/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2289018
Your confusion stems from the erroneous myth that humans were ever matriarchal.
https://medium.com/verve-up/bonobos-and-the-myth-of-matriarchy-6ea71be10bf0
As far as current evidence stands, we were always living like chimps, dealing with scarcity. There is no "contradiction" of matriarchy if there is no scarcity.

Well, to be more precise. There is evidence that chimps have changed more than bonobos. Meaning it is possible that we have a common ancestor with them that was bonobo-like. But this common ancestor wouldn't have been human.

Well. I think that, and Engels here agrees with me, the people of the future will decide on their cultural practices. So incest is a possibility. Now the other question: the question of incest is not relevant for the organization of proletarian dictatorship, so we don't need to acknowledge it in our agitation.

>>2289018
Historically speaking the closer a culture was to primitive communism the less patriarchal it was. You can see this clearly among Indigenous people in the Americas, where those societies which had developed or begun to develop classes (Mesoamerican and West Coast nations) were patriarchal while those which were still existing in a primitive communist state (Northeastern Woodlands peoples, etc.) had rough gender equality. The Romans reported similar things about the status of women among the Germans and Celts.

>>2289027
<There is no "contradiction" of matriarchy if there is no scarcity.
Patriarchy arises from scarcity. Matriarchy arises from abundance. If communism means abundance, communism means matriarchy.
>>2289033
>gender dominance
Patriarchy is a ruling class of select males dominating society. Patriarchy itself is class society.
Matriarchy is NOT a ruling class of select females dominating society. Matriarchy itself is the state of a LACK of class society.
I would understand the confusion if you were an anarchist thinking "matriarchy means authority, and authority bad", but c'mon, you can't think about it for 5 minutes as a communist? What do you suppose happens when you eliminate classes? Does motherhood cease to exist? Does sex cease to exist? You don't think it logically follows that in the absence of a ruling class, mothers and promiscuous women would not end up mediating social affairs, via motherhood and sex? Because that's literally bonobos. Who live in communism. Abundance.

>>2289102
>females dominate over males
There is no ruling class.
>women cant build class society
Amazon fantasies are schlocky sci-fi conventions with no material basis. There is literally no such society in history where select females are a ruling class. This would also make sense to you if you thought about it for 5 minutes.
>women are naturally worshipped by men
Women in communism own their bodies. They do with them as they please, generally speaking. With no slut shaming, women have no reason not to engage in polygamy. There is no "worship" required in this equation.
>we should live like apes
Firstly, by biological classification, humans are apes. Secondly, it makes sense that in an environment of abundance, humans would end up resembling bonobos. Of course, humans have different needs. But these needs will be met all the same. Humans won't literally live like bonobos, of course, but they will live in abundance, in communism that is to say, and that is the point of commonality with bonobo life.

another "great" thread that wouldn't happen if people read theory

>>2289018
Why are you presuming primitivism is the savage tendency when agriculture and industrialism have fed far greater violence than was ever dreamed of by hunter-gatherers?

>>2289118
Where's the lie? Show it.

>>2289127
I showed you the book, read it

If men have no idea who their children are, then they should also have no part in raising children and marraige should be forbidden.

>>2289168
I read the book years ago. What's your point?

>>2289170
<In bonobos, males do not directly participate in raising the young. The primary parental care and responsibility for offspring development and survival are entirely borne by the mothers. While males are friendly towards offspring, they don't engage in any actions related to child-rearing or nurturing, according to Apenheul.
There's no "should". It plays out exactly like that. Marriage is a product of class society.

>>2289172
What does the book say specifically about incest then?

>>2289178
That the first forms of organized human communities engaged in incest? The consanguine family? Except he states himself that this is an a priori assumption on his part. That since cousin incest is commonly documented, at some point sibling and parental incest must have been a thing. Except we know today that cousin incest is magnitudes "safer" than sibling or parental incest, which would track with the commonality of it.

What's your point?

Engels also disregarded examining apes for clues, on account of the lack of ape research. Except you know, he was writing from the 19th fucking century. We literally know today that chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest relatives with ''99% of DNA shared'.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were one of those "communists" who doesn't bother to consider the historical circumstances of a given text and treats it as a Bible. Real intellectual display, right there.

>>2289016
>The only reason why incest is a socio-cultural-legal taboo for us is because we ended up with monogamy.
are you sure?

>>2289199
>"the ruling class operates on the same rules as everyone else"
The first Slavic ruler documented in history, some Frankish merchant named Samo that helped Slavs rebel against their mobster-like Avar "friends" (as in, I will "protect" you while eating your food and sleeping with your wife and daughters which of course you "consent" to under no intimidation at all) had like a dozen or more wives or some shit.

>>2289193
But these tendencies in peoples in cultures and the tendency of monogamy itself developed with the mode of production, the very premise of this thread is absurd. We don't have to worry about how people will have sex in the future and sell and explain that to people today, it's going to emerge on its own alongside conditions they find themselves in. We aren't primitivists, we don't have to worry about bonobos because we are going forwards from here not backwards to there.

Also people in this thread keep mixing up "matriarchal" with "matrilineal", humanity was likely matrilineal if you go back far enough and Engels talks about that but its not the same thing as rule by women.

>>2289239
>you are just being contradictory
There's nothing contradictory about motherhood being matriarchal, Mr. Anarchist. But if you would suggest that mothers are a class, I would like you to elaborate on their relations to the means of production. I really would like that.
>>2289234
>it's going to emerge on its own
Of course it will emerge on its own. The irony of this thread is discussing what is likely to emerge given what we know about communism, and how it's rather twisted that what is likely to emerge the very carriers of the revolution would find revolting if they knew. But perhaps that is the fate of all revolutions in general?

<“You never go so far as when you don’t know where you are going.”
>-Oliver Cromwell

<“The force of circumstances perhaps leads us to results we had not thought of.”
>-Louis de Saint-Just

Is it a tragedy or a comedy?
>>2289250
Yes. And bonobos are specifically considered matriarchal.

>>2289265
Matriarchy is literally motherhood by the etymology you posted. "Mother rule". Motherhood. I don't even know what is this schizophrenic definitional collapse about at this point. Are you literate? Are you able to understand two things? When does patriarchy emerge, when does matriarchy emerge?

A thread died for this.

>>2289016
>>2289018
>>2289044
God damn, patriarchy can be pro-trans, anti-trans, pro-woman, anti-woman, pro-man, anti-man, timeless, universal, and contradictory all at once. What a useless framework with no explanatory power, a floating signifier stretched to cover everything, and in doing so, explains nothing. It has been stretched so far it now functions as a catch-all moral framing device, not a material analysis.

>Patriarchy itself is class society.
I imagine if that were true, communists would've called it the ruling gender and not CLASS.

Patriarchy is not a synonym for ruling material force. Your middling ability to condense patriarchy into a material force - it has instead taken on metaphysical qualities like a God - indicates the idealist, immaterial nature of the concept.

You must prove patriarchy is the transhistorical force determining material conditions for all people on earth for your arguments to adhere.

>>2289305
Yes. Fatherhood. As another anon pointed out, there is no such thing as fatherhood in polygamy.
>>2289325
Engels literally uses the term patriarchy in >>2289118
It's not very hard to grasp. It's an onion. The exact progression, we don't know, it's open to interpretation. The center of the onion is most likely scarcity, or perhaps sex differences and then scarcity. The last layer of the onion is capitalism. Patriarchy would be among the first layers. Each layer is "built" on the foundation of the previous one. Even now, literally in an era of unprecedented abundance, we live under scarcity. Because of capitalism. Do you understand? This isn't quantum physics. Should be pretty evident, if you just think about it for 5 minutes.

>>2289204
>some greentext I didn't say
<some response to the greentext I didn't say

the joke was that incest leads to inbred freaks. I simply used the habsburgs and the romanovs as an example. i wasnt saying or implying "the ruling class operates on the same rules as everyone else"

capiche?

>>2289362
Well anon, it sounded like you were implying: inbred royals, ergo monogamy didn't stop incest. Which would be a ridiculous argument, given the structure of class society.

>matriarchy means there's no reason for monogamy to exist
I ascribe to matriarchal communalism theory, but this is just not the case, monogamy/polygamy has to do with MOP moving from hunting to agricultural meaning now men had to worry about production and got less nutrition. IE scarcity based society vs abundance society.
This means that there was monogamy prior to polygamy, naturally, it was a non issue under paleolithic matriarchy, only under neolithic matriarchy.

>>2289374
Anon, there were no human matriarchies… Humans have been living in scarcity since day 1. Based on current evidence. See >>2289024
The evidence of monogamy among our oldest human ancestors is precisely evidence of scarcity.
>>2289375
Do I have to spoonfed you or are you capable of scrolling up and keeping up with the discussion?

>>2289357
>Engels literally uses the term patriarchy in >>2289118
Cool, doesn't change anything I've said about how meaningless the term is for explaining anything, especially today. It's not like Marx and Engels said this instead: "The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations." The division of labor was constructed by a ruling material force composed of both men and women.

Retards love misattributing the actions of the ruling class –or ruling material force– to "the patriarchy" and repeatedly working from that position whenever they get called out for their circular reasoning.

It's 2025 and morons are still trying to construct their hyperspecific ideal "communist societies" in their minds.

>>2289374
>I ascribe to matriarchal communalism theory
Ideology as far as the eye can see.

>>2289024
>>2289383
Agricultural scarcity as a MOP and megafauna based hunting scarcity are fundamentally different things man, I won't argue with you further on this.
Your Medium article doesn't contradict years of studies.
-Men in the paleolithic were 6'2 on average because of megafauna. The caloric intake was far greater and more bountiful in the past compared to agriculture which while a good way to stay alive is non nutritious.
-Fundamentally because human PRODUCERS became a thing in these societies, the rise of agriculture and end of the ice age caused a documented hypergamous market, also implying women had some level of control and influence.
Call it matrilineal with women in certain positions of power then if you hate the matriarchy word, but it happened. I'm sorry it doesn't meet your articles crypotfascist definition of "Women must be stronger than men because might makes right" as matriarchy, but it did.
Also
>his is how these myths — and almost all the others — explain and justify the sexist and misogynist treatment of females. We tricked you! We stole your power! We rose up! How dare we?
We literally have proof that men were second class citizens in these societies.
If it wasn't a matriarchy, it was, Allah forgive me for using this word, Simp Societies up until patriarchy came by.
No it also wasn't by conquering, it was because patriarchies and pastoralist MOP was more fit to withstand the mini ice age near 3000 b.c. which cause agricultural collapse, and Yamnaya way of life to be adopted willingly by many neighboring cultures in Europe. It makes sense that far north or far south "matrilineal" cultures like Minoans or Celts survived not only due to island culture until they were invaded or literally flooded by similar ecological disaster, but also being shown to have better treatment of men than continental matriarchies. Perhaps due to fishing and a knowledge that animal and protein rather than plant based diets were better for recovery and thus more stable.
This also however meant that those societies weren't ready for patriarchal cultures, which were more well adapted for technological advance a necessity across material dialectics.
Tldr; Your article is fascistic, and you're using "muh nature" arguments against historical records.
>>2289475
Communalism. Is not. Communism.

>>2289474
we have sent your complaints in a letter to Engels and await his response

>>2289526
>Call it matrilineal with women in certain positions of power then if you hate the matriarchy word, but it happened.
You didn't even read the thread. Matrilineal -//- matriarchy.
>historical records
There is no matriarchy in the historical record. If bonobos are considered to live in a matriarchal system, there is no human equivalent to this in the past. At best, as other anons have pointed out, you have "egalitarian" ("less patriarchal") societies.
Also, I didn't say anything about the ideology of the author of the medium article. But the point about bonobos and the lack of a human equivalent is factual.
>Agricultural scarcity as a MOP and megafauna based hunting scarcity are fundamentally different things man
I don't even know what you're trying to imply.

>>2290060
>I don't even know what you're trying to imply.
I literally answer it in the post itself by explaining caloric density and the anthropological effects it had.
You would know all this if you read about actual anthropology and not a Medium article talking about monkeys. Yes I know OP talked about monkeys but in my first post I told him he was also wrong about a lot regarding what he said too. Communal matrilineal societies where men were in fact second class citizens compared to women, were the dominant MOP during the paleo to Neolithic and that's something factual.

>>2290455
You keep using the term "MOP", I'm assuming mode of production. I don't think you know what it means. "Agriculture" is not a mode of production. Agriculture existed in slave societies, agriculture existed in feudal societies, agriculture exists in capitalism. What is this theory you have you been reading?

Your continued confusion of matrilineal and matriarchy likewise, an error which not even Engels in the 19th century would commit, leads me to believe you are deeply confused. All searches I've conducted have only confirmed there was never a human matriarchy.

>>2289016
>I propose a theory
yeah nah that feel like unbacked bullshit
I much prefer cockshott "how the world works" theory for the emergence of patriarchy

<2.4 WAR, PATRIARCHY, RELIGION, AND THE LAWS OF STATISTICS

>For warfare to exist you need something to fight over. Whereas warfare in pure hunter-gatherer societies seems rare [Fry, 2007; Ryan and Jethá, 2012] it has been common in societies with either herding or at least some form of agriculture. It is clear that once cattle or other beasts are herded they can be stolen, and can be the object of a war party. But fighting is not limited to what Smith called Nations of Shepherds, formidable as these have been.15 Nations and tribes that combine some hoe horticulture with hunting have been warlike. Why?

>According to Meillassoux [1981] the motive for the conflict was the capture not of cattle but young women. Pure hunter-gatherer societies are nomadic, with no fixed villages, and mobility of people between wandering small bands. Agriculture ties people down. He argues that the initial form of family in the transition to agriculture is the matrilocal, which means a society in which adult women stay in their mother’s home or community. Insofar as there is mobility between communities, it is the men who move, seeking wives in other communities.
>In principle either sex can move. You can have a matrilocal system where women stay in their birthplace and the men move, or patrilocal communities where the reverse happens. Although these seem logically to be no more than mirror images, their economic effects are actually very different. The reproductive potential of a community is set by how many young women, rather than young men, it has. This has serious implications for relatively small communities, ones that are not yet able to fully support themselves through the whole year by agriculture. Such communities have to be small relative to their hinterland to prevent the exhaustion of the available game. Within such small groups the laws of chance mean that the numbers of each sex coming of age will fluctuate.
>Suppose that we have a small community in which each generation coming of age has on average 40 people. We would expect about half of these to be young women, but as figure 2.8 shows, the number of women could vary between 0 and 40. >There is about a 30 percent percent chance that in a given generation there would be fewer than 18 women, a shortfall of 4 women relative to men in their age group. This would presage a 10 percent fall in the population over the next generation. In smaller communities the effect is more marked. A community of 8 families would end up with fewer than 6 young women about 22 percent of the time. But a shortfall of 4 women in this small community implies a shrinkage of the population by a quarter, which would threaten the future survival of the community, bearing in mind that not all of these may be fertile, some may die young, etc.
>In principle some of the young men could leave and try to join another community with a surplus of women, but what often seems to have happened, according to Meillassoux, is that the men raid neighboring communities and abduct young women. Given that the community still depends partly on hunting, the men are skilled in the use of bows and arrows, and these skills transfer readily from hunting to raiding.

>This leads to endemic hostility and suspicion between communities. Men acquire the social role of warrior both to abduct women from other groups and to protect their own women. Such societies may remain matrilineal, with children being brought up in a relatively communal household with their uncles playing what we would regard as a paternal role. There may be no system of strict monogamy. But the beginnings of the collective dominance of men over women exist. Men as hunters and warriors develop ideologies that represent them as protectors and heroes and which justify relegating women to what are presented as menial horticultural tasks. In particular the abducted women, cut off from their own community, are likely to be in a very subordinate position.

>>2290561
sedentary agriculture vs hunting and gathering and nomadic pastoralism are different modes of production. how you organize social relations to agriculture are also different modes of production.

>>2290561
>Muh MOP semantics argument
Ok bro.
Let's ignore that agriculture had something of a bringing of slave MOP with it that hunter gatherer MOP didn't and just say neither of those were modes of production.
Because you'll just keep on deflecting my arguments with pointless and trivial definition argumentations, I must now pull out my trap card and simply point out that Engels and Morgan both said matriarchies were a part of the stages of development in The Origin of the state, family, and private property. Morgan himself emphasizes how important women were in managerial positions in ancient civilizations.
If you are disagreeing with what I am saying, you also disagree with Morgan and Engels.
If that is the case that is fine but then you are admitting you are putting radical feminist theory above Marxism and therefore must turn in your socialist card and go back to reddit on /r/twoxchromosomes.

>>2290981
>I must now pull out my trap card and simply point out that Engels and Morgan both said matriarchies were a part of the stages of development in The Origin of the state, family, and private property.
That's true. But I don't treat the text as sacred. Anthropology didn't end in 1884. his seems to be the consensus among anthropologists today, that it's historically important and raises important questions, but that the conclusions don't necessarily match with empirical evidence. I fail to see how this contradicts with being a communist.

I would like, if you are not feeling lazy, to throw some of those sources talking about men being subservient to women ("second class citizens") at me, so I can figure out what you were referring to and if this matches the "egalitarian" model or if these are just matrifocal societies. I am open to changing my opinion, but I must first see what you were talking about in the first place. You don't have to dig up academic journals, any sources will do.

>>2291600
how do you find empirical evidence for something like patriarchy or matriarchy in a pre-writing civilization?

>>2291620
Archeological findings. Oral history. Study of still-living tribes. Et cetera.
Literally you're asking me how does anthropology work.

>>2289366
Let me spell it out for you. OP said
>The only reason why incest is a socio-cultural-legal taboo for us is because we ended up with monogamy.
I posted pictures of inbred royals. What I intended to imply by that is not anything about the ruling class, but that heavily inbred people are terribly deformed, have diseases, and live short painful lives. This is a material incentive against incest. Monogamy is one of the results of the taboo against incest, not its cause. The main reason for the taboo against incest is that back when humans practiced incest without care, it resulted in a lot of deformed inbred peopel who lived short painful lives. Once people connected cause and effect, the inceast taboo was put into place. The royals however, were indeed immune to the taboo due to their need to preserve theri blood lines. Which is why you have this weird situation where royals end up more inbred than the subject population.

>>2291650
well yeah but if we are trying to investigate if matriarchal societies existing pre-agriculture were talking really really old, like no surviving ancestors or tradition type old, and writing was invented after agriculture

>you're asking me how does anthropology work
why would the consensus agree with engels if there is no evidence? or did you mean the consensus disagrees with engels and there have been new evidence discovered about pre-agricultural societies after 1884?

you said its consensus. so naturally i want to know how you know that and second how they came to that consensus. presumably there is empirical evidence for it? im not an anthropologist.

also whats the difference between matrilineal and matriarchy matrifocal

>>2291657
<Explanations for the rise of monogamy in agricultural societies in the spirit of Alexander [23] and Henrich et al. [24] develop the idea that powerful leaders might have imposed monogamy on the masses because such a marriage norm leads to greater in-group male–male cooperation, improving the success of the group in inter-group contests (including warfare) [26].
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6073648/
The rise of monogamy is attributed to social engineering. It follows that consequently incest would become undesirable. In a population like bonobos, incest is negligible, because "everyone" is mating with "everyone". A sister mates with her brother, that same sister mates with a dozen unrelated males.

>>2291657
>it resulted in a lot of deformed inbred peopel
You're confusing incest as sex with incest as procreation. The current prohibition of incest concerns both, while only the latter would make sense in a vacuum. As OP said it's a direct consequence of monogamy.

>>2291686
The consensus is that matriarchal societies never existed. This article is a good summary.
https://traditionsofconflict.com/blog/2018/3/17/where-are-the-matriarchies

The theory Engels was going off of is called unilineal evolutionary theory. It was in fact the dominant theory of the 19th century. The problem? It's speculative, historically based on assumptions that overlapped with the (colonial/racist) ideology of the day. For example, it was thought (and this is referenced by Engels even) that different groups of indigenous people have different brain sizes based on their diet. Of course we today know that is nonsense, where the hell did they come up with that? Anthropology has moved away from speculation, that is theorizing without proof. When I say empirical evidence doesn't necessarily match Engels's conclusions, I mean there is a lack of empirical evidence corroborating Engels's assumptions, or in the case of brain size, contradicts the assumption.
>also whats the difference between matrilineal and matriarchy matrifocal
Honestly, this is a great question and maybe should've been answered sooner.

Matrilineality - you know how whether a kid is considered Jewish or not is determined based on if the mother is Jewish? Extend that to clan kinship, inheritance, etc. and that's matrilineality in a nutshell. It can exist within patriarchy.

Matrilocality - children are raised with mother's family/community, or husband moves in to live with wife's family/community. It can exist within patriarchy.

Matrifocality - women manage household affairs (for example finances). Common in many countries, as well as obviously single-mother households. It can exist in patriarchy.

Matriarchy - either mirrored patriarchy (Amazon fantasy, materially impossible thus only mentioned for sake of avoiding confusion) or a form of society like bonobos where the mothers are at the center of leadership; they are not a "ruling class", by any sane sense, for class in the Marxist purview is an economic relation. Hence the conclusion being made in this thread that communism = matriarchy.

>>2291817
>This article is a good summary.
It doesn't really talk about historic evidence just contemporary and modern. I don't really think we can get insight from modern hunter gatherers for two reasons, first that they have been influenced by the modern world, and second that its a selection bias and not necessarily representative of how societies were formed when that was the economic mode for all of humanity.

That author is basically making a biological determinist argument about human nature. In his longer article he references he is talking about chimpanzees, but again skips the 250,000 year gap where anatomically modern humans existed but not written history, just assuming that because chimpanzees are a certain way that humans are too.

That also doesn't consider that chimps are under the same pressures as hunter gatherers because of contact with modernity. This doesn't even have to be physical contact but a result of climate change or being forced into particular ecologic zones that are unprofitable to develop, where social arrangements might be different in different conditions. As one anon suggested matriarchy might rise from abundance. I also dont think modern hunter gatherers who almost universally perform some kind of cultivation whether that is livestock or crops, even if they are not necessarily sedentary farmers, is the same thing as what prehistoric humans might have been. If there is evidence I would like to know.

I would really expect a long listing and discussion of archaeological evidence that supports these arguments with numerous examples ranging from 12,000-250,000 years old. Obviously someone can't prove a negative but such an exhaustive list with no matriarchies would be strong evidence.

At then at the end of the second article he includes a chart as evidence to support his hypothesis that patriarchy is a biologically determined trait of humans, showing that chimpanzees are violent. Interestingly it also includes bonobos, which actually ties into the OP. Except the bonobos have zero killings per year, compared the the chimpanzees. But humans are equally* genetically distinct from chimpanzees as we are to bonobos. I dont see how this is any less speculative and it kinda sounds like evopsych.

>>2291864
The author's ideology is not why I linked the article, rather the summary of the anthropological consensus is why I linked it. Of course I don't believe in biological determinism, it's reductionist, fails to account for the fact that the environment works "in tandem" with biology, that species literally change by their material circumstances.

The chimpanzee thing is redundant. As a communist, I believe we share similarities with chimpanzees relative to bonobos due to material factors, not genetics.
<Bonobos and chimpanzees are sister species that are very closely related, having diverged from a common ancestor relatively recently, around 1 to 2 million years ago. This divergence is believed to be linked to the formation of the Congo River, which acted as a geographic barrier, and the subsequent evolution of the two species in different environments.

I have not read the second article. Again, as a communist, I'm really not interested in the author's ideology.

"There's no proof that matriarchies didn't exist at some point" is the same argument as "there's no proof God isn't real".

>>2291875
Well if we are considering that the idea that prehistoric humans were matriarchal, the presumed conditions are of abundance, and that there is some form of "primitive" communism, wouldn't we essentially be saying that it was an-archic but matrianarchic rather than matriarchic. I think this kind of flattens the difference between matrilineal and matriarchic, making it either a mistake in word choice from Engels or a semantic argument. Unless you think the content of his work meant he was talking about a class system with women on top?

Do bonobos even have "leadership"? How would we know. Maybe they are just matrilocal. Can we consider animals to have class systems?

>>2291875
>material factors, not genetics.
like material conditions or ?
The author actually agrees, he essentially says that the violence is created by material conditions, and that it is low or negligible in areas with less human encroachment, but also that genetic sex differences determine humans to be patriarchal, and links this to chimpanzees, saying that patriarchy is a mating strategy and violence is relative to the availability of resources. Hes kind of providing compatibility with Engels in a way, except to say that some amount of conflict is inevitable human nature is to chimp out, but not be a bonobo, for some reason.

If we take a multilineal evolutionary approach instead we end up actually closer to Marx, with communism not being an inevitable outcome of a necessary progression to higher forms but historically dependent on the industrial revolution and a workers revolution, on material conditions. I would hope that Engels point was to echo Marx with a concrete example using an analogy common in academic circles of his time, and not attempting to predict the future with a secret formula that is dependent on the veracity of a particular claim.

>>2291817
>women manage household affairs (for example finances). Common in many countries, as well as obviously single-mother households. It can exist in patriarchy.
Matrifocal, yes thats better than matrianarchic. I couldn't think of a word but this definition is much narrower than what other places tell me. It can exist in patriarchy, but it can also exist without it. And matrifocality, matriliny and matrilocality can also be tied together.

>Anthropologists have begun to use the term matrifocality. There is some debate concerning the terminological delineation between matrifocality and matriarchy. Matrifocal societies are those in which women, especially mothers, occupy a central position. Anthropologist R. T. Smith refers to matrifocality as the kinship structure of a social system whereby the mothers assume structural prominence. The term does not necessarily imply domination by women or mothers.

Wouldn't that be what is being described? And you could still have male violence without patriarchy. Consider conditions of abundance when violence is shunned and the society is matrifocal, matrilineal, and matrilocal, what would we have?