The Subsistence Perspective: Beyond the Globalised Economy

Maria Mies and Veronica Bennholdt-Thomsen take a critical look at the neoliberal capitalist creed that has shaped the global economy and propose a new economic viewpoints. It is the subsistence perspective: a way of looking at the economy and development from the bottom-up. Drawing from their work in the women's movement, the authors began to look at the subject of housework as it relates to the women's movement. This inquiry broadened and they began to investigate the role of housework in global capitalism, asking: Why is it not seen as work? Why is it non-paid labor? Recognizing that housework and other types of subsistence work cannot be paid work in the global economy, because the accumulation model would collapse, they set to look beyond global capitalism and define the subsistence perspective. As a result of their analysis, the authors propose the development of a new concept of labor and a new valuation of wageless labor. What is the "subsistence perspective?" To begin with, commodity production is the goal of capitalist production. Everything is to be transformed into a commodity that is then marketable. But subsistence production has an entirely different goal: the direct satisfaction of human needs. Its goal is the support of life directly. And this type of production is necessary as a prerequisite for all types of paid labor. Thus, subsistence is the opposite of commodity production. It's not an economic model, but a new economic perspective. Meis and Beholdt-Thomosen take a critical look at the neoliberal capitalist tenets that have shaped the contemporary global economy. One of the most prominent of these is the perceived necessity of unlimited growth. Without growth, there is no development, and the entire economy stagnates and collapses--according to the credo. But in practical terms, in a world of finite resources this aim can only be realized at the expense of others. Furthermore, the primary indicators of growth are the GNP and the GDP. This narrow measure of growth does not account for the bulk of the work of women, subsistence peasants, or those in the informal sector because it is not wage labor. Wage labor is sharply contrasted with unpaid work, creating a misguided perception that only work that produces wages is gainful. Since subsistence work is not wage labor, much work is invisible under this system, and can thus be exploited. As the authors analyze these economic structures, they point out that patriarchy is a structural necessity for capitalism. This becomes apparent in their analysis of the "housewifeisation" of labor. Gender roles were used to create an asymmetric sexual division of labor: The males are the "breadwinners" of the household, and the women are the "housewives". This would place males primarily in the world of wage labor, and women with the wageless reproduction of labor power, which is the cheapest and most exploitable kind of production work. Therefore, they make the case that the women's move