Question on cultures, ethics and nations.

[Friends call me Einstein]

Assuming that a proper system could work only through law even in anarchy or communism which is stateless. There should be law or code of contact.

The code of conduct should be defined according to which culture ? For example there are cultures which promote homosexuality, there are some which promote polygamy.

I guess nobody could claim there won't be any code of contact or ethics. For example there are some cultures which even promote beating of females or wives. Examples could be widened.

Who will define the general ethics or laws and according to what ?

Will it all be defined naturally during a revolution or will it be created scientifically/artificial through theories ?

How is the general culture of today's world is defined from which even the darkest corners of our earth can't escape by the use of mass media ?

I want to know your opinions.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Assuming that a proper system could work only through law even in anarchy or communism which is stateless. There should be law or code of contact.

The code of conduct should be defined according to which culture ? For example there are cultures which promote homosexuality, there are some which promote polygamy.

I guess nobody could claim there won't be any code of contact or ethics. For example there are some cultures which even promote beating of females or wives. Examples could be widened.

Who will define the general ethics or laws and according to what ?

Will it all be defined naturally during a revolution or will it be created scientifically/artificial through theories ?

How is the general culture of today's world is defined from which even the darkest corners of our earth can't escape by the use of mass media ?

I want to know your opinions.

Of course there would be no laws and no "codes of conduct" in socialism. Here is how Engels puts it in "On Authority", to plagiarise one of my earlier posts:

"We have seen, besides, that the material conditions of production and circulation inevitably develop with large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority. Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society. If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other; but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the world.
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society."

In socialism, "government over men" has been replaced by the "administration of things and the direction of processes of production"; there is no "socialist" government that will limit who you can have sex with, what you can eat etc. At the same time, the change in the economic basis of society will have an impact on human relations; misogyny, for example, will be gone along with the family.

And what exactly is bad about homosexuality or polygamy?

[RedBlackStar]

I want to know your opinions.

You are right. Socialist societies will not just 'fix everything'. There'll still be 'criminals' who, either due to psychological or personal reasons, will want to do others harm.

I would say that society would exist without laws per say. It'd simply operate via a very basic and simple principle: you do not harm another human. The only 'crimes' to carry on from our society would be ones of rape, murder, assault, criminal damage (either to an individual's sentimental possessions or society's property) and anything else which would directly cause either psychological or physical harm to an individual.

I can't speak for Marxists but there's no general consensus amongst Anarchist thinkers on how society should react to these 'crimes', although there's agreement that prisons are not to be used, as there's no chance of reform/treatment to petty offenders/the mentally ill. Kropotkin, one of the daddys of Anarchism as we know it, referred to them as 'universities of crime'.


And what exactly is bad about homosexuality or polygamy?

He wasn't claiming there was anything wrong with those things. He was pointing that some cultures do see them as being wrong (normally due to religion or just handed down stereotypes).

[Illegalitarian]

870: the abolition of the family? Elaborate

[BIXX]

870: the abolition of the family? Elaborate
You've never heard of this before? A lot of feminist and queer theory discusses it iirc.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

870: the abolition of the family? Elaborate

I think 870 means the bourgeois 'nuclear family', which is based mostly in old patriarchal attitudes and feudal relations. In a socialist society, families would be based entirely around love and not just simply blood relations.

[Comrade #138672]

Assuming that a proper system could work only through law even in anarchy or communism which is stateless. There should be law or code of contact.

The code of conduct should be defined according to which culture ? For example there are cultures which promote homosexuality, there are some which promote polygamy.

I guess nobody could claim there won't be any code of contact or ethics. For example there are some cultures which even promote beating of females or wives. Examples could be widened.

Who will define the general ethics or laws and according to what ?

Will it all be defined naturally during a revolution or will it be created scientifically/artificial through theories ?

How is the general culture of today's world is defined from which even the darkest corners of our earth can't escape by the use of mass media ?

I want to know your opinions.The socialist "culture" will be derived from the social relations of the socialist mode of production, just as the current ethics and code of conduct are derived from the capitalist mode of production. It would, therefore, be a mistake to think that culture is arbitrarily defined. Indeed, all cultures of the world have very much in common.

[Blake's Baby]

Assuming that a proper system could work only through law ...

How about, not assuming that?

[Comrade #138672]

How about, not assuming that?Haha, great.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Concerning the abolition of the family: the family is the specific form in which labour-power of the direct labourers (proletarians in capitalism) is biologically reproduced. And it rests on uncompensated, atomised female reproductive and household labour. The family will be abolished in socialism because its role will be taken by collective institutions of the socialist society, from laundries and creches to institutions of collective rearing.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Concerning the abolition of the family: the family is the specific form in which labour-power of the direct labourers (proletarians in capitalism) is biologically reproduced. And it rests on uncompensated, atomised female reproductive and household labour. The family will be abolished in socialism because its role will be taken by collective institutions of the socialist society, from laundries and creches to institutions of collective rearing.

You mean children will be separated from parents after birth and raised in boarding school-like environments? And everyone will wash their clothes at collective laundry mats instead of washing them at home?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You mean children will be separated from parents after birth and raised in boarding school-like environments? And everyone will wash their clothes at collective laundry mats instead of washing them at home?

I mean children will be raised by society, probably overseen by people who have dedicated some portion of their lives to this task, and with extensive socialisation with other members of society. This is far from unusual; consider it a consolidation of creches, kindergartens and similar institutions into one collective educational and childcare institution.

Why would children be separated from their parents? Their parents could visit any time they like. Although I would dispute that anyone will consider a child to be "theirs" as children are generally considered under capitalism.

And I imagine there would be people who would wash the laundry as a service. If you really want to, you could wash your clothes at home, assuming you even have a washing machine, but why would you? The point, in any case, is that women would no longer be expected to wash the clothes of "their" husbands, children etc. for no compensation and without any recognition.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I mean children will be raised by society, probably overseen by people who have dedicated some portion of their lives to this task, and with extensive socialisation with other members of society. This is far from unusual; consider it a consolidation of creches, kindergartens and similar institutions into one collective educational and childcare institution.

Well that does sound a lot like a boarding school to me.


And I imagine there would be people who would wash the laundry as a service. If you really want to, you could wash your clothes at home, assuming you even have a washing machine, but why would you? The point, in any case, is that women would no longer be expected to wash the clothes of "their" husbands, children etc. for no compensation and without any recognition.

What about other household tasks like cooking and cleaning? Would people get all their food premade from public facilities like cafeterias instead of women being expected to cook at home?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well that does sound a lot like a boarding school to me.

Perhaps. I would say, on the other hand, that boarding schools tend to house older children, and tend to be isolated from their surroundings (at least those on the British model), neither of which would be the case for socialist childcare institutions.


What about other household tasks like cooking and cleaning? Would people get all their food premade from public facilities like cafeterias instead of women being expected to cook at home?

Most of them, probably. There will probably be collective messhalls and so on. Of course, it's not as if cooking something for yourself will cause the police to break down your door and drag you off. It's just that most people will probably not bother.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Perhaps. I would say, on the other hand, that boarding schools tend to house older children, and tend to be isolated from their surroundings (at least those on the British model), neither of which would be the case for socialist childcare institutions.

What happens with older children then?

[Blake's Baby]

Well that does sound a lot like a boarding school to me...

If the only two methods of raising children you can imagine are 'at a boarding school' and 'not at boarding school', then yeah, maybe it's a bit like being at boarding school.


...
What about other household tasks like cooking and cleaning? Would people get all their food premade from public facilities like cafeterias instead of women being expected to cook at home?

Do you currently live somewhere where women are expected to cook at home for you? In which case, my advice is, leave the 18th century behind, we've made great strides since then even in capitalist society.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Not that keen on speculating the future but a few points:

If there end up being a select group of guardians of morality and standards or whatever, the revolution has obviously failed and needs to be made again.

I guess it would be everyones responsibility to secure the sovereignity and liberty of each person.

Children also should have a choice where and how to live just like the rest of us. Society should make the effort it can to minimize their dependence and maximize their independence.




What about other household tasks like cooking and cleaning? Would people get all their food premade from public facilities like cafeterias instead of women being expected to cook at home?
Why is it a womans responsibility to cook meals?!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

He wasn't claiming there was anything wrong with those things. He was pointing that some cultures do see them as being wrong (normally due to religion or just handed down stereotypes).

I just noticed this.

I don't think this is a viable reading of their post. They said:

" The code of conduct should be defined according to which culture ? For example there are cultures which promote homosexuality, there are some which promote polygamy."

Why is "promoting" homosexuality (yeah, we're all coming for your virgin arseholes :rolleyes:) the first negative example? "How are you going to make sure this horrible thing doesn't happen."


What happens with older children then?

Presumably at some point their raising is over, and they move out, find their own niche in life and so on.


Do you currently live somewhere where women are expected to cook at home for you? In which case, my advice is, leave the 18th century behind, we've made great strides since then even in capitalist society.

Unfortunately, the majority of household labour is still feminised and uncompensated (even unrecognised; it's just something women do). Today, perhaps, the worker might be expected to have lunch in some sort of fast or street food place, but in my experience (and I think the data backs it up, although it's late and I can't find the paper I had in mind) women are still expected to cook for their partners and particularly for their children.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Why is it a womans responsibility to cook meals?!

I never said it was. I was just asking whether other aspects of traditionally domestic work besides childrearing would move outside the house and if so, what form that would take. Since those tasks have traditionally fallen to women as childrearing has, I was wondering whether they would also move outside the domestic sphere.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Unfortunately, the majority of household labour is still feminised and uncompensated (even unrecognised; it's just something women do). Today, perhaps, the worker might be expected to have lunch in some sort of fast or street food place, but in my experience (and I think the data backs it up, although it's late and I can't find the paper I had in mind) women are still expected to cook for their partners and particularly for their children.

Really? Men expect women to cook for them?

I'm sure often women do cook for 'ther menfolk'. If this is for any other reason than men are more often at work, then it's just shit really.