Capitalism necessitates a considerable amount of affection, according to Heide Lutosch.
In the coalition agreement of the new federal government, families are prioritized as "performers" and the key foundation of society. The CDU considers families as the "real performers" that contribute to the stability of the nation, while the AfD emphasizes the role of children in transmitting cultural traditions and skills. The question arises: Is capitalism dependent on family life?
Capitalism requires several vital functions from families, which are instrumental to its operation and longevity. Families offer unpaid domestic and reproductive labor, crucial for nurturing the upcoming generation of workers. Additionally, families serve as a means of inheriting wealth and property, which helps in concentrating wealth within specific family groups.
Capitalism reaps benefits from families as well. The unpaid labor provided by families allows companies to offer lower wages since certain family members are not compensated for their work. Moreover, the nuclear family structure enhances social order by reinforcing patriarchal norms and maintaining women's roles predominantly centered around domesticity and dependence on men.
The benefits for capitalism extend further with the inheritance of wealth, as it guarantees that wealth remains concentrated among a small elite, reinforcing economic inequality.
Some critics argue that capitalism is more flexible in utilizing alternative relationship forms than what some conservatives and right-wingers would imply. Nonetheless, it must be noted that these flexible boundaries have restrictive limits, with asylum-seeking families facing reduced protection and single mothers disproportionately living in poverty.
Despite the emphasis on families as a place of love and stability by various political parties, capitalism highly demands emotional labor from families. Families are expected to maintain the emotional stability of their members, facilitate socialization, and educate children to become useful contributors to society. This emotional burden is particularly placed on women.
Heide Lutosch, an author and translator, brings up another point of contention in the debate on democratic planned economy, as she focus on how work organizations may change in a liberated society.
While all parties advocate for expanding childcare, its impact remains unchanged. The system remains structured to create maximum stress when children and careers collide. Governments may claim to prioritize family, but in reality, the family is meant to support and stabilize society rather than the other way around.
Parties promise a better balance between career and family life, but the apparent incompatibility lies in the conflicting logics between work and family. Children are slow and require unpredictable care, while work demands adherence to a schedule and productivity.
Although capitalism demands a lot from families, is stability truly a negative aspect? Stability within the current system perpetuates wealth concentration, with the rich staying wealthy, and the rest remaining at the bottom. The family is utilized as a means to achieve this stability, prioritized as a "performance carrier" and burdened with economic pressure.
In conclusion, capitalism requires families for their domestic labor, inheritance, and socialization functions, but the current system imposes significant economic and emotional burdens on families. Critics argue that a liberated society, where work is organized differently and the care sector is de-privatized, could alleviate the struggles experienced by families under capitalism.
Technology is instrumental in modern families, as it facilitates education-and-self-development for children and enables parents to manage domestic responsibilities more efficiently.
The overwhelming economic and emotional burdens placed on families under capitalism highlight the need for technological advancements to alleviate their struggles and create a more balanced between work, education, and family life in the future.
