Karl Marx:under socialism women would also be publicly owned

[thumperton]

[quote=Henry Makow]Karl Marx once remarked that under socialism women would also be publicly owned. Isn't this what has happened? <br><br>Feminism promised to "empower" women. In fact women have become public property. <br><br>Economically, they are cogs in the machine. Young women are taught to eschew marriage, remain "independent" and to seek satisfaction in careers. <br><br>Sexually, they are a commodity on auction to the highest bidder. At a young age, in sex education classes, their dignity, privacy and natural modesty is stripped away. They are given role models like Britney Spears whose act is pure strip tease. When contraceptives fail, they and their babies become wards of the public services. <br><br>In contrast, look at the religious view of woman. Her sexuality is private and reserved for marriage. So is her mystery, her deepest self. She is covered. Her nakedness is an expression of her love. Her spiritual, emotional and physical selves are in sync.[/quote]<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.savethemales.ca/060202.html" target="top">www.savethemales.ca/060202.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://pichold.com/Images/Smilies/redface.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[hmm]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html">www.anu.edu.au/polsci/mar...festo.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"Karl Marx and Frederick Engels<br>Manifesto<br>of the Communist Party<br>1848<br>~snip~<br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.<br><br>He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.<br><br>For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.<br><br>Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. (Ah, those were the days!)<br><br>Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> of free love springing from that system, i.e., <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>of prostitution both public and private</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->."<br><br>That sounds a bit different than makow spins things, or should i say,the exact opposite but then makow sounds like the taliban to me,bring on the burka's..<br><br>"In contrast, look at the religious view of woman. Her sexuality is private and reserved for marriage. So is her mystery, her deepest self. She is covered"<br><br>Maybe we should take a look at how christianity sees and treats women?<br>The way organised religion has dealt with the abuse in its ranks is quite telling<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Homeless Halo]

Women were under much greater subjugation during religious rule than during modern secularist times. <br><br>Besides, privacy, dignity, and shame are invented reactions, not natural states for a human being.<br><br>Marriage is a created business transaction, originally between the former and new owner of the female. It is no different in religion, except that "pure" women are worth more donkeys.<br><br>(I'd rather have a donkey than a "pure" woman though)<br><br>Insofar as child bearing goes, that is something I cannot personally comment on, but I wouldn't want to do it.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[nashvillebrook]

it's a non-reading. <p></p><i></i>

[thumperton]

maybe he's extrapolating a little, since Marxists already considered women to be 'private property' under the capitalist system, under the Communism, the obvious anti-thesis would be...? <p></p><i></i>

[Homeless Halo]

that's just dandy. I'm not a communist apologist, as I find it lacking as an economic system.<br><br>But I don't think that the "religious" worldview is a healthier approah to dealing with females. <p></p><i></i>

[thumperton]

but the religious worldview seems to be good for the family <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Homeless Halo]

No, "the family" is good as a meme to proliferate religious sectarianism. To continue established lines of domestication. See the Catholic polemic against birth control as "evangelism", as recruitment via Christianizing with Christening.<br><br>"the family" is a modern memelogical contruct with about as much reality as the story of the garden of eden.<br><br>A system of indoctrination and control, like breeding dogs in the kennel because they're "safer" than if they were wild. <br><br>Religious memes were/are the primary cause of conflict emerging between superorganisms, and give the "permission" for this conflict when it is not the "cause" (i.e when its about "Resources" etc). See: Apocalyptic Language used by Prominent Rightist politicians.<br><br>Religion is poison. <p></p><i></i>

[glubglubglub]

Homeless: your youth is seriously showing through here.<br>thumperton: Spenger at the atimes.com a smarter writer barking up the same tree as Macow some of the time. These articles are probably up that alley:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK02Aa04.html">www.atimes.com/atimes/Fro...2Aa04.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH02Aa01.html">www.atimes.com/atimes/Fro...2Aa01.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The problem with Macow is that even when he's on to something he's on to it for entirely the wrong reasons and based off of (perhaps intentional) misunderstanding of the sources he sites, and thus does more harm than good; also, in my mind he's wrong -- or at least very far off base -- far more often than he's at least close to correct.<br><br>And there's not as sharp a family<>religion tie as you'd think: the Chinese, for example, have some of the strongest familial structures going -- far stronger and often far healthier than their western counterparts -- and it's not really tied into religion much at all; confucianism was never a religion in the sense you're probably thinking of, and certainly today your typical chinese is a (state-mandated) atheist (although falun gong is kinda wacky). <p></p><i></i>

[Homeless Halo]

glub: I was unaware that I had made drastically inacurrate statments, if you could demonstrate as opposed to insulting, perhaps I would see them.<br><br>In the sense that I was referring was to the western appeciation of the "nuclear" family and its attachments, which is abnormal, in a larger historical frame of reference.<br><br>As for the "Religion" of the east not being a religion, is irrelevant. It is still state sanctioned systematic control mechanisms, regardless of what it chooses to call itself, or its dissimilarity in a philosophical sense from the structures in the west. The "msytique" westerners attach to eastern paths does not diminish their history of class seperation and the ownership of people, especially females.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[sw]

edit

[Homeless Halo]

I don't disagree that the "family" as a collection of allied individuals can create healthy environments and added opportunities for itself. <br><br>I see the "institution" of the family as being this misplaced ideal of "how it used to be" (and never was), like we are all going to live on the set of "Lassie" and eat peanut butter and live forever in black and white. I think it distracts from several harsh realities of the world, and is often co-opted by our "handlers" to exploit us to their own end. (Prego commercials remind you to have dinner with your family so they can sell you bigger jars of sauce, and the government wants to make sure you talk to your kids about drugs, if nothing else)<br><br>Most of the "subjugation" and the crime that is related to it, as control feedback, happens within the "family" and the lack of supervision (not control) over the raising of children perpetuates this problem infinitely.<br><br>They want you to be "productive" and work your self to death, meanwhile replacing your "position" in the machine with your spawn, who must be exactly as you are, so they don't have to waste money designing new control systems.<br>----<br>(22, not that there is much difference, I've been the same since I was 14)<br><br>(super)Old Soul? perhaps. rumor has it that there are a lot of "old souls" on the roll call today. It wedges nicely, as a belief system, with several new age and/or occult doctrines, so is somewhat popular, the truth of the matter is more difficult to verify. Normally, we don't talk about it, but I could say: "If Edward A. Crowley was the Beast (one of four/five), then I am a very old soul." I hope that is suitably unintelligible.<br><br>The primary idea being that souls are recycled and have a "mission" or a "function" which they work towards across space/time. Whether or not this is "true" is irrelevant to the "fact" that many of them are aware of this, and are attempting to perform their function. The discovery of this function, which in practice is the same as performing this function is referred to as the great work.<br><br>Was this your intended reference?<br>----<br><br>Roaches are free game. I kill any non-mammals that threaten my domicile, and the occassional mammal.<br><br>Have not read the Earth Series. Give me some more info, and I can add it to my list. It sounds vaguely familiar.<br><br>What I'm saying was: The family isn't an "evil" of itself, but has been used, as has religion, more often as a system of control, than it has been used in a positive light.<br><br>I also find the western affinity for dismissing the dogmatisms of the east on philosophical grounds, to be hypocritical and often uninformed. No offense intended to anyone in particular, as I myself am fascinated with the eastern mindset, but it isn't "superior" or "better" in a cultural sense, as a method of indoctrination/control, except in that it creates the dull implied cultural consent that is only evident in late western culture, but which has plagued the east for many centuries.<br><br><br><br><br> <br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[glubglubglub]

as a general rule the only folks making sweeping, unsupported claims about human nature -- in particular, what's natural for humans and what's not -- are either old cranks or young fools; those that don't make such claims refrain from doing so as often from a recognition that some things are, well, more complicated than, say, from a position of ignorance. You could be 110% correct on all your points and your youth -- or your status as an old crank, if the shoe fit -- would still show through...<br><br>To quibble: claiming, say, that (a desire for some) privacy (at least at certain times) is a learned response definitely doesn't hold water, esp. if you've raised kids -- the desire for such will vary from quite little to quite a lot depending on any number of factors, and of course those desires can be pushed higher or lower from baseline based on environmental factors like how you raise them, but ; shame you might have a better argument for its lack of innateness, but outside of some throwbacks to sixties-style pop psychologists and self-help books inspired by them (Norman Brown I'm looking at you) the implications of such a fact aren't really that significant in the scheme of things...I'd wager you can't find a society without something functionally equivalent.<br><br>No attempt was made at romanticizing the east, or intended -- the Chinese family structure exists for economic reasons and is first and foremost an economic relation -- but I brought it up to decouple the ideas of 'family values' and 'religious culture' as it's a concrete example of 'non-religious' system with strong 'family values'. As a practical matter the western nuclear family is a marked aberration -- almost exclusively a twentieth century affair -- but the extended family dates back to the start of agriculture pretty much everywhere; you can debate the merits of either structure until you're blue in the face but unless you're using the term state in a very broad sense the extended family predates the state by a good number of years. It can be taken advantage of for sure, but claiming the family to be an invention of the state is nonsensical for sure.<br><br>On the other hand, you can't claim much expertise on the 'east', broadly defined, until you speak the language -- the conceptual and rhetorical frameworks involved are sufficently different you can't make precise statements, really, without the use of native terms; at certain levels of abstraction this may not matter, but for serious discussion/analysis there' just no other way about it. <p></p><i></i>

[thumperton]

I think the big schism in our thinking is that we're contrasting Makow who uses the Bible as a basis for reasoning, versus evolutionary psychology.<br><br>One school believes we are made in God's image, the other things we arose from a pool of bacteria and every consequent action is just as meaningless. <p></p><i></i>

[glubglubglub]

you really ought to read about this. <p></p><i></i>