Engles Theory of the family

[.Commie]

Although I agree with most of it (A woman is not the man's property,children are not instruments of labour and free-relations are superior)

I find that I am a bit weary of what I interpret to be no-boundary sexual relations. I'm not the smartest cookie and don't usually try to read treaties but this was very curious.

It seems,at least to me,that engles is advocating no-boundary sexual relations. That being brother-sister,aunt-nephew,father-daughter and other such relations.

I am probably misreading as I sometimes do and would like help with the clarification.

Does the Revolutionary Left support in any official manner the no-boundary sexual relations?

Forgive me for such a silly question and no this is not a troll

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I assume you are referring to "The Origin of The Family, Private Property and the State" written by Engels based on notes Marx left which in turn were influenced by the American anthropologist Henry Morgan and a long line of German philological research into "Mutterecht" and hints of an ancient matriarchal culture embedded in myths and folktales.

Engels is not advocating "no boundaries sexuality". Indeed Marx somewhere denouced the idea of a "communism of women" as an absurd parody of socialism (I think that's in The German Ideology, its been a while)

Basically Engels was discussing what had been observed among hunter gather peoples in which marriage or sexual taboos were looser than in more developed societies based on the ownership of property. Under "primitive communism" people had a much greater range of choice for sexual partners. Clan restrictions came later.

This is not the same as no boundaries sexuality though. Indeed Engels himself comes off as something of a prude in this book.

Although he got a few things wrong, overall OOTFATS is a masterpiece and is an important read for understanding history.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

[.Commie]

I assume you are referring to "The Origin of The Family, Private Property and the State" written by Engels based on notes Marx left which in turn were influenced by the American anthropologist Henry Morgan and a long line of German philological research into "Mutterecht" and hints of an ancient matriarchal culture embedded in myths and folktales.

Engels is not advocating "no boundaries sexuality". Indeed Marx somewhere denouced the idea of a "communism of women" as an absurd parody of socialism (I think that's in The German Ideology, its been a while)

Basically Engels was discussing what had been observed among hunter gather peoples in which marriage or sexual taboos were looser than in more developed societies based on the ownership of property. Under "primitive communism" people had a much greater range of choice for sexual partners. Clan restrictions came later.

This is not the same as no boundaries sexuality though. Indeed Engels himself comes off as something of a prude in this book.

Although he got a few things wrong, overall OOTFATS is a masterpiece and is an important read for understanding history.


Indeed, Engels was also quite anti-homosexual (Homophobic always strikes me as silly) and I don't blame him on that.

So Engels (Yes that was indeed what I read) isn't arguing for free sexuality across generation lines? If not one of my fears is indeed unfounded and I can rest better with my new ideological position

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Indeed, Engels was also quite anti-homosexual (Homophobic always strikes me as silly) and I don't blame him on that.


Why don't you blame him on that?

[Proukunin]

You don't blame Engels for being anti-homosexual? I'd blame Emma Goldman or any of my heroes if they we're "anti-homosexual".

Sorry, but the way you worded that makes you sound like you are anti-homosexual.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Naw, his book is more an exploration of how the state, the family system, and the oppression of women developed due to the needs of controlling private property.

[Aurora]

It seems,at least to me,that engles is advocating no-boundary sexual relations. That being brother-sister,aunt-nephew,father-daughter and other such relations.

Does the Revolutionary Left support in any official manner the no-boundary sexual relations?





So Engels (Yes that was indeed what I read) isn't arguing for free sexuality across generation lines? If not one of my fears is indeed unfounded and I can rest better with my new ideological position
In an official manner, i don't think i've ever heard of a communist group putting forward something on incest, but i would hope that communists wouldn't have a problem with a relationship between consenting partners.

Obviously incest is quite a taboo topic and most people would probably have a gut reaction that it's weird or whatever but it does happen and our attitude should probably be neutral or supporting rather than persecutory as is the current situation.

What are your particular fears about this?

[.Commie]

Naw, his book is more an exploration of how the state, the family system, and the oppression of women developed due to the needs of controlling private property.

AH! Makes perfect sense. I suppose my fears are indeed baseless. Thanks :D

[.Commie]

You don't blame Engels for being anti-homosexual? I'd blame Emma Goldman or any of my heroes if they we're "anti-homosexual".

Sorry, but the way you worded that makes you sound like you are anti-homosexual.

No,that would be very silly to classify me in anyway as anti-homosexual. It would be like saying Hitler "really loved jews" or that Ghandi was a "violent man". I hope you get what I'm saying here ;P

The reason I don't blame him is because it is actually not non-understandable why he may have found homosexuals as sexual deviants. I mean we are often championed today by a rather disturbing crowd who all seem to be a mix of Alice Cooper and Lady Gaga so it is understandable. This is one of the problems I see in the world, a unwillingness to understand the other's objections. So I stick to my position that Engels may have been wrong to be anti-homosexual but it is understandable.

[.Commie]

In an official manner, i don't think i've ever heard of a communist group putting forward something on incest, but i would hope that communists wouldn't have a problem with a relationship between consenting partners.

Obviously incest is quite a taboo topic and most people would probably have a gut reaction that it's weird or whatever but it does happen and our attitude should probably be neutral or supporting rather than persecutory as is the current situation.

What are your particular fears about this?

well, I suppose my fears would be that such would lead to pure hedonism (not Zeno's hedonism) and I suppose I just have my own misgivings and prejudices about it.

[Valdyr]

No,that would be very silly to classify me in anyway as anti-homosexual. It would be like saying Hitler "really loved jews" or that Ghandi was a "violent man". I hope you get what I'm saying here ;P

The reason I don't blame him is because it is actually not non-understandable why he may have found homosexuals as sexual deviants. I mean we are often championed today by a rather disturbing crowd who all seem to be a mix of Alice Cooper and Lady Gaga so it is understandable. This is one of the problems I see in the world, a unwillingness to understand the other's objections. So I stick to my position that Engels may have been wrong to be anti-homosexual but it is understandable.

Uh, what?

Anyway, Engel's hostility to homosexuality was more that it was a "bourgeois decadence." Most of the understanding that people had of homosexuality at that time was from ancient Greece, where the free men (as opposed to slaves and/or women) often practiced pederasty. In the limited understanding of 19th century Europe, this was seen to be a feature of their class position, and in a way a concentrated prejudice against women.

With modern work in anthropology, which has shown the huge variety of sexual practices and beliefs across time and between cultures, we know that this view is outdated and simplistic. It doesn't make the anti-queer line of many parties both historic and current OK, but it places it in a context. Engels was just a human being, and brilliant as he was, he was limited by his historical context.

[The Young Pioneer]

The reason I don't blame him is because it is actually not non-understandable why he may have found homosexuals as sexual deviants. I mean we are often championed today by a rather disturbing crowd who all seem to be a mix of Alice Cooper and Lady Gaga so it is understandable.

Oh, so I'm rather disturbing, is it? Cool story.


This is one of the problems I see in the world, a unwillingness to understand the other's objections.

So let me get this straight- the problem, to you, is people who can't understand prejudice, rather than those who HAVE the prejudice? What the actual fuck. Why are you on this forum?


So I stick to my position that Engels may have been wrong to be anti-homosexual but it is understandable.

No, "comrade." Just no.

[.Commie]

Oh, so I'm rather disturbing, is it? Cool story.



So let me get this straight- the problem, to you, is people who can't understand prejudice, rather than those who HAVE the prejudice? What the actual fuck. Why are you on this forum?



No, "comrade." Just no.

=.= I am.....not even sure. I will forgive you because I feel that misunderstandings can only be resolved through forgiveness and communication.

I.....am not saying you,if you would perhap think for a moment you can bring to mind the popular shock-value fellows I am referring to. Our lady of perpetual indulgence is a example,so "Comrade" I'm not saying gays but the media portrayal as seen all over in pride parades. Do you think in Engels time there were none like they are today? Do you think he was merely a bigot?

and yes,people who are not able to understand the objection will never be able to rebuttal the objection,AKA Strawman's fallacy and the fallacy via outrage. I remember how I felt about the gay community and so I know how it is.

You need to learn to try to understand people,just my advice

[The Young Pioneer]

=.= I am.....not even sure. I will forgive you because I feel that misunderstandings can only be resolved through forgiveness and communication.

Forgive me of what? Lulzzzz. Thanks so much for the forgiveness, O merciful one!


I.....am not saying you,if you would perhap think for a moment you can bring to mind the popular shock-value fellows I am referring to. Our lady of perpetual indulgence is a example,so "Comrade" I'm not saying gays but the media portrayal as seen all over in pride parades. Do you think in Engels time there were none like they are today? Do you think he was merely a bigot?

No, in the instance of his views on homosexuality, I think he was a product of his time, and apparently so do you; if you'd just said that in the first place you'd avoid confusion here.


You need to learn to try to understand people,just my advice

Have someone shout "DYKE!" at you repeatedly while kicking you until you're on the ground, then tell me to try to understand people. For your information, I'm not some militant homosexual rights activist; I don't even "look" gay or "act" gay according to such stereotypes. I don't even say anything when people use "fag" or "gay" in derogatory context in person. But this is a revolutionary forum where honestly, I feel people should know better than to call us "rather disturbing," regardless of whether or not this is based on media generalisation. I realise you've posted in learning, but you need to learn this bit quick.

[Proukunin]

I can't really understand what you are trying to tell us and for some reason I don't like what you are trying to tell us.

[.Commie]

Forgive me of what? Lulzzzz. Thanks so much for the forgiveness, O merciful one!



No, in the instance of his views on homosexuality, I think he was a product of his time, and apparently so do you; if you'd just said that in the first place you'd avoid confusion here.



Have someone shout "DYKE!" at you repeatedly while kicking you until you're on the ground, then tell me to try to understand people. For your information, I'm not some militant homosexual rights activist; I don't even "look" gay or "act" gay according to such stereotypes. I don't even say anything when people use "fag" or "gay" in derogatory context in person. But this is a revolutionary forum where honestly, I feel people should know better than to call us "rather disturbing," regardless of whether or not this is based on media generalisation. I realise you've posted in learning, but you need to learn this bit quick.

I forgive you for your attack, oh Ghandi. Questioning my place here and also assuming I'm straight (which I'm not). Disturbing was never meant as a generality and if you saw it as such I'm sorry. I'm also sorry if you or anyone you know were attacked.

I had a long chat with a anti-communist and he grew up in the old "Bloc",speaking of "all the evils done". So this made me more understanding of people with differing views.

[The Young Pioneer]

I forgive you for your attack, oh Ghandi.

Just meant for you to clarify your position and to make it clear that I was not approving of your terminology. Sorry that it came across as an attack, but homophobia is irritating and that's what it sounded like was happening here, naturally I'll react negatively.


Questioning my place here and also assuming I'm straight (which I'm not).

I wondered why indeed you were here if that was your stance on things; I made no assumptions as to your personal sexuality but rather the way you view homosexuals (there's such a thing as self-hatred, who's to say you weren't that?).


Disturbing was never meant as a generality and if you saw it as such I'm sorry. I'm also sorry if you or anyone you know were attacked.

Again, just didn't understand your terminology. Nothing to be sorry for, thanks for clarifying.

[.Commie]

Just meant for you to clarify your position and to make it clear that I was not approving of your terminology. Sorry that it came across as an attack, but homophobia is irritating and that's what it sounded like was happening here, naturally I'll react negatively.



I wondered why indeed you were here if that was your stance on things; I made no assumptions as to your personal sexuality but rather the way you view homosexuals (there's such a thing as self-hatred, who's to say you weren't that?).



Again, just didn't understand your terminology. Nothing to be sorry for, thanks for clarifying.

Your understanding is greatly appreciative. Yes,I am glad we got rid of this mess and no I'm not a self-hater LOL. Alright.

[Anarpest]

Why has this thread derailed into quibbling over a single non-contextual letter in Engels' oeuvre?

Anyway, to get back to the point, I'm not sure that your characterization of Engels' views is accurate. His view seems to be brought out more clearly in quotes such as these:


Full freedom of marriage can therefore only be generally established when the abolition of capitalist production and of the property relations created by it has removed all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriage partner. For then there is no other motive left except mutual inclination.


We are now approaching a social revolution in which the economic foundations of monogamy as they have existed hitherto will disappear just as surely as those of its complement - prostitution. Monogamy arose from the concentration of considerable wealth in the hands of a single individuals – the man – and from the need to bequeath this wealth to the children of that man and of no other. For this purpose, the monogamy of the woman was required, not that of the man, so this monogamy of the woman did not in any way interfere with open or concealed polygamy on the part of the man. But by transforming by far the greater portion, at any rate, of permanent, heritable wealth – the means of production – into social property, the coming social revolution will reduce to a minimum all this anxiety about bequeathing and inheriting. Having arisen from economic causes, will monogamy then disappear when these causes disappear?

One might answer, not without reason: far from disappearing, it will, on the contrary, be realized completely. For with the transformation of the means of production into social property there will disappear also wage-labor, the proletariat, and therefore the necessity for a certain – statistically calculable – number of women to surrender themselves for money. Prostitution disappears; monogamy, instead of collapsing, at last becomes a reality – also for men.


Full freedom of marriage can therefore only be generally established when the abolition of capitalist production and of the property relations created by it has removed all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriage partner. For then there is no other motive left except mutual inclination.

And as sexual love is by its nature exclusive – although at present this exclusiveness is fully realized only in the woman – the marriage based on sexual love is by its nature individual marriage. We have seen how right Bachofen was in regarding the advance from group marriage to individual marriage as primarily due to the women. Only the step from pairing marriage to monogamy can be put down to the credit of the men, and historically the essence of this was to make the position of the women worse and the infidelities of the men easier. If now the economic considerations also disappear which made women put up with the habitual infidelity of their husbands – concern for their own means of existence and still more for their children’s future – then, according to all previous experience, the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrous.

But what will quite certainly disappear from monogamy are all the features stamped upon it through its origin in property relations; these are, in the first place, supremacy of the man, and, secondly, indissolubility. The supremacy of the man in marriage is the simple consequence of his economic supremacy, and with the abolition of the latter will disappear of itself. The indissolubility of marriage is partly a consequence of the economic situation in which monogamy arose, partly tradition from the period when the connection between this economic situation and monogamy was not yet fully understood and was carried to extremes under a religious form. Today it is already broken through at a thousand points. If only the marriage based on love is moral, then also only the marriage in which love continues. But the intense emotion of individual sex-love varies very much in duration from one individual to another, especially among men, and if affection definitely comes to an end or is supplanted by a new passionate love, separation is a benefit for both partners as well as for society – only people will then be spared having to wade through the useless mire of a divorce case.

Though he does talk about the 'abolition of monogamy' and such, what he means by that may be better understood by the following:


Sex-love in the relationship with a woman becomes, and can only become, the real rule among the oppressed classes, which means today among the proletariat - whether this relation is officially sanctioned or not. But here all the foundations of typical monogamy are cleared away. Here there is no property, for the preservation and inheritance of which monogamy and male supremacy were established; hence there is no incentive to make this male supremacy effective. What is more, there are no means of making it so. Bourgeois law, which protects this supremacy, exists only for the possessing class and their dealings with the proletarians. The law costs money and, on account of the worker’s poverty, it has no validity for his relation to his wife. Here quite other personal and social conditions decide. And now that large-scale industry has taken the wife out of the home onto the labor market and into the factory, and made her often the bread-winner of the family, no basis for any kind of male supremacy is left in the proletarian household – except, perhaps, for something of the brutality towards women that has spread since the introduction of monogamy. The proletarian family is therefore no longer monogamous in the strict sense, even where there is passionate love and firmest loyalty on both sides, and maybe all the blessings of religious and civil authority. Here, therefore, the eternal attendants of monogamy, hetaerism and adultery, play only an almost vanishing part. The wife has in fact regained the right to dissolve the marriage, and if two people cannot get on with one another, they prefer to separate. In short, proletarian marriage is monogamous in the etymological sense of the word, but not at all in its historical sense.

He clearly wasn't opposed to prolonged romantic attachment, in any case.

[.Commie]

Why has this thread derailed into quibbling over a single non-contextual letter in Engels' oeuvre?

Anyway, to get back to the point, I'm not sure that your characterization of Engels' views is accurate. His view seems to be brought out more clearly in quotes such as these:







Though he does talk about the 'abolition of monogamy' and such, what he means by that may be better understood by the following:



He clearly wasn't opposed to prolonged romantic attachment, in any case.

Wow.This clears up the whole mess for me,thank you Anarpest. It is sometimes hard to read certain works,for me,without getting confused by the language employed.