Did capitalists invent monogamy and heterosexuality?
Did capitalists invent monogamy and heterosexuality?
Other urls found in this thread:
No. They invented the Nuclear Family, Cornerstone of Western Civilization™ though. Most people are heterosexual and monogamous. Some people aren't. If you are monogamous and heterosexual, you do not need a state-regulated institution to hold you together in a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. If that's you're thing (as it is for most people) you will do that thing whether or not marriage exists as a practice. Therefore, the de facto function of marriage is to keep unhappy people together.
Monogamy yes. Heterosexuality no.
Heterosexuality is how most living things reproduce, you cannot 'invent' it. Monogamy, on the other hand, forced by law, religion and threat of force is a symptom of a society based on private property and exchange. Monogamy was important to those who wished to pass on their riches to their genetic heir. That is not to say that most people wouldn't choose a lifelong partner at some point and be in a monogamous two-people relationship, it's just that other forms of relationships or lack thereof were accepted as long as they could support themselves and contribute.
In the past there were definite advantages of forming tight knit family groups, in terms of caring for one another and helping one another. However, today we are able to form groups and 'families' at a whim. We should no longer be forced to be monogamous.
Tl;dr: the State shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, romantic relationships and bedrooms
Monogamy was invented by human evolution over the past million years or so.
Did capitalists invent monogamy
No, it'd be more accurate to say it's a creation of civilisation itself as it has existed for many centuries before the ascension of the commodity system.
Not so long ago, family scholars labored under the assumption, half-Marxist, half-“functionalist,” that before the Industrial Revolution, the extended family was the norm in the Western world. There was more than a little romanticism associated with this view: extended families were imagined to have lived in warm, cohesive rural communities where men and women worked together on farms or in small cottage industries. That way of life, went the thinking, ended when industrialization wrenched rural folk away from their cottages and villages into the teeming, anonymous city, sent men into the factories, and consigned women to domestic drudgery. Worse, by upending the household economy, the Industrial Revolution seriously weakened the family. The nuclear family, it was believed, was evidence of family decline.
But by the second half of the twentieth century, one by one these assumptions were overturned. First to go was the alleged prevalence of the extended family. Combing through English parish records and other demographic sources, historians like Peter Laslett and Alan MacFarlane discovered that the nuclear family—a mother, father and child(ren) in a “simple house,” as Laslett put it—was the dominant arrangement in England stretching back to the thirteenth century.
Rather than remaining in or marrying into the family home, as was the case in Southern Europe and many parts of Asia and the Middle East, young couples in England were expected to establish their own household. That meant that men and women married later than in other parts of the world, only after they had saved enough money to set up an independent home. By the time they were ready to tie the knot, their own parents were often deceased, making multi-generational households a relative rarity.
Far from being weaker than an extended family clan, Berger shows, the ordinary nuclear family was able to adapt superbly to changing economic and political realities. In fact, the family arrangement so common to England helps explain why it and other nations of northwest Europe were the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, the launching ground for modern affluence. The young nuclear family had to be flexible and mobile as it searched for opportunity and property. Forced to rely on their own ingenuity, its members also needed to plan for the future and develop bourgeois habits of work and saving.
Yes. Neither of those things existed before 1700.
Monogamy came out of the invention of monarchies and inheritance due to the rights of the official offspring's and the law creating the idea of bastards that previously was a much smaller issue.
The phenomenon did arise due to the the alienation, isolation, and commodification of all social life as a direct result of capitalism though.
Ok now this is epic.
Sexuality itself is a bourgeois invention imposed to create new markets for sex-related commodities. This was achieved by the extermination of baby-delivering stork populations during the colonial period, as well as the suppression of humans' natural budding process via processed, genetically engineered food.
By the time they were ready to tie the knot, their own parents were often deceased, making multi-generational households a relative rarity.
So they lived in cruck houses with their farm animals but not their parents, because their parents were already dead. Essentially, they could not have extended families, because war, famine, pestilence, and death made it impossible to do so. Damn, life in late-medieval England sucked.
By the way here's the original video in case y'all didn't see it
No, it's been a constant for the majority of societies since at least Assyria & Babylonia and probably even older but that's when we find the first law texts that mention it (incidentally also the oldest law texts in existence). Divorce was only allowed if the woman was barren and no child came out of it.
It's mostly been more and less clan-centric depending on the time and place but it's been around in one form or another for at least as long as we've had agrarian societies, only really circumvented by small unstable transient tribes and polygamy from 1%er nobility that could circumvent it when they were at their strongest relative to the rest of society.
People now increasingly pretend it's a dated system in order to spread their individual atomization fetish but Stalin for all his other flaws rightly saw through that bourgeoise sham for what it was, an eroding influence on any society that adopted it as strong families remain the backbone of societally useful men & women. (tons of statistics speak for this, notably the example of single motherhood leading to a massive increase in the likelyhood of anti-social behaviour)
And there's no point on even touching heterosexuality as it's a biological instinct to breed and requires a personal deviation or a largely libertine-pederast indoctrination to desire otherwise (not counting nihilistic anti-natalism, it's own set of inane bourgeoise drivel), hence why even in a time where it's encouraged more than ever we don't see more than an irrelevant 2% of the population even flirt with the notion.
Talk about deliberately misreading something!
no that was back in the primitive times. you dolt.
We're here, we're queer, and now your car won't steer
No, the very same shift in conscience of which all modern political thought, including marxism, is a part of did.
Sodomy became homosexuality as whales became mammals instead of fish.
having a car
not just walking everywhere or riding a horse.
THIS MEME WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY KACZINSKY GANG
I bet LARPwel made this
The answer is 'no' to both, and anyone claiming otherwise is provably wrong. Also, that cringy video is from a while ago.
Prove it then.
Is that the cointelpro agent who's dad is an executive at The Carlyle Group?
Gibberish, and that article is garbage.
But it is not well understood why the married couple—or nuclear family—works so well for kids.
Does it though? He started with the conclusion, nice! Like when teachers in the US assign students an essay titled 'Why is America the best country in the world?'
Some questions: If people were expected to start their own household (their parents having one of their own), why did it matter if the parents were alive or dead? What happened to the plot of land the parents had after they died? If the parents were dead by the time their kids started their own household, why start a household, why not just inherit the parents'?
In fact, the family arrangement so common to England helps explain why it and other nations of northwest Europe were the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, the launching ground for modern affluence.
Oh, let's see if he explains how:
The young nuclear family had to be flexible and mobile as it searched for opportunity and property. Forced to rely on their own ingenuity, its members also needed to plan for the future and develop bourgeois habits of work and saving.
Ah yes, they adopted bourgeois habits before the industrial revolution and capitalism, which make the bourgeoisie and associated habits possible.
flexible and mobile as it searched for opportunity and property
Yeah, opportunity and property that happened after the industrial revolution and brought people to cities for work. Why would a family move anywhere if there isn't a place where there's a lot of jobs, just more of the same. He ascribes post-Industrial behaviours to pre-industrial families.
Really really bad article.
The article isn't stirring together the industrial and pre-industrial era, but instead positing that the lengthy preexisting history of nuclear families in certain countries aided the later rise of industrialization there.
No. Religion did. Capitalism merely enshrined religious idpol horseshit.
Death to christcucks and any other religiousfag.
instead positing that the lengthy preexisting history of nuclear families in certain countries aided the later rise of industrialization there
And I'm saying that's stupid because he says those families acquired 'bourgeois habits'. How can you acquire bourgeois habits if the bourgeoisie doesn't exist? Also, how can you acquire patterns of behaviour that rely on industry and capitalism existing?
If he's suggesting that being a family that is "flexible and mobile as it searche[s] for opportunity and property" is bourgeois behaviour then literally the first Humans had bourgeois habits. And that's just a silly claim.
Because "bourgeois" has become a term of characterization/condemnation that has almost nothing to do with either the historic (well-of city dweller) or economic (those whose income does not stem directly from their labour) sense of the word.
How can you acquire bourgeois habits if the bourgeoisie doesn't exist?
To expand a bit on other poster's point, the bourgeois (especially in Britain) weren't "well-off city dwellers", rather a group of "freedmen" encompassing not only merchants and lenders but in majority craftsmen tied into the guild/apprentice/journeyman system, who had formed cities that enjoyed some measure of territorial sovereignty against the feudal system of barons and knights (the "City of London"'s odd legal status to this day provides probably the best known example). Though limited in population and scope compared to the vastness of the peasantry and feudal warrior class by their inherently niche economic function in pre-industrial times, this exception to the normal rules of feudalism would prove its undoing in later times.
Come the Industrial Revolution, its paradigm change provided an opportunity for which they were well suited.
capitalism invented monogamy
the government should stay out of the business of the bedroom
the bourgeois (especially in Britain) weren't "well-off city dwellers", rather a group of "freedmen" encompassing not only merchants and lenders but in majority craftsmen tied into the guild/apprentice/journeyman system, who had formed cities that enjoyed some measure of territorial sovereignty against the feudal system of barons and knights
Right. But how do nuclear families from the countryside fall into that category?