/lit/ - Literature

>>16671467
>Engels says the expectation of a wife's fidelity to her husband is the beginning of all oppression
And there you have it, marxists were mentally ill from the beginning
Even if that was right, which is not, why should one give a fuck if its opression?

>>16671467
Pure sophism

>>16671496
How?

>>16671467
remember, communism will never work. the fact is that politically speaking, a strong family is a strong nation. this has been proven over and over. It started from the greek familias. Ironically, the best way that communism can work is the bond of a family. You can see this chinese culture. The reason why communism worked so well in china is because they had a culture of serving their fathers rather than themselves. So this family thing? bull shit. theory never triumph reality.

>>16671467
Marxists are literal mouth breathers, they can only look at thing in a reductionist materialistic way.

>>16671684
>communism will never work
>the only reason communism is working in China

LOL

>>16671467
>Before class society, the idea of a strictly monogamous pairing of males and females with their offspring–the nuclear family–was unknown to human society
Not true
Look at Germanic tribes who made strict rules and you had to be with one partner and you had to be a virgin
There were exceptions for the leaders and "the big guys" but almost all were with one partner
Before Christ, who said that you MUST only be with one partner and CAN NOT divorce,
Before Jesus there were The Juden
>When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it come
to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he has
found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill
of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his
house. (Deuteronomy 24:1)
They took this into two schools
One ,The school of Hillel gave the word
a very liberal interpretation saying that it meant that a husband could put
away his wife for any cause, even burning a meal
The other, The school of Shammai, on the other hand, took a more conservative
approach. They interpreted Deuteronomy 24:1 to mean that a husband could
only divorce his wife for something extremely shameful, like adultery
Now even before that just like with the Germanic tribes it was almost indissoluble
Even the tribes that were never in contact with other humans were only with one partner and DEMAND that both parties are virgins to the point that they check their private parts to see and foul play and they look at their first time
Look at the tribe of the Samoan islands
So yeah no, it is in human nature to be with one partner
It takes a long time for a child birth
9 months the wife cant do shit and needs protection that she needs more protection until the child can stand on its own

>>16671692
communism in china was maoist and not marxist

>>16671705
>communism in china was maoist and not marxist

>>16671467
He fails by assuming his analysis of the material conditions is a comprehensive analysis of monogamy.

Not only have modern anthropologists been critical of Engels' philosophy - according to Tristram Hunt in the foreword of the edition I have read. There is still a more obvious explanation for monogamy's prevalence in the world. Engels even alludes to it in the paragraphs you have quoted.
If a man is to be assured his child is really his, he must enforce monogamy. As genetic (and by extension behavioral material) is passed on to the child, by the most fundamental system ,Darwinian evolution, you are able to adequately explain the widespread practice of monogamy.

Also >>16671493 is correct. I am a man. I increase my chance of successful reproduction by supporting monogamy. This is a more fundamental force than women's rights - which by the way were only ever granted through weaponizing men's lust against them.

>>16671698
Not only that but þhe family iscthe most important
Plato even saw it as the most important thing because you are loyal to the family or the state not both
So he said remove the family
Same with these doctrines
They want workers who do stuff for them and only follow them

>>16671705
Galaxy brain

>>16671467
>>Before class society, the idea of a strictly monogamous pairing of males and females with their offspring–the nuclear family–was unknown to human society. Inequality was also unknown.
can anyone give any example of this? what is a non-class society? a society of literal apes? did not the males bring food to their pregnant women? did they not know they were pregnant? did they abandon them right off after impregnating them?

>>The modern family contains in germ not only slavery (servitus) but also serfdom
yes, isn't this the purpose after all? male should provide the family with food, money he gets through his work and the female should serve taking care of what is provided to her. it is not a unilateral serfdom.

>>16671705
/lit/ 2020
Thought this board hit rock bottom years ago, but apparently there was still a basement underneath

>>16671722
There is no example
You are correct

>>16671692
>communism is working in china

>>16671684
>The reason why communism worked so well in china
it didnt, nowhere in china has private property veen abolished
not only that, china promotes free market capitalism in special zones called zones for economical development

>>16671698
>and CAN NOT divorce
he never said that retard
jesus followed hebrew law and divorce is possible in hebrew law

>>16671692
To be fair trad-cath anon is kind of right, since the erosion of Chinese folk culture the china men have just become soulless robots.

>>16671493
This
When will people finally accept that we JUST HAVE TO give everything we produce to shareholders and be happy with the crumbs they give us

>>16671757
>jesus followed hebrew law
Which hebrew laws did he endorse?

>>16671747
>the one time communism works is the one "not actually communism" is true

>>16671759
Not at all. I don’t believe you’ve ever interacted meaningfully with a Chinese person from China. They’re generally very thoughtful, grounded, and interesting characters. I guess that’s because they don’t watch porn all day and have a decent education

>>16671714
>>16671710
>>16671734
>>16671747
>The reason why communism worked so much better in china than other contemporaries(like african socialist/marxism) is because they had a culture of serving their fathers(families) rather than themselves.
Maybe I should have changed well to better as in better than marxist(pure). It wasn't very good communism and this is why maoist ideals are thrown away in modern day china. Happy?


>>16671722
>The modern family contains in germ not only slavery (servitus) but also serfdom
Commies think that everything is serfdom. If two people agree, aka a marriage, then it is not. It is a play on words(rhetoric).

>>16671764
>we JUST HAVE TO give everything we produce to shareholders and be happy with the crumbs they give us
feel free to take the risks and save money like they did to make your own business
there are worker owned corporations today too where they are the shareholders, no need to communism, which is impossible due to the absence of markets

>>16671757
He did
They aske him when can they divorce and he said they can not
Give me a sec

>>16671745
>800 million lifted from poverty in 8 years.
>higher gdp than the US
>Uniting nations in a new world order opposed to Amerikan domination
>Cool infrastructure
>Actually produces art

Kek

>>16671783
>higher gdp than the US
you do know what gdp means, how it is calculated and why gdp per capita is what matters right?

>>16671773
Maybe one wealthy enough to travel outside of the country, just go on liveleak and search for china (funny anecdote moment) it's p grotesque.

>>16671759
>Nooooooo we need to bring back foot binding so people can have "soul" again
Seems likely, obviously it has nothing to do with their personality being eroded by having to spend 14 hour shifts in a sweatshop after the liberal reforms of the 80s

>>16671782
>>16671757
>The most complete statement of Jesus on marriage is found in Matthew 19.
The context of the passage is that some Pharisees approach Jesus to test him.
They ask, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?”
(Matthew 19:3).
The question is a trap. If Jesus says that divorce is not lawful, the Pharisees
will accuse him of blasphemy for putting himself above Scripture. But if
Jesus permitted divorce, they could say that his teaching fell short of the
perfection that was expected of the Messiah.Jesus ignores the false dichotomy that the Pharisees have laid before him.
Rather, he points his hearers back to the very foundation of marriage in
Genesis:
Have you not read that the one who made them at the
beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this
reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined
to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are
no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined
together, let no one separate. (Matthew 19:4-6)

>>16671793
Cope. China is the new world power.

>>16671745
the system is working in china, but the system is not communism.

>>16671783
>Uniting nations in a new world order opposed to Amerikan domination
So it's the same shit
>Cool infrastructure
Nice selling point, ignore the propaganda, poverty, turmoil, misplaced authoritarianism, just look at the "art" they actually produce (as if no other nation produces meritorious art anymore)

>>16671796
Yes, one trad pretty foot Chinese waifu please, unironically though laotong was based.

>>16671799
mate are you retarded? in the same chapter you get contradicted

Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”(G)

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

So yeah you can divorce your wife without commiting a sin

>>16671811
I dont give a shir you moron, its not marxist or communist by any means, thats my point, it could even be compared to national socialism

>>16671832
If Jesus had meant to allow divorce
in cases where a spouse commits adultery, he would have been saying the
same thing as the school of Shammai—something that would have been
considered uncontroversial to all of his listeners. The fact that the disciples
are shocked suggests that Jesus was taking a much harder line than even
Shammai—Jesus was saying that marriage could not be dissolved even if one
of the parties committed adultery.
And he said
They were to hard hearted

>>16671832
So Jesus aligned with the belief held by the school of Shammai. Of course, you can't contradict "Hebrew teachings" (and only divorce has been mentioned thus far) when they are so broad.

>>16671783
>he thinks a stateless, classless, and moneyless society achieved this

China embraced market reform in the 80s brother. Calling China "communist" is as meaningful as calling North Korea a democratic republic. Stop taking labels at face value

>>16671847
He did
>>16671832
Oh and I am not talking about sins

>>16671832
"It is perfectly right for history and the people to choose Marxism, as well as for the CPC to write Marxism on its own flag, to adhere to the principle of combining the fundamental principles of Marxism with China's reality, and continuously adapt Marxism to the Chinese context and the times." -Xi

>>16671857
Citing Xi? Nice shill. If Xi was such a marxist, maybe he would remove himself and the state from daily life.

>>16671867
China is still in the period of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Basic marxism

>>16671851
What about the Sabbath?

>>16671467
I still can't understand how is this relevant or interesting to anyone in 2020. "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" is pseudo-scientific and full of made-up shit, why leftists even mention it?

>>16671851
Fuk I meant he did not
>>16671890
What about it

>>16671879
hahah. very much

>>16671857
>to adhere to the principle of combining the fundamental principles of Marxism with China's reality
except the abolishment of private property, the most important principle to marxism, whih begs the question, what marxist principles is he talking about?

>>16671879
>dictatorship of the proletariat. Basic marxism
but the proletariat has no say in anything the party does? its a dictatorship of the communist party, not of the proletariat

>>16671851
>Oh and I am not talking about sins
you were saying that jesus said people could not divorce, as in a prohibition
jesus clearly states there are conditions in which you CAN divorce, thereby contradicting what you said
when i showed that, you behaved like a sophist and changed the subject and the argument

>>16671899
Breaking the sabbath and read the hand washing set of verses (Mark 7:1-37)

>>16671908
The abolition of private property is a goal and a process, not something which can be decreed before the material conditions necessary for its abolition have been reached.

>>16671937
No sin in prohibition but I see the point
I did not change the subject and the argument
He still said you can not
The word he used is porneia and has many meanings
And explaining that they would not be shocked at him saying you can
But they were shocked meaning he did not say it in thay meaning

>>16671937
China’s government is elected by a series of democratic legislative bodies. The lowest are elected directly and teach subsequent body elects their representatives in the ‘higher’ government legislature until it reaches the Central Committee.

>>16671959
I am not that anon, but it could be the case that he is condemning divorce, and saying that if you divorce from a woman for any reason other than her sexual immorality, you are committing adultery in addition to the wrongdoing of divorce, which would compound iniquity. But I don't know about that, and I want to see what the other anon has to say

>>16671969
>China’s government is elected by a series of democratic legislative bodies.
Democracy by deifintion is the government of the majority
Assuming the elections are a fraud, the majority chooses politicians
That means the minority didnt rule anything even indirectly
The minority is still part of the proletariat
Therefore, it is not a dictatorship of the proletariat
Communist utopia required no hierarchy, which is another impossible aspect of the project

>>16672004
This is absolutely incoherent lmao. Dictatorship of the proletariat has nothing to do with majority or minority, it’s a class dictatorship.

>>16671467

>>16672004
>Assuming the elections are a fraud, the majority chooses politicians
i meant ARENT a fraud

>That means the minority didnt rule anything even indirectly
This is because the minority didnt choose their "representatives"

>Therefore, it is not a dictatorship of the proletariat
And as a matter of fact, Trotsky told this is what happened in soviet russia (and it will always happen, theory cannot superseed reality)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_the_collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union#Leon_Trotsky

>>16672012
>it’s a class dictatorship.
What is a class if not the set of all it's members? If it is a set of the majority of it's members, then, the class isn't defined by the attributes of the class, but minaly due to some arbitrary number (could be 51%, 52%, etc)

>>16671705
Based and Hoxha-pilled

>>16671684
>NoOo they stole my heckin atomized consoomer Fordist family noo!!

>>16671684

>>16671467
Nabi muhammad did the same thing. Optiver

>>16672023
What does that have to do with anything? As I said, majority and minority mean nothing to class dictatorships. Have you ever read a page of Marx?

>>16671493
Do brainlets always short circuit like this? Hes not saying its a bad thing.

Why is this so post controversial? Aristotle and Durant, to name two popular writers, both agree.

>>16672062
Find me a single quote from Marx where he supports oppression.

>>16672080
> We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

Marx was a very big advocate of violently oppressing reactionaries

>>16672146
I didn’t read the context. Yeah, Marx never advocated oppressing women

>>16672146
Because reactionaries perpetuate oppression. What youre describing is not oppression at all within the Marxist dialectic because the ultimate aim of suppressing reactionaries is to create a world free of material oppression. Reactionaries support what he calls oppressive in that quote about man-woman relations. Youre a mouth-breathing retard if you think people correctly i tempering Marx are "short-circuting"

>>16672040
Both are two sides of the same coin. One fucked the family over, the other fucks it up even more within the first one's framework. Communist agitators in a capitalist system, a synthesis of the two

>>16672216
name one communist agitator

>>16671493
This guy gets what's going on. About two months ago I made a thread on /lit/ where I asserted that the incel phenomenon is the ultimate refutation of Marxism. Perhaps I could've given my thesis a better wording but if anyone rejected it too hastily what this anon says is more in line with what I actually meant. We already have all relevant statistics and science - women are choosers, they are far pickier than men, they consider 80% of men to be average or below average in attractiveness and they tend to date up as opposed to men who date women from their own stratum of attractiveness (sometimes even below). One would expect that ending however few restrictions on female promiscuity exist today would result in a vast majority of men being thrown under the bus figuratively speaking. If Engels is correct and communism means death to monogamy then those vast masses of men have nothing to gain from communism and there is no reason to expect they'd be interested in that system which puts the putative inevitability of communism under a big question mark. So yes, one way or another incel phenomenon IS a refutation of historical materialism.

>>16672198
>Because reactionaries perpetuate oppression
the jew cries out as he strikes you... "i have to oppress you, you're being oppressive"

>>16672223
Anyone in antifa

>>16672257
What is antifa doing to fuck the family unit over? Are you some kind of cuck?

>>16672050
how can it be a ruling of a class if the entire class isnt in power?

>>16672286
>what are people who are violently agitating for the legitimization of radical feminism, transgender acceptance, and general sexuao deviance doing to fuck over the family unit
What are you disputing? That these people support the destruction of the nuclear family? Or that these people haven't been are the forefront of the cultural shift thats been occurring since at least the 1960s?
>you oppose people who run around in shirts that say "proud cuck" so obviously you're a cuck
Kek what does this even mean

You know, the Commies want to destroy the family.
They do all to undermine it, example is your saying that women should be free from man that they are oppresed.
But not jsut that, in Yugo, brother would rat out a brother if he sang a song that was banned for being nationalistic, they would ban songs or words that would show nationality
They would rat them out because they were more loyal to the state, the state had the power and oppressed them
And in commie world, the object of hierarchy is not around money but around the party.
IF you are in the CP you are good with a good job and are in front of the line.
Even with them there are hierarchy, it is the way of men
But capitalism is not good either
They too destroy the family
PIC REL
But not just that, why do you think you are shamed if you are living with parents? If you do not leave your home, you do not buy a house, do not get taxed on it,
less buying altogether.

Both destroy the family becuase you then you are more loyal to the state
look at that girl who destroyed her parents marriage and filmed it all to the world.
She gained nothing but the "party" was more important and to it she was loyal

>>16672198
>the ultimate aim of suppressing reactionaries is to create a world free of material oppression
by creating a world of material opression
genius

>>16672032
T.tranny who has never had a family.
>>16672040
Capitalism is over ran by commies, I haven't found not a single commie who doesn't support capitalism not even Marx and Lenin wanted to abolish it.
>>16672286
>Are you some kind of cuck
More buzzwords. How about the fact that antifia completely encourages a culture of anti-family values? Antifa since it's creation has always thought of the family as capitalistic. They encourage every dumbass who is willing to join their cause to forget about the idea of starting a family, which is why they praise shit like abortions, whoring, homosexuality, etc. They are definitely partly responsible.

>>16672448
>>16672534
Antifa are strong traditional men and women that fight for their country.
Proof:
https://youtu.be/en6MFRZnHOQ

>>16671467
Will child brides ever make a comeback bros?

>>16672559
Child?
No. Bullet yes.
Late puberty and up?
Maybe. Would not mind

>>16672534
antifa is a movement of useful idiots for national socialists
dont worry about them, they are so repulsive, self desctructive and destructive in general that society will hate them, and then you present an alternative such as natsoc or ancap

>>16672588
>he thinks that men fucked their child brides before they went through puberty
Says more about you than anything else

>>16672588
Guess I'm just going to have to continue fucking them in secret then.

>>16672603
Girls start puberty at 8-10. Muhammad shagged Aisha when she was 9.

>>16672603
I do think they did not fuck them
You did not understand my post then
I do not want them to go and be connected that young
Y it is good for connection and she gets shaped by you but she should be with her family for longer than 9
>>16672613
Funny enoguh puberty started at 16

>>16672613
Men generally is used to refer to male humans. You would not call a male animal, like a horse or an Arab, a man.

>>16672635
>Funny enoguh puberty started at 16
No it didn't lmao.

>>16672646
It did

>>16672658
Oh wait
I do not remember if it was puberty or first period
It might be the later
I am wrong, sorry

>>16672635
>Y it is good for connection and she gets shaped by you but she should be with her family for longer than 9
Because it fulfills her daddy complex. What youre seeing now with feminist careerist women desperately pining for a muscular man that chokes them in bed that she can call daddy is a direct consequence of the collapse of this dynamic. Why would you not want a girl to spend some of her formative years with the man that she's going to spend her life with? The dynamic would be like what OPs picture describes, it reinforces the role of the husband as a provider and gives the wife a desire to support him in repayment.

>>16672658
>It did
Is that how Charlemagne's first wife gave birth at 13?
Girls had late menarch during the industrial revolution due to overcrowding and poor childhood nutrition and hygiene.
Keep in mind that menarch =/= puberty.

There are plenty of studies on the onset of puberty on ancient and even modern hunter gatherer socities. It's not different than modern ones at all.

>>16672603
>he thinks that men fucked their child brides before they went through puberty
Did they really do this?
>>16672635
>Funny enough puberty started at 16
Puberty stars early, but I think back then they thought you reached puberty at least around 14 or when an child supposedly was mature enough to be a spouse.

>>16672594
Stay delusional chud.
https://youtu.be/yYxUh9RPFeU

>the commies in this thread that think China is communist
The majority of their economy is capitalist, they put Muslims in camps, they have pro-Han propaganda, they're literally Fascists

>>16672681
Yy i fcked
I linked period and breast and titties abd milkers and hair together
>>16672680
It is
But for it to work the husband shoulb be of a healthy mind
If the guy got a 12cyear old and did not rape her and lived normally with no abuse
Y it is fine
Just the dynamic might fck things over but if the guy is normal then it is ok

>>16671684
mfs really put chromatic aberration on a 50's dishwasher commercial and call it propaganda who started that dumb ass meme why are people still posting that

>>16672683
>Did they really do this?
they waited until the girl can got horny, which begins much younger than you think
>but I think back then they thought you reached puberty at least around 14
They never "thought" puberty began at any time. It was quite obvious when puberty began. First age of marriage laws in history were passed in England during the early middle ages and it was set at 12 for girls.

>>16672714
>mfs really put chromatic aberration on a 50's dishwasher commercial
It's a norman rockwell painting.

>>16672705
Cope!

>>16672713
>If the guy got a 12cyear old and did not rape her and lived normally with no abuse
In a more traditional society this would offend the family/clan she married from

>>16672692
>Tfw when you work out and still get one-punched in the streets
Give it up tough guy no matter the workout you (((fags))) are still weak shit, no capitalism or big banks = no socialism. Your idealology was fake and gay from the start.

>>16672719
>age of marriage
They were age of consent laws.
As in, the age when you were free from the patrimony of your father.
You freely get hitched to a 12 year old girl and the father would be cool with it, he probably has 6 other kids anyhow
>>16672755
>In a more traditional society this would offend the family/clan she married from
It would offend them that she WASN'T abused?

>>16672705
China supports zionism, so they definitely aren't fascists, just a capitalistic Han version of socialism.

>>16672760
Read more retard, know where you stand.
https://youtu.be/0lYJVyJ8kGA

>>16672762
It would offend if he did
Is what he wanted to say I think
>>16672755
If it was regulated and they were normal then yes
But look at the world now
Can you trust others?
Would you give your 12 year old away?
If the guy was 100% healthy and normal and was money wise secure i would but the world is full of retards that want to abuse

>>16672780
You forgot that china is increasingly becoming more pro aids sex and is pretty political and ecologically unstable. If the USA wasn't so dumb, China would of been long dead.
>>16672780
>He's still posting

oppression of women is just teaching women and it is a good thing

>>16672821
Pic m>>16672782

>>16672762
>You freely get hitched to a 12 year old girl and the father would be cool with it, he probably has 6 other kids anyhow
And if he wasn't cool with it there wasn't really anything he can do anyway.
You were emancipated and considered an adult at puberty. Usually 12 for girls and 14 for boys.
>>16672795
>It would offend if he did
Would definitely be the case. Wife abuse really only became common because of modernity (industrial civilization)
Men would work terrible life threatening jobs for 12 hours a day 7 days a week, get drunk and take their anger out on their spouse.
It's why feminism took root when it did.
Medieval times was pretty chill. There weren't backwards savages, they were people just like us.
>but the world is full of retards that want to abuse
Most child abuse sexual or otherwise is done by family or close relatives.

>>16672821
those are ugly ass users of the VHS slur

>>16671467
>another episode of 'kikes trying to convince white men to engage in cuckoldry'
this plot line is getting old; the writers need new material

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnP6pxHb_T0
>muh communistic China

>>16672847
Yes beautiful isn't it, can't wait for 2050.

>>16672832
I was on the line
But you got me
Ip will go and get a younger wife and treat her like a human

>>16672067
Lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary would probably be the reasons, I'd assume.

>>16672714
I don't know, its the most soulless, fake and modern style ever, kind of ironic.

>>16672692
omg a VHS slur user. You know no commie looks like that. They all are lazy losers that want big daddy gubberment to fix everything. Why are you so out of touch with reality? Your so out of touch, you don't even know critters is the superior VHS slur

>>16672257
>>>16672223
>Anyone in ant-fag-a

Based. Call it Ant-fag-a thought. Don't show terrorist scum any respect

>>16672780
>a capitalistic Han version of socialism.
replace the word Han with German

>>16673109
but that would be retarded. Your not retarded are you anon? China is as communist as it gets

>>16673164
>as communist as it gets
ie. not very because it doesn't work LOL

>>16671493
Mate. Erotic tape worm hentai.

Marxism is win.

>>16673186
Try that sentence again critter, but this time have it make sense

First I will start with some background. Engels is working within the historical materialist framework; this is developed to a high degree of sophistication in The German Ideology. An essential aspect is delineating the evolution of human societies and social relations by understanding how they influence and are influenced by the production process.

Marx:
>What is a negro slave? A man of the black race. The one explanation is as good as the other. A Negro is a Negro. He only becomes a slave in certain relations. A cotton spinning jenny is a machine for spinning cotton. It becomes capital only in certain relations. Torn from these relationships it is no more capital than gold in itself is money or sugar is the price of sugar.

The analogy as far as the subject of women is concerned is straightforward.

>What is a domesticated woman? A female of the species. The one explanation is as good as the other. A woman is a woman. She only becomes a domestic, a wife, a chattel, a playboy bunny, or a prostitute in certain relations. Torn from these relationships, she is no more the helpmate of man than gold itself is money; etc.

In the case of the slave, the relationships in question are property relations, much as they are for the wage-laborer in capitalism: it is on account of the willingness of society to enforce these relations that the slave works without compensation, or the wage laborer sells his labor for less than its product goes for at market. What are the relationships that are responsible for the maintenance of the oppression of women?

Engels' perspective here is interesting in that it probes this question in far more detail than Marx. Marx wants to contextualize oppressions within the system of labor expropriation and commodity production-- labor is a commodity, it is sold at market like any other, and it is consumed: therefore, labor must be reproduced like any other commodity of the sort. So there must be workers, of a sort, whose task it is to reproduce labor-power as their surplus product. These are the childrearers.

But why are the childrearers women? Marx has a funny answer. It is basically circumstance. What is necessary to reproduce the worker is determined in part by biological needs, physical conditions of the environment, and by cultural tradition. So beer is necessary for the reproduction of the English working class and wine is necessary for the reproduction of the French working class-- because of cultural tradition, you see (lol). Let us give the great man his due and at least mention that he calls this by the grander name, "historical and moral element." But into this matter Marx did not delve deep.

>>16673252
Engels goes much further. In The Origin, he states
>According to the materialistic conception, the determining factor in history is, in the final instance, the production and reproduction of immediate life. This again, is of a twofold character: on the one hand, the production of the means of existence, of food, clothing, and shelter and the tools necessary for that production; on the other side, the production of human beings themselves, the propagation of the species. The social organization under which the people of a particular historical epoch and a particular country live is determined by both kinds of production: by the stage of development of labor on the one hand, and of the family on the other.
Engels would like to distinguish economic activity from the activities associated with reproduction, and to do so consistently as a historical materialist he posits that their historically antecedent systems must have been distinct as well. As we have an economic system, i.e. a set of social relations instituted for the transformation of pieces of the natural world into objects fit for human consumption, we have another system, the sex/gender system, constituted of social relations for the satiation of the needs of sexuality and procreation.

The important aspect here is that the sex/gender system must yield a solution to the problem of incest; Engels supposes that this is the reason for pairing marriage:
>these customary pairings were bound to grow more stable as the gens developed and the classes of “brothers“ and “sisters” between whom marriage was impossible became more numerous.
That is not to say that fidelity is demanded; simply that group marriage becomes biologically unworkable.

>>16673215
>tfw to intelligent to understand simple phrases

>>16673261
That is the background. But now to your question. This is false:
>the expectation of a wife's fidelity to her husband is the beginning of all oppression.
Engels does not state this. Actually it does not even say this in the article you read, but maybe it is an easy mistake to make if you are disoriented by the method of historical materialism.

What Engels believes is firstly that "mother-right" is the historical antecedent of all sex oppression. The anthropological exotica he uses to illustrate "mother-right" comes from a report about a South American tribe:
>They know about their mother, for all the care and responsibility falls upon her, but they have no knowledge of their father; nor does it seem to occur to the woman that she or her children have any claim upon him.
Mother-right, then, is matrilineage-- naturally; the kids come out of the mother-- but not male fidelity. Hence each is due that which was produced by their own labor, and Engels does not consider this sex oppression. But private property relations destabilize this: in the primitive division of labor, men accumulate under agriculture and animal cultivation the wealth (herds and food). The man's position in the pair-marriage becomes more important than the woman's, giving him the power to overthrow the traditional order of inheritance dictated by mother-right in favor of his own children. But what good is this revolution if you do not know which of the children are yours? Hence, fidelity of the women must be demanded.
>The overthrow of mother-right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.
To say this is the "beginning of all oppression" is not quite proper-- it wasn't the beginning of class oppression, for instance. But it was a prehistorical revolution whereby men took power over women, so it is conceivable (to Engels) that it was the first oppression.

>>16673263
you can only parrot buzzwords. You can't form coherent ideas let alone sentences

>>16673706
one day i will understand why China is capitalist and puts its minorities in camps and has racial propaganda but this is very different and not the same thing as fascism.

>>16672782
read about the american bankers that financed soviet union

>>16671467
The institution redices woman from human to machine, to property. Her sole purpose is to produce and rear children for her proprietor, the children are expected to labor for him, and once he is dead or infirm, they are expected to repeat the process thenselves. The capitalist treatment of people as tools permeates all facets of society and begins here in the home, in youth.

>>16673825
Unlike the USSR

>>16672556
biggest cope on this whole board lol

>>16672692
>>16672782
You must be over 18 to post here

>>16672012
China is a dictatorship by technocratic specialists and experts. Not much different from New Deal America really.