a237-6ccacc2e0802/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/bde76793-4c65-415a-a237-6ccacc2e0802/search"},"page":{"printed_page":311,"pdf_page":168,"physical_index":168,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"9544a385a434fc43de63c635eab029528795b20472c0c8c564ac10517680b30d"},"chapter":"Acknowledgments","content":"Appendix 1\n\nTwo Comments\n\nIn the following notes, Harry Braverman responded to a number of contributors to a special issue of Monthly Review (Vol. 28, no. 3, July-August, 1976) entitled \"Technology, the Labor Process, and the Working Class.'\n\nI would like to take this opportunity to comment on two of the many issues that have been raised in the accompanying articles. The same issues have been raised in a number of other reviews and communications on Labor and Monopoly Capital. The first has to do with the connections between the subject matter of the book and the women's movement. The second has to do with the consciousness of the working class as a class for itself, struggling in its own behalf, apart from its objective existence in itself.\n\nI\n\nThe authors of \"The Working Class Has Two Sexes\" (Rosalyn Baxandall Elizabeth Ewen, and Linda Gordon) generously conclude that \"Labor and Monopoly Capital . . . makes a major contribution, perhaps unbeknownst to its author, to feminist analysis.\" Be that as it may, the connection did not come as a post-publication surprise to me. During the earliest period of my research, I became convinced of the importance ofrecent trends in the working population for the feminist movement. I have been gratified to see that many of the conclusions I had drawn in my own mind have now been drawn by readers, and particularly by women readers.\n\nIn comments both public and private, many of these readers have expressed some disappointment that I omitted from my discussion any direct comments on matters of special concern to the women's movement, and particularly household, or non-wage family, labor. Since these readers have all been most understanding of the self-imposed limits of my study, and (as in the two articles contained in this collection which address themselves directly to the subject) have adapted their critiques to these limits, I do not raise this here in order to make an unnecessary explanation. But I would like to add one thing to what has been said on this particular point. Beyond the fact that a consideration of household work would have fallen far outside the bounds of my subject (not to mention my competence), there is also this to consider; that household work, although it has been the special domain of women, is not thereby necessarily so central to the issues of women's liberation as might appear from this fact. On the contrary, it is the breakdown of the traditional household economy which has produced the present-day feminist movement. This movement in its modern form is almost entirely a product of women who have been summoned from the household by the requirements of the capital accumulation process, and subjected to experiences and stresses unknown in the previous thousands of years of household labor under a variety of social arrangements. Thus it is the analysis of this new situation that in my opinion occupies the place of first importance in the theory of modern feminism.\n\n310 Labor and Monopoly Capital\n\n311","previous_page":null,"next_page":null}