- 25 Aug 2011 08:53
#13786514
I am sure this has been discussed to death but I am interested in hearing socialist perspective on this question.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Engels, quoting Henry Morgan, wrote:The family [says Morgan] represents an active principle. It is never stationary, but advances from a lower to a higher form as society advances from a lower to a higher condition.... Systems of consanguinity, on the contrary, are passive; recording the progress made by the family at long intervals apart, and only changing radically when the family has radically changed.
Suska wrote:I'd say socialism is an extension of the family model.
TIG wrote:What is being described is, "Primitive Communism," which isn't really socialism as we understand it.
Rei Murasame wrote:Which type of family? You have to be specific about that, otherwise they won't know how to answer.
Qatz wrote:The context of this thread points to a very broad definition of socialism. We are not being asked to debate whether nuclear families have five-year-plans and massive steel plants.
TIG wrote:I think it's pretty clear you don't know what socialism is any better than a slack-jawed tea-bagger plugged in to FOX News.
daft punk wrote:Hey, guess what? The family is an extension of capitalism, not socialism. The family as we know it that is, the bourgeois nuclear family. It was invented by the bourgeois to suit their life style (men shag around, women stay faithful, inheritance etc) and in the 1800s they pushed it onto the working class. This was one of the occasions when homophobia was promoted as well. Basically the capitalists wanted the women and children out of the factories. They wanted the family to be hierarchical and isolated, reflecting capitalism and bourgeois ideology.
@FiveofSwords Why will an accountant make a be[…]
What do the tweets say? Read them? They have ex[…]
Dude, YouTube is your source? You are not a serio[…]