/lit/ - Literature

>>16919140
What's wrong with it. More true in his time that marriage was performed for inheritance and property. He believed marriage should be performed out of love. He thought that bourgeois property based relationships lead ro increases in prostitution and non-monogamy. This was his work arguing for monogamous, loving relationships not predicated by the economic gain from marriage.

Do you disagree? Do you, philosophically, not imposing any order to society, believe that relationships based out of monetary gain or proprietary benefit is better than marriage based on love and dhared interest?

>>16919140
book is unironically kino. only retards who kneejerk seeing "Engels" and "family" in the same title will only have that reaction

Always impressed that Engels out-jewed Marx, the actual Jewish guy, with this. Really gives a foretaste of the anti-family obsession of the New Left and their neurotic, hateful thought leaders in the 20th century.

I use the family issue as a litmus test for determining whether a leftist is a genuine leftist on economic issues or whether he's merely along for the ride in what he perceives as a millenarian religious movement. "Hey, is the nuclear family basically okay? I mean, the working class you claim to serve is pretty cool with it." "NO!!! NOOOOOO THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE OF CAPITALIST IDEOLOGY!!! LIBERATE THEM NOW!!!!! I AM NOT A SOCIAL ENGINEER THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CULTURAL MARXISM CHUD BUT I FUCKING HATE THE FAMILY, FREE THE ORGONES NOW, SURGICALLY ALTER YOUR GENITALS TO FREE YOURSELF FROM THE CAPITALIST MIND-PRISON THAT IS HAVING A WIFE AND KIDS!!!!!!!!" Into the trash it goes.

>>16920682
btw I make sure to spit on each page once a day. Only 15 pages left now

>>16919194
>>16920682
>i have yet to read this
is his premise really just that capitalism prefers people forming families because it will benegit it economically?

>>16919140
Tbh it holds up better than 90% of the shit he and Marx wrote. Like there is a lot more in common between this and modern anthropology than Capital and modern economics.

>>16920923
notice it was a solo album by engels, maybe marx just sucked

> As such, two partners, even when their marriage is not arranged, will always have the preservation of inheritance in mind and as such will never be entirely free to choose their partner. Engels argues that a relationship based on property rights and forced monogamy will only lead to the proliferation of immorality and prostitution.

>The only class, according to Engels, which is free from these restraints of property, and as a result from the danger of moral decay, is the proletariat, as they lack the monetary means that are the basis of (as well as threat to) the bourgeois marriage. Monogamy is therefore guaranteed by the fact that theirs is a voluntary sex-love relationship.

>The social revolution which Engels believed was about to happen would eliminate class differences, and therefore also the need for prostitution and the enslavement of women. If men needed only to be concerned with sex-love and no longer with property and inheritance, then monogamy would come naturally.


there you go. You no longer need to read the book. this suffices.

>>16920682
Absolutely gormless.

>>16920916
not capitalism but private property. before private property you could just have big orgies and gang bang creampie any chick in your crew since it doesnrt matter who the father really is, but once you have private property, you have to know who your sons are so they can inherit your shit and the only way to do that is ban your wife from getting gangbanged by the crew

of course the nuclear family as we know it in western civilization was a result of the catholic church banning cousin marriages some time in the middle ages, but don't let that stop your weird psycho-sexual conspiracy theories about property and orgies

>>16920970
ironic that it was actually capitalism that led to the sexual revolution, not communism

>>16920970
>The social revolution which Engels believed was about to happen would eliminate class differences, and therefore also the need for prostitution and the enslavement of women.
> and therefore also the need for prostitution
How can a nigga make such a retarded and wrong prediction.
What a fucking failure

>>16920970
Don't forget how he makes the assumption by some dated anthropological studies that the woman of the stone/bronze age was equal to man because she was not financially subservient to him.
I'm sure a woman with only 60% of the muscle strength of the male was not reliant at all to the male and could hunt or farm for food on her own while also raised a litter of babies.
Bet a cavewoman would raise her voice and make Grug sleep on the rockbed if he was out late with the boys

>>16920970
>If men needed only to be concerned with sex-love and no longer with property and inheritance, then monogamy would come naturally.

is this the left's version of the libertarian 'all monopolies are actually because the government tries to intervene bro, get rid of government and the corporations will naturally balance eachother out!' myth?

>what about the onlyfans economy? and millions of young women claiming they are 'seizing the means of production' by whoring themselves? what about the recent turn to 'polyamory' and total degeneracy and sex obsession? what about the proliferation of prostitution and porn in late capitalism? sex tourism? all of these come from libertine permissiveness
>uhhh thats actually because capitalism, if you had REAL libertine permissiveness without capitalism but with a PROLETARIAT then it would naturally balance out, trust me bro just keep accelerating the permissiveness and the balance will happen, don't listen to the libleftists telling you it's also what they want

>>16919194
>Do you disagree? Do you, philosophically, not imposing any order to society, believe that relationships based out of monetary gain or proprietary benefit is better than marriage based on love and dhared interest?
yes /thread
>>16920916
it's more than that. Engels is a very cunning thinker, more far reaching than any liberal. he applies the principles of historical materialism to anthropology and argues that since families as they exist in the West are founded upon mutual economic dependence (during Engels' time dependence of the mother and children on the father, during our own times dependence of children on their parents). people are unfree in this arrangement according to Engels because economic dependence always implies potential for abuse and exploitation (e.g. parents can make their faggot son repent and change his sinful lifestyle or otherwise they'll throw him out of their home). the only way to counter this unfreedom is by raising children in a communal manner, rendering all familial bonds completely voluntary (remember that for M&E freedom means conciousness of necessity as it does for Hegel)
>>The social revolution which Engels believed was about to happen would eliminate class differences, and therefore also the need for prostitution and the enslavement of women. If men needed only to be concerned with sex-love and no longer with property and inheritance, then monogamy would come naturally.
except we know this to be incorrect, in reality because of women's naturally skewed preferences a social system based on purely matrimonial interests would result in 80% of men being disposable to women - pic related