This article aims to examine how the category of labour is presented in Social Reproduction Theory (SRT). In the Marxian understanding, labour is the fundamental category of human sociability. Under capitalism, it is presented as a moment of exploitation, domination and oppression. The centrality of labour in capitalism’s historicity has been examined differently within feminist and Marxist approaches. Within feminism, the so-called dual systems theories have often dissociated oppression and exploitation, resulting in a fragmented analytical framing of the category of labour. Part of Marxism, in turn, has directed its investigations towards productive wage labour, failing to delve into an analysis of reproductive labour, especially the unpaid domestic labour. Thus, this analysis fails to see the relationship between production and social reproduction under capitalism. Based on Marx’s category of totality, SRT expands its analytical focus and examines the social reproductive work in its integrative relationship to waged productive labour. Thus, in our view, SRT provides theoretical advances by pointing towards a unitary theory of understanding the relationship between exploitation and oppression in capitalism, without resorting to factors that are external to the capital’s dynamics to explain oppression. We consider that SRT enables the development of some key issues within Marxist feminism, such as the place and function of the sexual division of labour; the analytical and Marxist framing of unpaid domestic work; the contradictory-but-necessary relationship between production and social reproduction; political struggles, among others. To demonstrate this theoretical advance, we examine the debate within feminist currents of Marxism, such as materialist feminism and autonomist feminism, to characterise their divergences. Finally, we argue that the expanded conception of labour within the Marxian reading proposed by SRT offers a more enriching and accurate Marxian reading for the political-theoretical analyses of the expressions of class struggle in the 21st century.
Roncato et al. (Mon,) studied this question.