Commodification and Objectification of the Working Class

According to Marx, the process of commodification and objectification happen on the proletariat after the new material foundation onsets in the Capitalist society. This new material foundation refers to extensive production power that a new means of production, namely the use of machine generates. In this process, workers are commodified in the sense that they get wage from the Bourgeois and are replaceable at the latter one’s will. The notion of objectification is similar to the idea of commodification in that, they both mean workers are not treated as human beings. Specifically, regarding to objectification, the Bourgeois treat the working class inhumanly, which means considering them to have no power, feelings or voice. The idea of commodification has spilled over to the areas of family in our fast paste, busy world. For instance, parents hire domestic workers to help them care for children, which should be a task of themselves. In this fashion, nurturing becomes a commodity that can be sold out and the relationships between parents and children may weaken, therefore, due to less time and attention that parents pay to their offspring.

We can even see how our the modern Bourgeoisie takes the "material foundation onsets in the Capitalist society" to not only commodify and objectify in the material realm. He also commodifies and objectifies things that are in the immaterial realm. The production that happens in this latter realm is done by way of the hegemonic "mental production" process that is upheld by the ruling Bourgeoise. Similar to the example of the commodification of "nurturing" are two other examples.

Perhaps there is only so much material resources on the world to objectify and commodify that the Bourgeoisie have turned to objectifying/commodifying the immaterial? The commodification of LOVE (an abstract entity) can be an example where the Bourgeoisie have turned this emotion into something that can be bought in the marketplace. Love is commodified through dating sites, match-making services, and even self-help books. Another example is LIFE (another abstract entity). The Bourgeoisie have given it some sort of value through the various insurance packages that can be bought because it provides people with security. It seems that because the Bourgeoisie have succeeded in subjecting the Proletariats to their "ruling intellectual force", the Bourgeoisie can succeed in producing commodities and selling them even if these objects are immaterial.

This is an interesting point to consider. It's stated in the parent comment that contemporary society exists within a "fast paste (sic), busy world". I do not refute this comment in the least, but rather leads me to wonder in regards to whether or not the effects of lost time within family units is a manifest or latent function of the actions on the part of the bourgeois.

It's intriguing to note that from a capitalist perspective, it is actually more beneficial for an employer to have a wider multiplicity of employees, who in turn work proportionately shorter hours, and thus the notion seems somewhat contradictory. However, one must also stop to consider that if the first premise (more part-time employees) holds to be true, it stands that with such precarious employment that many individuals would seek out secondary sources of income, which consequently leads to a busier life with less time for family, as we have noted.

To take this on a bit of a tangent, another aspect with regard to work-to-family-life ratio is that in a family structure, often parents will work beyond an everyday necessity in order to pay for the education of their children, which has also been commodified in recent years. Although it is clear that education and such providence comes with a cost, post-secondary has divulged from its initial elite status and is now viewed more as a standard rather than the same way an individual may view a master's degree nowadays. It is no coincidence that many students now regard tuition costs as merely buying the "chance" to attain a degree, especially given how systematic the post-secondary system is formatted with red-tape requirements and all.

I find the commodification of family acts of care an interesting and controversial component of the Capitalist society. As you point out, parents are now paying others to do the labour of caring for their children, so that they can themselves engage in the labour market (outside of the home). Historically, it was common for the mother of the family to stay home and take on the labour of caring for the family and the home.

Although this is in many ways seen as an "ideal" as it allows for the mother and children to ultimately bond, the current emphasis on day care or nannies for such duties is largely because more women are in the labour market and have jobs outside of the home. This is in some ways beneficial, as it allows for the family to have a greater wealth of resources, but as well, it dislocates the mother from the child(ren) to an extent and also may create the "double shift" of work in the labour market as well as work in the home for many mothers.

In this way, it is interesting to look into how family has been commodified over the last century or so, and also aligning that with the introduction of more women into the paid labour market since WW2, which ties into Marx's concepts of commodification and objectification in the working class as you point out. However, I think this could be applied to a middle class or even upper- middle class in a contemporary context as the double-shift and paid childcare situation is not exclusive to the working class.

You guys talk a lot about Commodification ,Objectification and proletarian, what an awesome job! But here I want to talk a little bit about the association between feminism and objection.It is believed that Objectification is to treat a person as an object. When we link Objectification with women, we always think about gender discrimination, which is regarding or treating women as an object. Besides, pornography is one of the most pioneering topic when feminists talk about sexual objectification. Pornography and its deuterogenic sex industry such as striptease performance and prostitution enable women to be tools of entertainment by men.
  
  I think feminists still have a long way to go. To fight against sexual objectification, especially pornography and sex industry. governments ought to implement policy and enhance administration for reducing these kinds of activities, which directly reflects objectification of women. But unfortunately, many countries allow existence of sex industry legally. But here is an opinion, although some countries ban prostitution, the status of women is still not equal as men. I think this is an worldwide phenomenon which related to Patriarchal society in the history of human. But at least nowadays, more and more people realize the significance of feminism, more and more brave women are willing to announce their thought about equalization of gender.