capitalism and domestic violence - is there a link?

[ArgueEverything]

this is a very good article which argues that the economic system is largely responsible for the problem of domestic violence: http://www1.minn.net/~nup/1dec96.htm

some snippets:

"In his book, "Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes" (Grosset/Putnam), Gilligan writes that violence is rooted in our economic system. He points to studies that show that the level of violence in society increases as the gap between rich and poor widens. He writes that this is particularly true in the U.S., where less is spent on programs for poor children than in any other industrialized nation. He says the overwhelming majority of violent criminals come from poverty and broken homes and that their childhoods were filled with physical, sexual and emotional abuse."

"Prior to the rise of civilization, humans lived in kinship-based tribal societies. Tribal life reflected a complex network of relationships, duties and obligations. Above all, it was egalitarian and based on cooperation. Women held a respected and mystical status as the magical producers of children and played a central economic role as the early horticulturists. We need to remind ourselves that humans could not have survived and successfully spread throughout the earth without our ability to cooperate with one another.

All societies since the break up of tribal life have been class-divided and male-dominated. Lust for power and organized violence became the norm in our so-called civilization. At its root is the private ownership of wealth-producing property, the real basis of power!

Nevertheless, domestic violence was under some modicum of control until industrial capitalism reduced the normal living unit to the nuclear family. Until that time, most people lived in agrarian societies in extended families of grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins. Divorce, while rare, was not the traumatic event it is today as the family system nurtured the children. "

whilst i'm against the kind of determinism which reduces every human problem to being caused by capitalism, this seems to hold some water, i think.

[vox]

This is a damn interesting article, and well worth reading. I'm with you, ArgueEverthing, on the question of determinism, but I don't think that's what this article is about.

Rather, it suggests that the patriarchal values which demand that the man be the dominant economic force in family life is in conflict with the life experience of poor men. But that's not all, for the problem seems to be overdetermined by the nature of capitalist values as well. However, when bourgeois domination isn't availabe, the patriarchal domination becomes that much more important, and the importance of it can be seen in the rise of violence as the income gap widens.

I say that all class society is based on domination, and violence has it's roots in the need for domination. I don't believe that the elimination of class society will bring about the end of violence, but I don't believe that it would increase violence, either, and there's a good chance it would be reduced.

vox

[American Kid]

That's the most degrading, insulting, DANGEROUS thing I've ever read here.

Let's just change the whole justice system then. If you beat your wife, you lose your land. Eventually, we'll all be at an even level. Then we can throw on some black pajamas and work in the fields for thirteen hours.

How DARE YOU? I want it stated, also, for the record, that argueeverything's avatar does not read:

argueeverything MD, as that is significant.

I know, whenever someone beats his wife, we'll put leaches on him.

-AK

(Edited by American Kid at 5:07 am on Sep. 9, 2002)

[vox]

"That's the most degrading, insulting, DANGEROUS thing I've ever read here."

Would you care to expoound on that a little, AK? What we have now is an allegation without substantiation, and that's just not good enough. What, exactly, was degrading about the article, and where, exactly, do you see the danger?

"If you beat your wife, you lose your land."

Why are you assuming that everyone who beats "his wife" is a landowner? Indeed, the article made it clear that with an increase in the disparity between the haves and the have-nots we see a rise in domestic violence. Why is your statement so very contrary to the statement of the article? On what is it based, other than some preconceived ill will?

vox

[American Kid]

To expound a little, I'll just ask everyone read the post which started this thread ^ (it speaks for itself)

And as far as the landowners comment:

I've watched "Cops" I know not everyone who beats their wife owns land. I was making a point (facetiously) about the potential link between domestic violence, and socialism as a means to stablize it.

In closing, making the allegation that wife-beating is a trickle-down effect of capitalism is medically irresponsible. Hence, insulting and dangerous

-AK MD

(Edited by American Kid at 5:43 am on Sep. 9, 2002)

[vox]

"To expound a little, I'll just ask everyone read the post which started this thread ^ (it speaks for itself)"

Hmmm. Am I alone in thinking that this is a complete cop out by AK? I, personally, don't think that he can back up what he wrote and so now says that the "post," rather than the article, speaks for itself.

Did you even bother to read the whole article, AK? It sounds like you didn't. Of course, like an obedient little right-winger, you don't let not reading something get in the way of your moral outrage, do you?

"I was making a point (facetiously) about the potential link between domestic violence, and socialism as a means to stablize it."

A point? All I read in your post was an outrageous argument based only on a fantastic notion that a right-winger would dream up. Nothing to do with reality, but, again, don't let that get in the way.

"In closing, making the allegation that wife-beating is a trickle-down effect of capitalism is medically irresponsible. Hence, insulting and dangerous"

The article wasn't just about "wife-beating," but of course you wouldn't know that, would you?

What's irresponsible and dangerous is believing that anything AK writes has any degree of credibility.

In closing, I'll simply note that it's also dangerous and irresponsible to get your understanding of domestic violence and police reaction to it from a TV show that is not a documentary but designed to sell deodorant.

vox

[canikickit]

I haven't read the article and I just skimmed through the posts, however...


capitalism and domestic violence
»is there a link?

I read shit like this all the fucking time on this site.
I blame the people who commit the violence, not the system.
Forgive me for not reading the article, I will return and read it, this is my gut reaction, however.
I think it is important to be honest, don't you?

[ArgueEverything]

Quote: from vox on 4:25 am on Sep. 9, 2002
This is a damn interesting article, and well worth reading. I'm with you, ArgueEverthing, on the question of determinism, but I don't think that's what this article is about.

Rather, it suggests that the patriarchal values which demand that the man be the dominant economic force in family life is in conflict with the life experience of poor men. But that's not all, for the problem seems to be overdetermined by the nature of capitalist values as well. However, when bourgeois domination isn't availabe, the patriarchal domination becomes that much more important, and the importance of it can be seen in the rise of violence as the income gap widens.

I say that all class society is based on domination, and violence has it's roots in the need for domination. I don't believe that the elimination of class society will bring about the end of violence, but I don't believe that it would increase violence, either, and there's a good chance it would be reduced.

vox


agreed 100%.

you do well to say "all class society" rather than "all capitalist society" because the problem of violence against women is not at all specific to capitalism.

for example, in india before british colonialism they burnt women to death once their husbands died. they didn't have an economic class system in the full marxist sense, but they did have caste system which reinforced the patriachy.

in the pakistani province of punjab recently a women was sentenced to be be pack raped for having commited adultery. last week, 3 women in jordan were massacred in "honour killings" by family members who believed they had lost their virginity. autopsies showed that many of them were, in fact, virgins.

i may be wrong, but don't all these countries have extended, rather than nuclear, families? in that sense it appears the article is wrong in saying the nuclear family has given rise to increased violence against women.

but then again, maybe the intense misogyny in these countries is a product of european capitalist colonialism, and the subsequent neoliberal colonialism. certainly, a lot of third world countries have been somewhat more progressive in their support of women than the west - sri lanka had the first female president in the world (bandaranaike). india and pakistan have also had female heads of state (indira ghandi and benazir bhutto respectively), and indonesia has one one (megawati sukarnoputri).

(Edited by ArgueEverything at 7:35 am on Sep. 9, 2002)

[ArgueEverything]

Quote: from canikickit on 5:57 am on Sep. 9, 2002
I haven't read the article and I just skimmed through the posts, however...


capitalism and domestic violence
»is there a link?

I read shit like this all the fucking time on this site.
I blame the people who commit the violence, not the system.
Forgive me for not reading the article, I will return and read it, this is my gut reaction, however.
I think it is important to be honest, don't you?


yes, i do. but i disagree with your opinion. its all good and well to blame individuals rather than the system, but i dont think anyone exists in a vacuum and therefore are influenced heavily by their economic status.

why is the crime rate higher in poverty-stricken areas than affluent areas? i say its because poor people have a greater incentive to commit a crime, because "the system" has put them in a situation where crime is the viable option for them.

[ArgueEverything]

Quote: from American Kid on 5:07 am on Sep. 9, 2002
That's the most degrading, insulting, DANGEROUS thing I've ever read here.

Let's just change the whole justice system then. If you beat your wife, you lose your land. Eventually, we'll all be at an even level. Then we can throw on some black pajamas and work in the fields for thirteen hours.

How DARE YOU? I want it stated, also, for the record, that argueeverything's avatar does not read:

argueeverything MD, as that is significant.

I know, whenever someone beats his wife, we'll put leaches on him.

-AK

(Edited by American Kid at 5:07 am on Sep. 9, 2002)


Not only do you shoot the messenger, you shoot the message too.

and what is MD? im not american.

(Edited by ArgueEverything at 7:50 am on Sep. 9, 2002)

[vox]

MD is short for Doctor of Medicine. Unless AK meant that you live in Maryland (MD is the postal abbreviation for the state).

Apparently, AK wants to turn domestic violence into a health issue. I doubt, however, that he'll bother to respond to this thread. He wrote in Chit Chat that he was leaving for a while and I think he was just getting kicks before he left. So far, he's shown NO argument at all, and when asked to, he failed.

Still, it's a good article and should be read, I think.

vox

[marxistdisciple]

It's interesting that. I would agree with you in some ways certainly. I think that financial disparity does cause crime problems (I think even righties would have to agree that that is the case.) After all, the figures clearly show it to be true. Of course if you have little money, you are far more likely to steal more than someone who has money. As far as domestic violence goes, I am willing to bet the biggest amount of calls that the police recieve are for domestic indicents.

Anyone's parents broke up/divorced here, or been in the situation yourself? What did they/you argue about? I know with mine it was always money, before the rest. No wonder girls I know want to go out with 'successful' guys with nice cars nowadays. :)

[canikickit]

why is the crime rate higher in poverty-stricken areas than affluent areas? i say its because poor people have a greater incentive to commit a crime, because "the system" has put them in a situation where crime is the viable option for them.

Absolutely, I believe this to be 100% true, but I think there is a difference between stealing bread for your hungry family, and beating up your wife because you can't afford the bread (I'm just giving instances here).
There is of course some blame on the capitalist system how ever I believe the causes of violence (against someone you are supposed to be in love with) are deeper rooted than this.
I didn't make this clear in my former post because I was in a hurry. In retrospect, posting the first one was kind of foolish, but I did stress it was my initial reaction.

[peaccenicked]

Violence is a comlex phenomen. Most perceptions of it are direct and physical. Yet increasingly violence is given
a wider significance in that we hear of violent language
and more metaphorical uses of the word indicating the use of power or staying silent when injustice is present.

In the latter senses, Socialists say that poverty and ignorance are violent. Capitalist relations are violent, as are all power relations that ultimately disempower human beings and here patriachial relations are notorious in this fashion. Domestic violence is only the sharp end.
Responsibility is individual but society by its very nature is the collective responsibility we have for each other and our conditions of life.

Furthermore,capitalist relations are directly violent as the need for expansion leads to war.
Let us conclude that capitalism is a system of institutionalised violence.
Socialism is the process of ending violence in all its shapes and forms.
No one can be free while we live in a violent society.

The illusion of freedom under capitalism is that the individual can escape it. But he/she can only do it if they bury their head in the sand. We can merely move between different levels and distances.(Of course the relatively safer we are the better)

A truly free society in the making would seek to eliminate violence from society completely.

This is exactly the sound thinking that socialism brings into the political arena.
Socialists say it is not only possible but necessary.
No other creed shares this political goal.

Some religions and anarchist see things as a matter of personal abstension. Socialists argue that politics can truly be used in the service of the people by the people.
This after all is its true function: not to line the pockets
of those who would send our children and children's children to war.





(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:34 am on Sep. 10, 2002)

[marxistdisciple]

"not to line the pockets
of those who would send our children and children's children to war"

The same ones who lock themselves up in gated communities to keep all the "youths and ruffians" out presumably. It's funny how the ones who declare the wars are never the ones doing the fighting.

[peaccenicked]

Absolutely!

[American Kid]

It's eleven fifty-five PM on Wed. and I'm back. I'm going to respond to everything vox wrote and--

nah, I don't feel like it.

[peaccenicked]

I dont feel like scratching my balls to night, so when I have nothing to say I go off topic with a promise of future verbosity.

[vox]

Still running away, AK?

vox

[American Kid]

Negative.

In fact I'm not going anywhere.

[American Kid]

Also, I'm not saying I'm going to respond to anything, vox. You know, Christmas may or may not come early, we're still debating this in the "cappie club". But anyway.....

yes, I'm a little busy trying not to get banned tonight, so......

Thanx for that, btw.
-AK