Message from @PebbЛe
Discord ID: 511030050599075840
@Doctor Anon Engels is the one who posited works of the nature of the family
and no he disagreed with the nuclear family as the basic economic unit of society
Chevo
Fucking commies hating the nuclear family
before you conflate, there is context to it
it is a largely comparative piece of man and wife to bourgeois and proletarian in an attempt to recognize the nature of societal liberation includes the liberation of the female sex: `...Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.`
What would be the alternative to monogamy?
it is not talking about the social nature of a family or sexuality
it is talking about the nuclear family as the economic unit of society
the smallest unit of access to production, consumption and exchange
Socially, monogamy would most likely still be the norm, otherwise, there would be significant social instability in the society.
we cannot forget when Ulrichs tried to shill his homosexual rights material to Engels and Marx and they laughed at him
That actually happened?
Lol
`When the pioneering German homosexual liberationist Karl Ulrichs sent Marx one of his books on the subject, which Marx forwarded to his collaborator, Engels described Ulrichs’s platform of homosexual emancipation from criminal laws as “turning smut into history.” Marx, in commenting on Karl Boruttau’s Gedanken über Gewissens Freiheit (Thoughts on Freedom of Conscience), disparaged the author as “this faggoty prick” (Schwanzschwulen). The homophobia of Marx and Engels has been meticulously documented by Hubert Kennedy of San Francisco State University, Ulrichs’s US biographer, in his essay “Johann Baptist von Schweitzer: The Queer Marx Loved to Hate,” which is included in the anthology Gay Men and the Sexual History of the Political Left, edited by Gert Hekma, Harry Oosterhuis, and James Steakley (Haworth Press) and is also available online.`
Failed back then, however it seems that the “proletariat’s” (social club for degenerates) struggle has turned in that direction
Your notions aside, there is a sharp divide in the socialist community on social issues
I actually didn't know about Ulrichs. I mostly know about Marx and his impact on sociology, as well as Marxist/Conflict theory as opposed to Funtionalist theory.
the communist presence in the US has long held that homosexuality was bourgeois capitalist decadence and the FBI has planted agents acting as transexual idealogues and the like in later decades
That's very interesting.
That definitely makes sense, and it also makes sense that Communists would align themselves with all groups who have been marginalized.
for sure they have
but there is a clear difference between intersectional garbage and self-determination of peoples
Are there any brands of Communism that allows for theism? Generally Communism is Atheistic, I believe Marx once said that religion was the opiate of the masses.
That statement by Marx wasn't so much an atheistic comment but as a comparative device as something the working class holds onto as a sponge for hope
but marxism is usually atheistic and definitely is from Lenin on
if we combine his philosophy in whole from the Theses of Feuerbach on
But if you look at Marx via the epistemological break as noted by Althusser, which i believe in, one can depart from his philosophy and his worldy epistemic works and his material analyses of material functions and critique of the political economy
it's materialist in so far as there is material to study and apply to material and can easily be meshed with theism
Couldn't Marxism/Communism be similar to a sort of theism due a higher goal/vision of the proletarian and the emotional connection through that?
i get what youre trying to say
but i think it's more of the seemingly mystical awe that eschatology and marxist palingenesis both inspire
Religious morality generally is about sacrificing the individual to God, an entity that one cannot see or touch, but is expected to sacrifice, do their commandments and follow God's wishes. Similarly, I think it could be argued that the Proletarian could be in a way an entity-type figure with similar responsibilities of the individual.
That's kind of what I was trying to say but fleshed out more
Wow, worship of man. Reminds me of Nietzsche’s übermensch concept.
That’s very interesting @Shalopy
Never thought of genuine proletarians that way
I’d quite like that.
this is not a precedent