Engels wrote:Monogamy arose from the concentration of considerable wealth in the hands of a single individuals man-and from the need to bequeath this wealth to the children of that man and of no other. For this purpose, the monogamy of the woman was required, not that of the man, so this monogamy of the woman did not in any way interfere with open or concealed polygamy on the part of the man.
But by transforming by far the greater portion, at any rate, of permanent, heritable wealth – the means of production – into social property, the coming social revolution will reduce to a minimum all this anxiety about bequeathing and inheriting. Having arisen from economic causes, will monogamy then disappear when these causes disappear?
This is still wrong. Male animals are sexually jealous too, Lions will even routinely kill cubs sired by other males, and animals are as propertyless as can be. Poor men have exactly the same intolerance of infidelity on the part of their woman as a rich man does. Women tolerate infidelity of their male partners more easily because while it potentially threatens them economically it does not threaten their reproductive surety. There is an asymmetry in the mechanics of sexual biological incentives which results in women being able to tolerate sharing one man with other women providing the male is high quality (read rich / strong / powerful). Conversely the incentives for men is to try to seek out many wombs and never mind very much at all on their quality but to pay for those wombs only in proportion to the probable fidelity, "bunnies for playtime, maidens for marriage" as the saying goes.
To sum: Men pursue quantity, women pursue quality and for those respective ends men will sacrifice in proportion to fidelity, women will share in proportion to quality.
Consequently if all people are reduced to the property status of farm animals by the revolution all you will do is alter what is perceived by women to make a man high quality. The mating game will be less about how much money one has and more about something else, probably physical brawn or good looks once again or perhaps political influence (read thuggery). If a woman no longer has to worry for a loss of resources for sharing a quality male she will be all the
more ready to share a quality man with other women. In this way the new betas will effectively be subsiding the reproductive fitness of the new alphas. They will work, the state will take all their surplus and share it out amongst all the women orbiting the new alpha and the alpha will have to pay nothing for it, just be devilishly handsome. The net effect will tilt society further towards polygamy actually and so result in an even worse deal for the betas. Monogamy is for the benefit of the betas not the alphas.
Engels wrote:One might answer, not without reason: far from disappearing, it will, on the contrary, be realized completely. For with the transformation of the means of production into social property there will disappear also wage-labor, the proletariat, and therefore the necessity for a certain – statistically calculable – number of women to surrender themselves for money. Prostitution disappears; monogamy, instead of collapsing, at last becomes a reality – also for men.
Prostitution caters to betas as much if not more than alphas. For an alpha a prostitute is a optional supplement to a wife and the more wives he has the less use he has for a prostitute. For the most beta of betas the prostitute is his only chance of access to a womb and a poor quality one at that, given that he must share that womb with innumerable others and the owner of the womb has a strong professional incentive to abort or prevent any baby that results anyway.
Engels is claiming here that "socialised property" will remove the incentive for women to endure prostitution however this is also a thoughtless admission that it will also remove the incentive for anyone to do any unpleasant work. If women will have no incentive to risk herpes, bakers will have no incentive to burn their fingers, miners will not risk being buried alive, drivers will not risk crashes, policemen will not risk being stabbed.. etc.
That being the case we will certainly see a precipitous drop in economic output, increasing poverty and thus the return of prostitution as starving women desperately sell themselves to public officials in charge of rations in return for a measly loaf of bread. Has any communist regime in history ever stopped prostitution? Or just made it cheaper? Cuba at least is kind of notorious for it.
Engels wrote:In any case, therefore, the position of men will be very much altered. But the position of women, of all women, also undergoes significant change. With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the “consequences,” which today is the most essential social – moral as well as economic – factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden’s honor and a woman’s shame? And, finally, have we not seen that in the modern world monogamy and prostitution are indeed contradictions, but inseparable contradictions, poles of the same state of society? Can prostitution disappear without dragging monogamy with it into the abyss?
Here a new element comes into play, an element which, at the time when monogamy was developing, existed at most in germ: individual sex-love.
Engels seems to be imagining that somehow no one will be partial to their own children anymore, which is exceedingly bizarre and unsubstantiated. He also seems to suggest, in contradiction to the earlier paragraph where he claims that males will finally get some monogamy too, that it will disappear along with prostitution. Possibly but clearly it will be highly dystopian society.