Marxist Dictionary: Social Reproduction

By Eve Seitchik

An Often-confused Term in Marxist Feminist Theory that Helps us Understand the Double Burden of Women Under Capitalism

In a 1987 interview, Margaret Thatcher infamously said, “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first.” In typical fashion for the notorious right-winger, she captured the essence of the capitalists’ ongoing fight to strip the public services that meet people’s daily human needs and shift those burdens to families – primarily to women.

Social reproduction is necessary for life under any system, and overwhelmingly it has historically been done, unpaid, by women.

In its Marxist feminist sense, social reproductive labor is all the work we do outside the office and the factory floor to make human life possible. It includes cooking, cleaning, child rearing, elder care, education, and healthcare. Social reproduction is often the work of the domestic sphere. Social reproduction is necessary for life under any system, and overwhelmingly it has historically been done, unpaid, by women.

Social reproductive labor is what we do to “reproduce” society – to make sure that each and every day, and every generation, human life continues on. Without meals and a warm bed, a worker can’t work the next day, and without education and nurturing childcare, we wouldn’t have a next generation of workers at all. Capitalism needs workers to run, so there’s no capitalism without social reproductive labor.

In general, big business benefits greatly from the fact that most social reproductive labor is done for free in the home by women or paid for out of pocket by families. They get well-fed, healthy workers at the beginning of the shift and a pool of educated potential hires, all free of charge to them. The human cost of this burden for working-class women and families is huge, but also overlooked as a normal or expected part of everyday life because of patriarchy, the structural dominance of men over women and gender minorities in society.

Patriarchy is older than modern capitalism and plays the key role in the gendered division of labor in the home. Most women and trans people have a “double day” of work outside the home followed by a shift of housecleaning, cooking, and childcare at home – either because their partners demand they do it, or simply because it won’t get done unless they do. Because our society doesn’t provide free childcare for young children, working women typically do the bulk of the nurturing work as well, even in partnerships with men who think of themselves as progressive or forward-thinking.

---

---

Lise Vogel, one of the originators of Social Reproduction Theory, developed her approach to explain the roots of women’s oppression in capitalist society using a Marxist framework. Major forces claiming to be Marxist often downplayed gender-based oppression or the importance of struggling to end it, solely pointing to the promises of a future socialist society. In response to this, many activists in the 1970s concluded that class oppression (where Marxism could be helpful) and gender oppression (where Marxists had little to say) were two separate systems of oppression. 

A Marxist understanding of social reproduction, as developed by Vogel and others, highlights its vital economic function for capitalism. Marx explained how workers create all value, and Social Reproduction Theory delves into the question of how those workers are produced and reproduced (in terms of the reproduction of the working class as a whole, including children, sick people, etc). Vogel and others unveil the essential role of social reproduction, which is integral for the functioning of any human society, and shed light on the distinct form it takes within capitalist society as a site and source of oppression.

Exporting Domestic Work

But not all social reproductive labor happens in the home. For the families that can’t afford hired help, but need both parents to work outside the home at least part time – which is most families with young children – childcare and other domestic work falls to other women, like grandparents or older aunts and cousins. Workers who can afford help can pay for house cleaners, nannies, daycares, or laundry services.

As feminist Rhacel Parrenas writes in her book “Servants of Globalization”, domestic workers like house cleaners and nannies who serve wealthy white families in the Global North are disproportionately people of color and immigrants. They often leave their children behind with family members in their country of origin and send remittances back to support them. The families back at home often hire even more marginalized domestic workers, leading to the “global care chain” to manage the knock-on effects of social reproductive work as a service. In this way, well-off white women in the West who have entered the workforce in demanding jobs once reserved for men, in turn shift the burden of reproductive work onto a global class of domestic workers of color.

Women having many of the same opportunities as men in the workforce today is an achievement of the womens’ struggle. But whether the necessary social reproductive labor is done in the home as part of the “double day,” by an exploitative private business, or through a public service has big implications for working people. In the first half of the 20th century, Black agricultural workers in the South would leave their kids with one person who would watch them collectively. Historically, when conditions have been the worst for workers, like in the mills and sweatshops of the early 20th century, older children would work in the factory, leaving 9-year-olds to watch 4-year olds. Conditions for children and elderly people were unsafe, workers did the best they could, unsafe conditions prevailed, and people died.

How to Build Power

One debate among Marxists today revolves around the implications of Social Reproduction Theory. If we recognize that there’s a parallel between production in the workplace and in the home, that suggests agitation around domestic work holds untapped sources of resistance and power.

Alongside the fight against racism, we are witnessing the emergence of a broad and influential feminist consciousness among young people. A clear understanding of the best way for socialists to be the best fighters in these movements holds real potential to mobilize and inspire mass action, as evidenced by recent years of global protests, mass mobilizations, and feminist strikes.

However, the isolated nature of individualized domestic work, despite its crucial role in society, poses challenges for fighting campaigns in the domestic arena. When workers outside the home go on strike, they immediately impact the bosses by refusing to generate profits. They were brought together en masse in mass production. This is a source of collective power. In contrast, if people go on a domestic work strike, for example to attempt to win social wages for housework, it would hurt capitalists only in the long run. The immediate burden is faced by children, the elderly, and others in need of care. This makes our efforts more complicated – but not fruitless: feminist strikes that encompass protest actions in the realm of domestic work can yield significant political impact, bolster the self-confidence of a vital yet marginalized segment of the working class, and unite us in the struggle. 

We can decide who bears the cost of social reproduction 

Today, the pressure of working multiple jobs to make ends meet while children go without adequate care is the reality for many families. At the same time, childcare, healthcare, and education are big business profit centers in parts of capitalist society. Ultimately, the workers movement has fought to shift the burden back onto the bosses and the state in an ongoing struggle with varying success.

The history of the women’s struggle in particular has yielded victories for workers and families in getting help with this necessary work. Public education in the US, which provides free childcare from ages 6-18, relieves mostly women caregivers in the home of a huge burden of labor as well as providing necessary education to children. Even reforms like the 8-hour workday and 40-hour week guarantee working people time to organize the rest of their lives, although it’s not enough.

Doing social reproductive labor collectively is a powerful tool for addressing gender inequities.

In the best cases, like universal public education or national healthcare in European social democracies, workers’ movements have won public services that have hugely relieved the social reproductive burden on working families. In addition to helping with the cost of living, doing social reproductive labor collectively is a powerful tool for addressing gender inequities. Hidden behind closed doors in the home, the struggle to get a fair deal from their partners on domestic work is left to individual women and trans people, who are up against generations of prejudice and patriarchal cultural baggage, or who may even be in abusive or unsafe situations.

In a public daycare or a public school, those feminist struggles are still there, but it’s paid, in plain view, and on terrain more conducive to workers organizing together for a just division of labor. At the same time, this collective work is kept as a public service at least in principle under democratic control, instead of becoming another profit center for big business as with charter schools or corporate daycare chains. Angela Davis has argued for all housework including childcare and meal preparation to be socialized and done by public sector workers as the key demand for women’s liberation.

Marxist feminists today have their work cut out for them to keep public schools public and fully funded, as well as to fight for free childcare, and free public healthcare for all. These issues are not always framed in feminist terms, but the theory of social reproduction helps us understand the key role that they play in the struggle for justice for women and trans workers.