you dont know how to read

Yes, context makes the statement read different.

Yeah the idea he means they're the *literal* bourgeoisie is so stupid you must be purposefully doing it to have some weird take on "cultural Marxism" or something to that effect

_"and that in itself gives him a position of supremacy"_

iS THAT LITERAL?

Literally read what I said

I'm guessing this is the "Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State"

Yeah

How do we know what is literal?

Oh yeah men do have supremacy over women

That's doesn't make every husband the bourgeoisie

So, that is literal, but the next sentence isn't?

Wow

Because he literally says in a couple sentences later that the point of the comparison is that the liberation of the proletariat would inversely.mean in comparison the female sex introduced to public industry

He makes a comparison, are you really that dense not to notice?

Context or no, it's clearly a comparison

It's showing how it is also a class dynamic in some sense

Is saying men have supremacy also a comparison?

Maybe, that is a metaphor as well

Are you more concerned with winning an argument than learning?

Sorry, I am not eligible to be indoctrinated

Because it sure seems you're being needlessly subborn

You literally are picking and choosing what is literal

We could have a conversation like adults but you're sticking to this point when you know it's nonsense

Being adult also involves accepting that your interpretation is not necessary smart to everone else

Which you are unable to do

*In the great majority of cases today, at least in the possessing classes, the husband is obliged to earn a living and support his family, and that in itself gives him a position of supremacy, without any need for special legal titles and privileges. Within the family he is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat. In the industrial world, the specific character of the economic oppression burdening the proletariat is visible in all its sharpness only when all special legal privileges of the capitalist class have been abolished and complete legal equality of both classes established. The democratic republic does not do away with the opposition of the two classes; on the contrary, it provides the clear field on which the fight can be fought out. __And in the same way, the peculiar character of the supremacy of the husband over the wife in the modern family, the necessity of creating real social equality between them, and the way to do it, will only be seen in the clear light of day when both possess legally complete equality of rights. 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__*

keep it civil

*do not insult the* **gommie**

you are a dolt draco

I have no problem. I just loved how esoteric replied that I was a loser for exactly quoting Engels

marxism is not your forte

Yes, it is so bad

if you one day rose to the bourgeoisie class tell me were you gonna remain a communist @Enigmatic★Chromatic

Even I cannot make it work

I remember Sarah Jeong
> It was not racist because it was a comparison

I think that class interest could prevent you from being a communist. Likely if I was in the bourgeoisie I wouldn't want to be a communist. Engels was, so we know it's possible to be a communist and in the bourgeoisie, but I would say it's highly unlikely

This is a pretty good reason why for a normal system, the power exercised by bourgeoisie is a good thing. Because Proletariat would do exactly that if they could.

"If the proletariat became a member of the Bourgeoisie they would have a bourgeois class interest."

"Aha see this is why the bourgeoisie is good, proles would do it too."

🙃

Who said bourgeoisie is good? For someone to claim that others misrepresent, you do it pretty bad