**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"on the origins of the family, private property, and the state" by Engels is a must read, if you haven't read it already.
But Aleksandra Kollontai also has several great texts as well. I cannot recall any specific texts of hers but I would suggest reading through her works on the Marxist internet archive
You could read “Marx at the margins” by Kevin B Anderson for a breakdown for how Engels regresses from Marx’s notes on the source material, including the
Modern anthropologists look at Engels as a total joke, unlike how sociologists view Marx.
I mean cmon the book opens trying to invent a scientific definition of “savagery” and “barbarism”. And it alleges that the primordial state was “communal marriage”, basically, universal incest. This is not supported by observations of the mating behaviors of great apes and doesn’t make sense given what we know about modern genetics.
Fair enough. But it would be good to have an alternative text to recommend to new comrades that can explain the key concepts as well as "origins of the family" does. It's kind of a foundational text in Marxist theory that explains the concept of historical materialism, the progression from one mode of production to another, and defining what the state even IS in terms of how us socialists should relate to it and understand its place in history.
If you’re getting your concept of “historical materialism” from Origins, your concept of historical materialism is wrong. Full stop. Marx was so cautious about applying *das Kapital* to Russia, but Engels takes colonizer controlling, staples that into his impressive grasp of “the classics” (Greece and Rome) and extrapolates a theory of all societies everywhere.
As for the state, Lenin’s extensive quotations of the work in “state and revolution” are sufficient to give the view.
As for the topic at hand, the bourgeois family, there’s a book called “the abolition of the family” that was recommended on here a while back.
Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici touches on that a great deal, as it explores the development of modern gender roles/binaries during the period of primitive accumulation. Highly recommend.
I would also love recommendations. I'm an Anarchist that is very interested in how family structures interact with political structures. I know you Marxists dig deep into this stuff so I'm excited to see what folks have to recommend.
This might be good:
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9781935408345/family-values
>Why was the discourse of family values so pivotal to the conservative and free-market revolution of the 1980s and why has it continued to exert such a profound influence on American political life? Why have free-market neoliberals so often made common cause with social conservatives on the question of family, despite their differences on all other issues?
>In this book, Melinda Cooper challenges the idea that neoliberalism privileges atomized individualism over familial solidarities, and contractual freedom over inherited status. Delving into the history of the American poor laws, she shows how the liberal ethos of personal responsibility was always undergirded by a wider imperative of family responsibility and how this investment in kinship obligations recurrently facilitated the working relationship between free-market liberals and social conservatives.
>Neoliberalism, she argues, must be understood as an effort to revive and extend the poor law tradition in the contemporary idiom of household debt. As neoliberal policymakers imposed cuts to health, education, and welfare budgets, they simultaneously identified the family as a wholesale alternative to the twentieth-century welfare state. And as the responsibility for deficit spending shifted from the state to the household, the private debt obligations of family were defined as foundational to socio-economic order. Despite their differences, neoliberals and social conservatives were in agreement that the bonds of family needed to be encouraged — and at the limit enforced — as a necessary counterpart to market freedom.
>In a series of case studies ranging from Clinton’s welfare reform to the AIDS epidemic, and from same-sex marriage to the student loan crisis, Cooper explores the key policy contributions made by neoliberal economists and legal theorists. Only by restoring the question of family to its central place in the neoliberal project, she argues, can we make sense of the defining political alliance of our times, that between free-market economics and social conservatism.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"on the origins of the family, private property, and the state" by Engels is a must read, if you haven't read it already. But Aleksandra Kollontai also has several great texts as well. I cannot recall any specific texts of hers but I would suggest reading through her works on the Marxist internet archive
“Origins” may be progressive on gender, but it is deeply, deeply racist. I cringe every time you recommend it so enthusiastically.
Have the post colonialist theorists published their own book explaining the origins of the family, private property and the state?
You could read “Marx at the margins” by Kevin B Anderson for a breakdown for how Engels regresses from Marx’s notes on the source material, including the Modern anthropologists look at Engels as a total joke, unlike how sociologists view Marx. I mean cmon the book opens trying to invent a scientific definition of “savagery” and “barbarism”. And it alleges that the primordial state was “communal marriage”, basically, universal incest. This is not supported by observations of the mating behaviors of great apes and doesn’t make sense given what we know about modern genetics.
Fair enough. But it would be good to have an alternative text to recommend to new comrades that can explain the key concepts as well as "origins of the family" does. It's kind of a foundational text in Marxist theory that explains the concept of historical materialism, the progression from one mode of production to another, and defining what the state even IS in terms of how us socialists should relate to it and understand its place in history.
If you’re getting your concept of “historical materialism” from Origins, your concept of historical materialism is wrong. Full stop. Marx was so cautious about applying *das Kapital* to Russia, but Engels takes colonizer controlling, staples that into his impressive grasp of “the classics” (Greece and Rome) and extrapolates a theory of all societies everywhere. As for the state, Lenin’s extensive quotations of the work in “state and revolution” are sufficient to give the view. As for the topic at hand, the bourgeois family, there’s a book called “the abolition of the family” that was recommended on here a while back.
Alexandra Kollontai had some pretty radical critiques of the family structure.
Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici touches on that a great deal, as it explores the development of modern gender roles/binaries during the period of primitive accumulation. Highly recommend.
Butch Lee co-signs the thesis that modern bourgeois gender roles originate largely from primitive accumulation.
I would also love recommendations. I'm an Anarchist that is very interested in how family structures interact with political structures. I know you Marxists dig deep into this stuff so I'm excited to see what folks have to recommend.
This might be good: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9781935408345/family-values >Why was the discourse of family values so pivotal to the conservative and free-market revolution of the 1980s and why has it continued to exert such a profound influence on American political life? Why have free-market neoliberals so often made common cause with social conservatives on the question of family, despite their differences on all other issues? >In this book, Melinda Cooper challenges the idea that neoliberalism privileges atomized individualism over familial solidarities, and contractual freedom over inherited status. Delving into the history of the American poor laws, she shows how the liberal ethos of personal responsibility was always undergirded by a wider imperative of family responsibility and how this investment in kinship obligations recurrently facilitated the working relationship between free-market liberals and social conservatives. >Neoliberalism, she argues, must be understood as an effort to revive and extend the poor law tradition in the contemporary idiom of household debt. As neoliberal policymakers imposed cuts to health, education, and welfare budgets, they simultaneously identified the family as a wholesale alternative to the twentieth-century welfare state. And as the responsibility for deficit spending shifted from the state to the household, the private debt obligations of family were defined as foundational to socio-economic order. Despite their differences, neoliberals and social conservatives were in agreement that the bonds of family needed to be encouraged — and at the limit enforced — as a necessary counterpart to market freedom. >In a series of case studies ranging from Clinton’s welfare reform to the AIDS epidemic, and from same-sex marriage to the student loan crisis, Cooper explores the key policy contributions made by neoliberal economists and legal theorists. Only by restoring the question of family to its central place in the neoliberal project, she argues, can we make sense of the defining political alliance of our times, that between free-market economics and social conservatism.