roseweird posted:i thought you were gonna be a monk
i'll discern with a spiritual advisor i guess.
"In Russia under the Communist Soviet this state of things has been reversed. If a married couple cannot agree, they can obtain a divorce without having to pretend to disgrace themselves as in Protestant England."
"Why did quite respectable English newspapers after the Russian revolution of 1917 gravely infer that the Soviet had not only nationalized land and capital, but proceeded, as part of the logic of Socialism, to nationalize women?"
And the part you chose to cherry pick was the concluding prompt for the next section after just goung through the very real (France) example of a capitalist state encouraging women to have children, thereby dealing with a demographic issue. It wasn't referring to what a socialist state has done or will proceed to do and definitely has nothing at all whatsoever to do with "nationalizing women's reproduction" which, again, is an argument no one was making.
Urbandale posted:yes? i mean, im responding to someone claiming capitalism is a determinant of patriarchy, not anything else. if youre arguing that capitalism IS the determinant then i disagree on the same grounds as before, since your comment doesnt actually address anything i said
e: sorry need to read more thoroughly. naw, the determinant of patriarchy is the family unit, how that method of oppression is articulated is where the mode of production comes in.
Im referring to Patriarchy by the modern Liberal/Feminist definition as the origin of the various schisms, inequalities, and exploitative power relations that Liberals/Feminists superficially propose to address, not Patriarchy in the literal, classical, Paternal, familial structure sense. Im sure youve noticed that the "Patriarchy" of the State operates completely independent of and concurrent to Capitalism's intentional breakdown of the actual family structure. In other words, im not saying that Patriarchy and Capitalism literally ARE the same thing, but rather the thing which Liberals/Feminists refer to as Patriarchy, in the context of the origin of these modern evils, is in fact Capitalism, not the Patriarchy.
getfiscal posted:that reminds me, i need to find a wife.
roseweird posted:except these words, lol
?
The antithesis between lack of property and property, so long as it is not comprehended as the antithesis of labour and capital, still remains an indifferent antithesis, not grasped in its active connection, in its internal relation, not yet grasped as a contradiction. It can find expression in this first form even without the advanced development of private property (as in ancient Rome, Turkey, etc.). It does not yet appear as having been established by private property itself. But labour, the subjective essence of private property as exclusion of property, and capital, objective labour as exclusion of labour, constitute private property as its developed state of contradiction – hence a dynamic relationship driving towards resolution.
The transcendence of self-estrangement follows the same course as self-estrangement. Private property is first considered only in its objective aspect – but nevertheless with labour as its essence. Its form of existence is therefore capital, which is to be annulled “as such” (Proudhon). Or a particular form of labour – labour levelled down, fragmented, and therefore unfree – is conceived as the source of private property’s perniciousness and of its existence in estrangement from men. For instance, Fourier, who, like the Physiocrats, also conceives agricultural labour to be at least the exemplary type, whereas Saint-Simon declares in contrast that industrial labour as such is the essence, and accordingly aspires to the exclusive rule of the industrialists and the improvement of the workers’ condition. Finally, communism is the positive expression of annulled private property – at first as universal private property.
By embracing this relation as a whole, communism is:
(1) In its first form only a generalisation and consummation of it . As such it appears in a two-fold form: on the one hand, the dominion of material property bulks so large that it wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property. It wants to disregard talent, etc., in an arbitrary manner. For it the sole purpose of life and existence is direct, physical possession. The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things. Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the brutish form of opposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the community of women, in which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common property. It may be said that this idea of the community of women gives away the secret of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism. Just as woman passes from marriage to general prostitution, o the entire world of wealth (that is, of man’s objective substance) passes from the relationship of exclusive marriage with the owner of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community. This type of communism – since it negates the personality of man in every sphere – is but the logical expression of private property, which is this negation. General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is at least turned against wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to a common level, so that this envy and urge even constitute the essence of competition. Crude communism is only the culmination of this envy and of this leveling-down proceeding from the preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited standard. How little this annulment of private property is really an appropriation is in fact proved by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilisation, the regression to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it.
The community is only a community of labour, and equality of wages paid out by communal capital – by the community as the universal capitalist. Both sides of the relationship are raised to an imagined universality – labour as the category in which every person is placed, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.
In the approach to woman as the spoil and hand-maid of communal lust is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself, for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct and natural species-relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. In this natural species-relationship man’s relation to nature is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature – his own natural destination. In this relationship, therefore, is sensuously manifested, reduced to an observable fact, the extent to which the human essence has become nature to man, or to which nature to him has become the human essence of man. From this relationship one can therefore judge man’s whole level of development. From the character of this relationship follows how much man as a species-being, as man, has come to be himself and to comprehend himself; the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a natural essence – the extent to which his human nature has come to be natural to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need; the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need – the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being.
The first positive annulment of private property – crude communism – is thus merely a manifestation of the vileness of private property, which wants to set itself up as the positive community system.
Superabound posted:Im sure youve noticed that the "Patriarchy" of the State operates completely independent of and concurrent to Capitalism's intentional breakdown of the actual family structure.
Actually the modern nuclear family is a recent development concurrent with the rise of capitalism, and indeed one reinforces the other. Family structures were quite different in the preceding feudalism and the initial enforcement of the nuclear family involved, for example, the confiscation of land from women who matrilineally owned it until then so as to render women completely dependent on male income. For more see FEDERICI, Silvia. 2004. Caliban and the Witch: Women, The Body, and Primitive Accumulation.
That working class women are often in the avant-garde of familial configurations (single mothers) while bourgeois families remain in tight nuclear structures despite any pretenses of progressiveness, is not a coincidence.
Cheers.
tpaine posted:getfiscal posted:i'm thinking about volunteering at a little house here that runs an ecology retreat that is run by some nuns.
i doubt they need any more wildlife to gawk at and get scared by.
ahaha... aha... aha....
*pulls out butterfly knife*
*clacks it open*
*chases you around while yelling like a madman*
Urbandale posted:Oh I don't think the family structure is independent, I might have been unclear on that. I meant that it came to exist to serve an economic purpose. That's kinda what I meant when I said its articulated through the mode of production. the family structure changes (gens->monogomy) which interacts with and allows the change in the economic unit (gens->family). i dont really get where youre saying the state comes in to what im saying though, could you expand on that? perhaps I just need to reread the book again.
If that's what you're arguing I'm confused as to what the original objection is then. You also seem very stuck on this historical point which I'll reiterate is irrelevant: even if the change from pairing marriage to monogamy was the original spark that changed the mode of production that doesn't matter much for contemporary capitalism. Anyway the only reason I mention the state is because it's the other main point in Origin, which outlines how historical materialism views familial and legal structures to complement the existing work on class structures.
roseweird posted:"women are a resource which must be nationalized and made a public industry"
roseweird posted:it's easy to avoid noticing how creepy all your arguments are when you believe the concepts of will and choice are themselves liberal evils imposed by an insidious capitalist foe
roseweird posted:women will definitely be happiest as public wives of the state in which their individuality has absolutely dissolved
bad_faith.txt
With the patriarchal family, and still more with the single monogamous family, a change came. Household management lost its public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service; the wife became the head servant, excluded from all participation in social production.
...
The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules.
But of course you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother reading it and just say whatever pops into your head.
getfiscal posted:lol domestic slavery... communists talk like libertarian teens.
Libertarians ftw you peace of shit. I'm a libertarian now.
roseweird posted:Lessons posted:But of course you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother reading it and just say whatever pops into your head.
i haven't read the whole book but i read that part, and also the part that says:
What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it.
which is the part i find evasive and dreamy
That does betray a very, if youll excuse the term, laissez faire attitude towards sexual politics: yes, things are not good under capitalism, but no matter, because under communism people will simply sort these things out for themselves as individuals unencumbered by history, as though this is how culture works in any other area.. as though all sexism is caused by capitalism. In short, communism is bad at women
roseweird posted:Lessons posted:But of course you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother reading it and just say whatever pops into your head.
i mean yeah though i do say whatever pops into my head a lot because i find that people's responses to a few vague spontaneous phrases tend to prove my point for me better than research and argumentation could and are more entertaining and revealing
Lol thats very aidsy... Tell me more,
roseweird posted:shaw's essay that ineff linked does the same thing, blah blah blah it goes on and on about how under socialism women will be totally free from the economic conditions that oppress them but ends with a wiggle of the fingers and a nod to the mystical future. but perhaps the fault is mine and i should allow shaw's the intelligent woman's guide to socialism and capitalism to edify me more deeply
Also I wanna point out here that it's annoying when you switch aroudn what you're complaining about every post and don't respond when ppl prove your previous complains are stupid. Cheers.
