This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| International Wages for Housework Campaign | |
|---|---|
| Name | International Wages for Housework Campaign |
| Formation | 1972 |
| Founders | Selma James; Silvia Federici; Mariarosa Dalla Costa |
| Type | Political campaign; feminist movement |
| Location | International |
| Affiliation | Wages for Housework Committee; International Feminist Collective |
International Wages for Housework Campaign is a feminist political campaign that foregrounded unpaid domestic labor as economically valuable and demanded monetary compensation for caregiving, cleaning, and subsistence work. Originating in the early 1970s, the campaign linked feminist activism with labor movements and anti-capitalist critiques, engaging figures and organizations across Europe, North America, Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
The campaign emerged amid intersections of the Second-wave feminism, New Left (United States), Autonomist Marxism, and International Women’s Year debates, responding to arguments from Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and labor theorists such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels about reproduction and production. Influences included the Wages for Housework Committee (UK), the Wages for Housework Committee (Italy), and writings circulated through networks like Women’s Liberation Movement (United Kingdom), Women’s Liberation Movement (United States), and the Redstockings. The intellectual origins drew on texts by Silvia Federici, Mariarosa Dalla Costa, Selma James, and earlier feminist economists such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Beatrice Webb, while engaging with debates in journals like Demonstration, Radical America, and Telegraph.
Founders and prominent activists included Selma James, Silvia Federici, and Mariarosa Dalla Costa, who collaborated with organizers from groups such as the Wages for Housework Committee (Italy), the Wages for Housework Committee (United Kingdom), and the Wages for Housework Committee (United States). Allies and interlocutors ranged across feminist and labor organizations including National Organization for Women, International Wages for Housework Committee-linked collectives, Women’s International Democratic Federation, Socialist Feminist Organization, Women Strike for Peace, Women’s Trade Union League, Black Panther Party activists concerned with community survival projects, and ethnic feminist groups such as Combahee River Collective. Intellectual supporters and critics spanned scholars and activists in institutions like University of California, Berkeley, University of Bologna, London School of Economics, and publishing venues such as Verso Books, Monthly Review Press, and New Left Review.
Campaign demands articulated monetary recognition for household labor, calling for salary, social security credits, and state transfers analogous to wages for work in sectors represented by International Labour Organization standards. Policy proposals invoked mechanisms similar to Social Security (United States), Universal Basic Income precursors, and family allowances modeled on systems in Sweden, France, and Denmark. The campaign sought integration with international frameworks such as debates at United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, and proposed legal recognition akin to entitlements in laws like Social Security Act-style legislation. Demands included taxation reform inspired by proposals from Pierre Bourdieu-informed welfare critiques and labor protections echoing themes in International Monetary Fund critiques, while aligning with anti-capitalist currents associated with May 1968 activists.
Tactics included public demonstrations, benefit committees, strike support, and policy advocacy at forums like United Nations, European Parliament (before 1999 assembly developments), and city councils in locales such as London, New York City, Rome, and Toronto. Campaigns staged actions concurrent with events organized by Women’s Strike for Equality, International Women’s Day, and solidarity events with Miners' strike, 1984–85 supporters and community programs paralleling initiatives by Black Panthers survival programs. Publications and manifestos were distributed through publishers and periodicals linked to Spare Rib, Ms. (magazine), The Feminist Press, and academic presses affiliated with University of Toronto Press and Routledge. The movement also coordinated with labor unions including Trade Union Congress (UK), American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, and grassroots organizations such as Wages Due Lesbians and cooperative projects influenced by Cooperative Commonwealth Federation histories.
Critiques emerged from libertarian feminists like Jo Freeman and Marxist critics connected to Antonio Negri and E.P. Thompson who debated the campaign’s relationship to wage labor and class struggle. Some feminists including voices associated with National Organization for Women questioned commodification of care, while scholars in institutions such as Harvard University, Princeton University, and Columbia University debated methodology. Controversies involved disagreements with socialist feminist currents linked to Clara Zetkin-inspired organizing, tensions with radical groups like Feminists Against Pornography, and disputes over alliances with trade unions such as British Trade Union Congress. Debates also arose around policy feasibility in national contexts influenced by austerity measures advocated by Milton Friedman-aligned economists and neoliberal reforms implemented by administrations tied to figures like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
The campaign influenced scholarship in feminist economics at institutions including University of Cambridge and London School of Economics and fed into policy debates leading to caregiver allowances, family benefits, and partial conceptual echoes in proposals for Universal Basic Income and expanded Social Security (United States). Its ideas shaped later movements and organizations such as Care work movement, Global Care Chains research, and initiatives by advocacy groups like International Domestic Workers Federation and Women in Development programs within United Nations Development Programme. Writings by Silvia Federici and Selma James remain cited alongside works by Nancy Fraser, Judith Butler, and Angela Davis in discussions of social reproduction, workplace recognition, and feminist political economy. The campaign’s legacy endures in contemporary policy debates in national contexts including Brazil, India, South Africa, and across the European Union.
Category:Feminist movements