Origins of the Family: A Marxist Perspective
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2023
- Recorded May 24, 2023, in Toronto
Why do Marxists want to abolish the family? Engels described the emergence of the patriarchal family as humanity’s first counterrevolution.
For hundreds of thousands of years, private property, classes, and marriage, as we know it today, did not exist. The Neolithic revolution and introduction of agriculture laid the material basis for a division of labor and with it the emergence of social classes: exploiters and the exploited.
The ruling class needed a way to pass their accumulated wealth to their offspring, down the male line, which in turn necessitated a way to control reproduction by the domination of men over women. This is the historical basis for marriage and the family in its present form, and the continued attacks against women’s reproductive rights.
The family, private property, the state, and class society all have a shared origin. Today, we fight to free human relations from the shackles of oppression; and put them on a healthy basis under a socialist society.
Fightback is a revolutionary organization fighting for the socialist transformation of society. We are the Canadian section of the International Marxist Tendency. We actively seek to educate workers and youth in the genuine ideas of Marxism, in order to fight back against capitalist attacks and austerity.
If you agree with our ideas and want to fight for socialism, contact us! marxist.ca/about
This was a fantastic talk. Glad to have attended!
He certainly dislikes Anglo Saxon culture and Christianity.
@@grahamt5924 but who doesn't
@@grahamt5924 lol no he doesnt
Amazing talk! I have so many books to read now haha! Thank you for recording and uploading!
The patriarchal hierarchy is good
Amazing lecture! Illuminating
Fascinating discussion. Thank you!
Fantastic lecture ! thank you
Great talk, makes me want to read more!
27:30 OMG! As a Canadian here familiar with the historic efforts of the government to disenculture the indigenous people of the country by way of the Residential School System … in this moment of the video it’s like the other damn shoe dropped for me. It was not so much the indigenous culture and religion that needed to be driven from the children (sinceCanada tolerated other religions and a wide variety of unorthodox Christian views too); most important would have been to remove this most “pernicious” view of all regarding family structure and matrilineal society within many of the native peoples’. Belief’s like those the professor just descend of the Innu go right to the heart of private property and it’s inheritance in a capitalist society. Views such as those of the Innu would destroy capitalism itself, or at the very least are antithetical to the way it was practiced in North America. No wonder the indigenous children were “re-educated” with such grim and vicious vigor and were punished so violently for expressing any of their old ways of social organization.
Ugh.
Natives fought each other over territory, and they had slavery.
@@grahamt5924 And your point is?
Your claims, regardless of their truth value, which I do not want to argue with you, do not address my original comment.
@J. A. I. Well, territory and slavery are a form of property. The only difference is that theirs is collectively owned. Surely, a society like that could be capatalist also. It can't be that a capatilist society can only be patriarchal.
@@grahamt5924 Indigenous people were and are not monolithic. Pre-contact they were indeed developing in *the direction of* class society, and some Indigenous peoples had indeed developed slavery. None of this contradicts the Marxist analysis. In fact, it is perfectly in-keeping with it.
Maybe somebody more knowledgeable on the subject could respond to Graham, but indigenous people did migrate to the Americas from the west, also from around the world apparently by ships even before the arrival of Spaniards. Over time peoples that originally migrated to the new world became exposed a little bit here and there to new things and ideas.
The battles over territory, I don't think anyone is arguing that tribes anywhere lived together in harmony all the time, the focus here is on the emergence of private property within these clans, gens, tribes or what have you and this transformed relations between peoples, men and women in the times to come.
Anyone can correct me on this if I'm wrong.
What a fantastic talk, the closing words almost made me cry!
that's amazing
A talk like this goes a long way toward explaining why our “conservative” politicians (whether they’re Republican, Conservative or what-have-you) act like they do around issues of gender identity. These “conservative” politicians (and their followers) are in reality just rabid ideological defenders of their own material economic power, based on the “sanctity” of private property, generational wealth, and our debt based economy within the neoliberal capitalist economic system we have permitted to proliferate and come to dominate the world’s democracies.
All of this societal turmoil around “crisis of masculinity” we are hearing so much about these days is really just a discussion of how emotionally disturbing it is for the ruling class to have to consider what might occur to their system of wealth generation and hoarding if one of the main pillars upon which production of this wealth sits is removed.
All that male anger and ennui you hear is amplified echos of rich men’s anxiety.
The copium in the comment^
What is the name of the speaker?
Was this at York?
Engels was equally influenced by Jakob Bachofen' Muterrecht. I'm not sure there's an english translation, however it would be an interesting endeavor to both translate and go through that text.
Love it. As always I believe marxists are very very good critics. Especially good critics of capitalism. The problem with them however is when they are in power they do worse than capitalism in terms of brutality (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot …).
The issue with this is that Stalin was a "communist" by name only. You can't change all the fundamental principles of Marxism, keep only the idea of the planned economy, then repackage your revised version of "revolution" as Marxist-Leninism and "Communism". Seeing as Mao's party modeled itself after the Stalinist regime, they weren't any better.
If you want a better idea of what communists are really like when in power, look at what the Bolsheviks did in the first two years after the October Revolution in 1917. And read Lenin's "The State & Revolution".
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot weren't marxists
Lmao capitalism is about to end the world, Buddy. Enjoy
Capitalism literally destroying the world, bud.
The death and destruction of the Post Soviet Republics at the hands of Yeltsin and Gorbachev was much worse than anything perpetrated under Stalin.
The exact number of people that were killed in the Russian Revolution is disputed amongst historians. The number ranges anywhere from 7 million to 12 million people killed between 1917 and 1923, most of them being civilians
that was a civil war. the ruling class and foreign imperialists were responsible not the working class revolutionaries
Reactionary conservative aristocrats didn’t want to lose their Faberge Eggs, their massive land holdings, and their exclusive access to political power via the Czar and his organized crime family leadership group.
So … like @theswoletariat ^ said up there.
It was a civil war.
And the aristocracy turned traitor and invited FOREIGN imperialist mercenaries into the country to fight a civil war against intellectuals, factory workers and peasants with the goal of stopping anyone who would dare introduce principles of egalitarian socialism into “their” “traditional valued” Russia.
For example, US soldiers were still in Russia as late as 1922 killing Russians to defend the Russian aristocracy and US “interests” and trade relationships with the old Russian artistocrats. The British were still killing Russia s as late as 1920. France made a huge contribution of military force to keep the Czar in place. They didn’t leave until 1921.
So … when you quote deaths due to the Russian Revolution it’s important to note that this was a civil war, and that much of the killing was done by massive foreign armies and mercenaries, invited into the country by a vicious aristocracy content to kill other Russians if it meant they could keep their goodies, land and power.