/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6626484]

Why would John Milbank promote a strengthening of family and having a stay-at-home parent when family is essentially an apparatus of capitalism?

[Anonymous No.6626492]

>>6626484

[Anonymous No.6626496]

>>6626484
But family was also a thing in Asia and Marx says that asian economics and Base are outside History and useless.

[Anonymous No.6626504]

>>6626496
I don't recall him ever saying that, but if he did he was just parroting Hegel, since I doubt he read a lot of Asian thinkers and data

[Anonymous No.6626506]

>>6626484
Family as a concept has existed in countless indigenous cultures that were not capitalistic for thousands of years

[Anonymous No.6626513]

Because the stay-at-home parent familial unit pre-dates capitalism you helmet-child.

[Anonymous No.6626516]

The fuck are you on about?
Family has nothing to do with capitalism.

[Anonymous No.6626519]

>>6626506
And it was an apparatus for the ruling class. As Engels points out, marriage was developed for men to exploit women as the first instance of class structure.

[Anonymous No.6626535]

>>6626519
Monogamous relationships to raise children have existed since the time we hunted wooly mammoths and most probably before. There was no ruling class to uphold.

[Anonymous No.6626552]

>>6626519
Engels is a pseudo-historian. Marriage developed in most socities even when societies were continents apart. In reality, Monogamy was established because its stabilizing, productive element of societies. It curbed suspicion and jealousy of both sexes, it enabled for relations across local-identities through the use of inter-marriage, and it further reinforced the division of labor between the sexes.

[Anonymous No.6626569]

>>6626552
>Monogamy was established because its stabilizing, productive element of societies. It curbed suspicion and jealousy of both sexes, it enabled for relations across local-identities through the use of inter-marriage, and it further reinforced the division of labor between the sexes.

Are you calling out Engels? Because that's the exact argument that he gives..

[Anonymous No.6626585]

>>6626569
I'm calling out the leap in reasoning that that explanation means marriage was developed for men to exploit women.

Raising the kids until they're 10, having an arranged marriage, and picking herbs isn't exploitation. Men were teaching young boys to hunt, having arranged marriages, and hunting deer.

[Anonymous No.6626590]

>>6626516
>somebody hasn't read anti-oedpius
how embarrassing :^/

[Anonymous No.6626603]

>>6626585
Have you even read him?

>Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, I find the words: “The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.” And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.

[Anonymous No.6626628]

>>6626603
Once again, he's failing to characterize marriage as the subjugation of women. Does the division of labor constitute subjugation. Doubtful. Is hunting, which was life-threatening and physically demanding, the superior labor in regards to picking herbs and fruits? Maybe its child-rearing? Except, most women reared children only until they were able hunt if they were men, help forage if they were women, and finally until they married off.

As sensationalist and romantic as it may be to call marriage the initial subjugation of women, Engels is still full of shit.

[Anonymous No.6626758]

>>6626513
The 1950's predates capitalism, eh?

[Anonymous No.6627195]

>>6626758
Are you telling us you're so historically short-sighted that the history begins in the 20th century for you?

[Anonymous No.6627202]

>>6626496
>>6626504
lol

[twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk No.6627659]

If you dogmatically follow marxist doctrine which you should not...

[twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk No.6627663]

>>6626496
Hegel said that and then Marx said it again and it was obviously wrong.

[Anonymous No.6627726]

>>6626585
>I'm calling out the leap in reasoning that that explanation means marriage was developed for men to exploit women.
The marriage has always been about filiation, about the legitimate descendants. The purpose was to marry two families. Today, with the marriage for love, it is only two individuals who get married. A marriage for love fits well into the individualistic era such as ours, but it remain an aberration.

Today, since the homos have the right to marry, we say that the filiation happens only via the education. This is pure ideology naturally. What makes you a parent ? It can be :
-the genes
-the education
-the genes and the education

With the human rights for all, you see that the couples infertile by the nature of their relationship, or by their natural infertility, can enter into a filiation only through the education.
The first step became apparent when the bastard children were recognized the same rights as the legitimate ones, in the marriage for the heteros, especially when it comes to the inheritance.

Of course, women never had any remorse to be fucked by the neighbor, give birth to bastards nor to pass them as legitimate, so the theory of the marriage is a bit phony but as we conceived them by the dozen, as they died a lot, we might as well go with the flow. Now, that we conceive only a few children, we tend to be picky on the filiation.
You see here a tension between the 'everything is social like the left dreams about' and the stance that 'everything is genetics, from the right' since it is common knowledge today that we are determined genetically for what matters.

Nowadays, the marriage is dead and buried. There is clearly no relevance in going into it. Even more so when the sexual fidelity is no longer accepted and desired, when the divorce without fault becomes the rule (I am tired of you, so let's divorce and you do not even have a word to say in my decision).

The bourgeoisie destroyed the marriage by their mores.

[Anonymous No.6627740]

>>6626603
the john green of his time, marvellous

[Anonymous No.6627761]

>>6627740
top cuck

[Anonymous No.6627767]

>>6627740
he's just telling his main audience what they want to hear
a free pass to suck cocks while yelling
>muh equality
with their mouth full of semen

[Anonymous No.6627780]

>>6627740
Sorry to invite a tangent , but did he really say that? Is he really saying that people should treat their sexual partners in the same regard as household commodities and other inanimate objects?

[Anonymous No.6627786]

>>6627740
Just cuck me up.

[Anonymous No.6627876]

his wife is a jewess, what do you expect. man she must tour all the orgies of their twon every night

[Anonymous No.6628946]

>>6627780
Isn't that what liberalism is? commodification of everything?

[Anonymous No.6628968]

>>6628946
That's capitalism you're thinking of

[Anonymous No.6630756]

>>6628968
Liberalism is capitalism as politics.