[Rugoz]

Before capitalism people lived in extended families with multiple generations under one roof, the nuclear family came about as a result of capitalism. People needing to move around to chase the jobs in factories mean the family had to become more mobile, obviously this was more convenient for smaller families and thus the nuclear family was born. Honestly Solar Cross, why is it you fascists know nothing about history?

Multiple generations lived under one roof because they couldn't afford to live individually. "Capitalism" enabled the nuclear family just as it enabled the single-person household, because people are wealthier than ever.

[Pants-of-dog]

Bizarre and wrong.

What is almost right is "It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality." However the truth is that anyone who loves their own children more than strange children will want to help them more than they help other people, inevitably this is a generalisation but a fair one, that will include passing on any accumulated money or other goods as well as knowledge and culture. It is not like us poor people love our children less we just have less to give. Let me emphasise this isn't an exclusively "bourgeois" thing because people have been materially helping their children, in life and even posthumously through inheritance, throughout all the whole world, throughout all history. So rural people do this too and people who are not merchants or middle class.

POD you have children do you not look after them? Are you "bourgeois" for doing that?

So you agree that inheritance is a thing that happens, and that the amount of inheritance depends on your economic situation.

This is what Marx says. He also goes one step further and says that this then perpetuates the class system. This seems like a reasonable and logical conclusion based on the things you just described.

The bizarre stuff is the thing about ideological functions which is expanded by the claim that the family "acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy". Just bizarre.

Not really. The family is the main way in which social norms are passed from one generation to another. In a capitalist society, this includes the social norms that support hierarchies. If you have a boss, you have to do what the boss says. This is a social norm in capitalism that supports hierarchy. This social norm is passed down mostly through family.

This is pretty standard stuff that would you learn in an introductory political science or sociology class.

What is just plain wrong is Engel's claim that the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism*.

Please exaplin what is wrong about it. Thanks.

* Here I am assuming by Capitalism he means the industrial revolution, it must be remembered that Capitalism is used a virtual synonym for the industrial revolution by communists as distinct from the dictionary definition "trade and commerce substantially by non-government decision" which is basically ubiquitous anywhere there is civilisation throughout all history. Arguably the heavily regulated markets of today are less capitalistic than the enterprises of the european middle ages or of ancient times, because there is so much more government ownership and involvement.

You are notorious for getting it wrong when it comes to telling us what Communists think. Thus, it is understandable that you are incorrect about this as well.

[Rugoz]

The family is the main way in which social norms are passed from one generation to another. In a capitalist society, this includes the social norms that support hierarchies.

The nuclear family is probably the least hierarchical there ever was. But go on, continue to ignore 10k years of history.

[Pants-of-dog]

The nuclear family is probably the least hierarchical there ever was. But go on, continue to ignore 10k years of history.

Perhaps, but that is not what I was discussing.

I was pointing out that the family is the vehicle for most social norms (including hierarchies).

It is possible that the nuclear family is the family structure that is most inherently egalitarian, and that the modern nuclear family also passes down social norms such as accepted hierarchies.

[SolarCross]

So you agree that inheritance is a thing that happens, and that the amount of inheritance depends on your economic situation.

This is what Marx says. He also goes one step further and says that this then perpetuates the class system. This seems like a reasonable and logical conclusion based on the things you just described.

Well I did say that bit was ALMOST right. The particularly debatable bit is the bit about reproducing inequality. Now let's say some energetic and entrepreneurial character performs the rags to riches trick, okay so now he is rich. He marries and has children in the normal way, those children go to the best schools and have pots of spending money.. they have everything he never had as a child. Finally he dies and leaves his children a fat portfolio of stocks and shares, and all manner of other assets. Moreover he probably passed on to his children a lot more than just money such as his accumulated knowledge of how to make and manage money. Unless the children catastrophically mess up their shares of this fortune they will also in turn pass on this good luck to their own children... So far so terribly unfair for the envious have-nots, right?

There are some things working against this becoming a runaway process though:

- Firstly shit happens, life in all its glory has literally infinite ways of screwing things up even for the most fortunate among us. The Kennedy family back in the 60s could be described as particularly fortunate, where are they now?

- The more you have the more you spend. Our hypothetical rags-to-riches entrepreneur made his fortune by earning far more than he consumed, no joke that is literally how one becomes rich, he was able to do this by having a poor man's tastes with a rich man's earning ability. Eating homecooked food instead of going to 5 star restaurants, driving a box standard car instead of a luxury car, wearing off-the-peg cotton suits instead of tailor-made silk.

One thing his children won't and probably couldn't inherit from him is this kind of frugality, being born into money means being raised with the ability to indulge expensive tastes and the corresponding inability to be satisfied by modest things.

In addition to lacking their father's frugality they will also lack his energy because unlike their father they do not need to achieve anything given they have so much already. We are all of us lazy creatures at heart, we do stuff, work, make sacrifices and endure things in order to get stuff but when you already have that stuff there is not so much incentive to do the things required to get more.

Another important thing is that inheritance tends to split estates into many smaller estates. The uber rich person will likely leave the bulk of his money to his children but he will likely have more than one child. With each generation that fortune will get split further and further.

The evidence for this is that the rich family names of the past are not the same rich family names of the present. The Rothschilde are perhaps the best example of a family that managed to remain perpetually wealthy, in no small measure by utilising fairly extreme measures like having carefully arranged marriages of first or second cousins in order to prevent inheritance disperse their fortune too much. They are literally the poster child of inherited inequality yet even their fortunes have waned from their peak.

The cycle might take centuries to complete but no family name that shoots to fame and fortune by whatever means can persist in that upward trajectory forever.

---------

Just as important as the above to note is that inequality doesn't matter.

Not really. The family is the main way in which social norms are passed from one generation to another. In a capitalist society, this includes the social norms that support hierarchies. If you have a boss, you have to do what the boss says. This is a social norm in capitalism that supports hierarchy. This social norm is passed down mostly through family.

This is pretty standard stuff that would you learn in an introductory political science or sociology class.

Hierarchy is supported by necessity, it is functional, parents are doing well when they teach their children how to survive and thrive in a civilised world. That said hierarchies are most strongly perpetuated by the institutions that need and use them. A military hierarchy is most strongly perpetuated by the military organisation that is structured by it and not so much by people in general. An "army brat" might be indirectly taught to respect the chain of command by his father's example but unless he joins the military himself that will have a very small and ever diminishing effect on him.

Please exaplin what is wrong about it. [engels's invention of the origins of monogamy] Thanks.

The best answer to this is to invite you to read up on human bio-psychology, biology in general and even some anthropology (it's not hard science but not everyone in the trade is a fruit bat peddling nonsense). Monogamy is more biological than cultural, seriously.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well I did say that bit was ALMOST right. The particularly debatable bit is the bit about reproducing inequality.

Well, the single best indicator of your future economic standing is your parents' economic standing.

Look up "economic mobility".

Your discussion about the importance and awesomeness of hierarchies does not contradict Marx's claims. At most, it clarifies the other factors that can pass on social norms, such as the church.

Inequality does matter. Mostly to those who are on the disadvantaged end of the dynamic.

Finally, please explain what is wrong about Engels's invention of the origins of monogamy. Thanks.

[The Immortal Goon]

Actually you brought this "abolition of the family" aspect of the manifesto up first:

I've been responding but actually I'm more interested in getting on with the 10 commandments.

These are materialist issues. Of course, you'd need to read Marx to know this.

Further, since you seem to have dropped the issue when a certain amount of context was given, it seems clear that you have no interest in knowledge, but expressing your feelings about a subject in which you're ignorant.



All evidence shows to the contrary. Further, all evidence seems to be that you have not read the manifesto in question.



I do not know of any Marxist who regards this as a religious or holy text. Please provide an example.



From the first page everybody has been telling you to look at Marx's other work. It is objectively true that you are the one that has insisted on focusing on this text. It also seems to be the case that you have either not read it or do not understand it.

-----



I did, though your refusal to read has probably hindered your understanding. Ingliz provided a fine explanation since you seem unwilling to do any further reading.



I did not say this as I did not, and do not, understand what you are having difficulty understanding.

[/quote]

That is not the case, and I do not understand your difficulty in understanding. It is reasonable to assume that you are either pretending to be dense in order to remain ignorant, or are trying to put on a show to advertise how ignorant you are. For what purpose, one can only imagine.

[SolarCross]

Well, the single best indicator of your future economic standing is your parents' economic standing.

Look up "economic mobility".

That is one pervasive reason why people make an effort to better themselves to improve the economic standing of their children but it isn't just "bourgeois" people who care about their children.

We don't disagree very much on this one point that poor people tend to propagate poor people, middle income people tend to propagate middle income people and rich people tend to propagate rich people. Our disagreement comes over what to do about it.

I am comfortable doing nothing about it certainly nothing drastic like "abolishing x, y & z normal human activities" because I don't see it as a problem. Moreover I am pretty convinced that the sort of "solutions" you or any commie would throw at it would make a far greater mess of things, witness Venezuela now.

You live in Canada these days right? Maybe you are only a low income person in Canada but Canada is the global top 10 out of like 150 countries for GDP per capita, relatively speaking you are one of the lucky ones, you might even say you are enormously privileged. Do you really want to swap your Canadian lifestyle for that of any joe average in Venezuela now? Think of your children!

Your discussion about the importance and awesomeness of hierarchies does not contradict Marx's claims. At most, it clarifies the other factors that can pass on social norms, such as the church.

Okay but abolishing families, commercial organisations, militaries, communist parties, churches and every other social arrangement that requires and therefore functionally perpetuates hierarchies for the purpose of supposedly making everyone equal remains a retarded crusade to attain an impossible and retarded aim. Inequality is both fine and inevitable, hierarchies are functional for civilisation.

Inequality does matter. Mostly to those who are on the disadvantaged end of the dynamic.

Poverty matters but not inequality. I am all for increasing the wealth of anyone, even you. All those starving people in Africa? Sincerely I hope they can swing the investment, economic management, good governance and all the rest that will improve their fortunes. It is no solution for me or them for us all to be equally destitute.

Finally, please explain what is wrong about Engels's invention of the origins of monogamy. Thanks.

This? "According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism."

It's obviously wildly inaccurate to anyone even remotely acquainted with reality, I'd say that is pretty wrong. Are you cognitively capable of entertaining the idea that maybe just maybe that famous commies are as just as equally capable of talking shit right out their arses as anyone?

Here is a thought experiment for you. You come home early from work to find me in bed with your missus and she is loving it by the way. Paternity tests reveal that contrary to what you have been lead to believe all your children were fathered by all sorts of disreputable characters but not yourself. Feeling murderous yet? Is it "capitalism" making you feel murderous? Or is that your biological instincts to push back against being a massive reproductive loser are getting triggered? Biological instincts that haven't changed barely a squib since the dawn of time.

Do you think the proverbial caveman enjoyed being a cuck anymore than the less proverbial factoryman? REALLY?

[ingliz]

You come home early from work to find me in bed with your missus and she is loving it by the way.

The first historical form of sexual love as passion, a passion recognized as natural to all human beings (at least if they belonged to the ruling classes), and as the highest form of the sexual impulse-and that is what constitutes its specific character-this first form of individual sexual love, the chivalrous love of the middle ages, was by no means conjugal. Quite the contrary. In its classic form among the Provençals, it heads straight for adultery, and the poets of love celebrated adultery. The flower of Provençal love poetry are the Albas (aubades, songs of dawn). They describe in glowing colors how the knight lies in bed beside his love-the wife of another man-while outside stands the watchman who calls to him as soon as the first gray of dawn (alba) appears, so that he can get away unobserved; the parting scene then forms the climax of the poem. The northern French and also the worthy Germans adopted this kind of poetry together with the corresponding fashion of chivalrous love; old Wolfram of Eschenbach has left us three wonderfully beautiful songs of dawn on this same improper subject, which I like better than his three long heroic poems.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Romantic themes involving adultery were abundant in medieval literature, particularly French literature. The many lyrics of the French troubadours are overflowing with adulterous love and the romantic qualities of love outside marriage. In fact, it was fairly common in medieval French literature for love to consist of encounters outside marriage, with marriage having little to do with love and more to do with simply being a tool for arranging political alliances, with the children sometimes being of questionable parentage. And then there's Romance of the Rose (among other things, a highly erotic, novel-sized allegory of adultery and the killing of the jealous husband), Silence, and countless other works of literature during the medieval era where adulterous love is not just seen as romantic, but sometimes the only means to express the ideals of love and passion.

[The Immortal Goon]

I'm not sure how many times that this can be reiterated.

Things have changed in history.

You can study how and why these things have changed.

The most recent big change was the transition from feudalism to capitalism. We measure this in various ways, the Columbian Exchange, the Industrial Revolution, etc.

This new way of doing things led to different power structures.

Power used to rely on the landed gentry. This landed gentry's power was overthrown by the urban Bourgeoisie. Which, for some reason, SolarCross thinks has no connection with the urban despite this being explicitly stated in the Manifesto he claims to have read. Anyway, we live in a different system and society that we did before these changes.

For instance, I will not be expected to mine for copper once I can crawl until I die. I am not a bannerman for the local gentry. I do not bow to people of higher birth. As the oldest child I am not expected to inherit everything my family has; my brother is not expected to be a priest; my fictional sister will not be married off to someone she doesn't know in exchange for a dowery sense can have one less mouth to feed.

It seems incredible for SolarCross, but things weren't always as they are.

And, in a sense, this isn't too unexpected. We evolved in a place where change didn't happen that often, and perhaps we're not wired to think of change as perpetual and constant as it is for us.

Regardless, what I don't understand is why SolarCross keeps claiming he read the Manifesto, asking questions that are answered in the Manifesto, and also refusing to accept what he himself acknowledged in that the Manifesto isn't the best place to start with understanding Marx.

[SolarCross]

Romantic themes involving adultery were abundant in medieval literature, particularly French literature. The many lyrics of the French troubadours are overflowing with adulterous love and the romantic qualities of love outside marriage. In fact, it was fairly common in medieval French literature for love to consist of encounters outside marriage, with marriage having little to do with love and more to do with simply being a tool for arranging political alliances, with the children sometimes being of questionable parentage. And then there's Romance of the Rose (among other things, a highly erotic, novel-sized allegory of adultery and the killing of the jealous husband), Silence, and countless other works of literature during the medieval era where adulterous love is not just seen as romantic, but sometimes the only means to express the ideals of love and passion.

There are some serious problems with the implications you seem to be drawing from this.

Firstly it is highly problematic drawing socio-biological conclusions from fantasy literature. What conclusions would future anthropologists draw about the lifespans of people in the 20th century by reading Lord of the RIngs wherein it mentions that men of the Numenor can live to be several hundreds of years?

Secondly fantasy literature that revolves around jealous husbands, marriage, adultery etc implies that monogamy is the norm at the time it was written as much as it is today. Fantasy fiction often feature norm contravention but there is no contravention if there is no norm. Game of Thrones' most romantic pair would be Jaime Lannister and his sister Cerci Lannister whose love affair occurs concurrently with Cerci's marriage to Robert Baratheon, all Robert Baratheon's legally named heirs were secretly fathered by Jaime, so that is adultery, cuckoldry and even shock horror incest. Would you take that as the norm for our times when GoT was written or a contravention of the norms of our times? Are you knobbing your sister and calling it normal because GoT said you could?

@ingliz Read the Illiad...

[ingliz]

socio-biological conclusions from fantasy literature

Socio-biological conclusions from lived reality.

If a nobleman desired a peasant woman so strongly that he could not resist the temptation, he was free to rape her on the spot since a courteous approach would only be wasted on a woman who could not possibly feel love

GoT...incest

Incest was one of the most common sexual offenses, after fornication and adultery, and more common among the aristocracy than the peasants. The Fourth Lateran Council had established the "four-degree rule" regarding incest in 1215.

[SolarCross]

@ingliz

I would be a bit less credulous of Vern L. Bullough.

Incest was one of the most common sexual offenses, after fornication and adultery, and more common among the aristocracy than the peasants. The Fourth Lateran Council had established the "four-degree rule" regarding incest in 1215.

So?

--------

Look I have said before that human sexuality is fairly variable, the broad trend throughout the world is for monogamy but related to the fact that human males are larger and more aggressive than human females we have a smaller tendency towards polygamy and conversely no tendency at all for polyandry. If you get in your time machine and visit Ancient Egypt you will find in the main monogamous pairs with the odd bit of adultery on the side. Go to medieval India you will find the same. Western Samoa in 3rd century BC, Siberia in 22nd century, caveman times, wherever you like..

To put it in a way even a marxist can understand, the BASE of human sociology is not cultural norms it is BIOLOGY. The cultural norms including legal and economic patterns are the SUPERSTRUCTURE.

If you want to change human norms in any seriously radical way (because you are insane like that) you will have to change human biology. Luckily for you the technology to do that is well on the way to being developed, genetic engineering, cloning etc.

It may indeed become technically feasible to radically alter the biology of the human species really quite soon. Read Brave New World for a fictional picture of how that might work.

[ingliz]

the broad trend throughout the world is for monogamy

Wrong.

According to anthropologists, only 1 in 6 societies enforces monogamy as a rule.

[SolarCross]

@ingliz
source?

Besides an absence of a rule does not imply that is the normal practice. In 1967 buggery was legalised in England and Wales. There is no longer any law enforcing heterosexuality, yet 50 years on it remains that the vast majority of people remain straight.

[ingliz]

source?

Approximately 85 per cent of societies in the anthropological record permit men to marry multiple wives.

White D. R., Betzig L., Borgerhoff Mulder M., Chick G., Hartung J., Irons W., Low B. S., Otterbein K. F. 1988. Rethinking polygyny: co-wives, codes, and cultural systems (includes comments and author's reply). Curr. Anthropol. 29, 529(44).

[SolarCross]

Approximately 85 per cent of societies in the anthropological record permit men to marry multiple wives.

White D. R., Betzig L., Borgerhoff Mulder M., Chick G., Hartung J., Irons W., Low B. S., Otterbein K. F. 1988. Rethinking polygyny: co-wives, codes, and cultural systems (includes comments and author's reply). Curr. Anthropol. 29, 529(44).

I lived in the Islamic Republic of Iran for around a year. I met a lot of people. The law in Iran allows men to marry up to 4 wives, polygamy is legal. In practice the vast majority of people marry monogamously.

See?

[The Immortal Goon]

Are you arguing that Iran has no bourgeoisie influence?

Because otherwise this is a completely pointless response.

[SolarCross]

Are you arguing that Iran has no bourgeoisie influence?

Because otherwise this is a completely pointless response.

What the fuck does that even mean? Who is it do you think that takes advantage of the option to have multiple wives? That's right the rich people. Islam allows it but it is "bourgeois" that can afford it.