>bonobos literally ended up in communism by accident
>communism led to bonobos being matriarchal
>matriarchy means there's no reason for monogamy to exist
>polygamy reigns
>INCEST
I propose a theory. A theory that is literally poison to our chimp brains.
The only reason why incest is a socio-cultural-legal taboo for us is because we ended up with monogamy.
1. Patriarchy emerges from males competing over, and accumulating, scarce resources.
2. This results in a select number of males monopolizing violence and living like kings with harems.
3. But as the population expands, there is a need for a greater capacity for violence, which exceeds the capabilities of the select number of males.
4. Monogamy emerges as a means of "bribing" the unlucky males without harems, to serve the ruling class males, and act as agents of violence when necessary, essentially retaining the order.
5. But as the population expands further, population control, social engineering in other words, becomes realized as a necessity for retaining the order.
6. Inbreeding is bad for the order. If on average an unlucky male gets one partner, and that partner is a parent or sibling, there is a high likelihood that the offspring of that male will become dead weight for the ruling class of males.
7. Thus, inevitably, demonizing incest becomes a necessity.
Does this basically mean communism will have incest? Yes. Not because incest is good, or because communists will preach incest, but simply because the forces that made incest taboo will cease to exist.
Imagine the reaction of present-day proletarians if you told them this. Absolute disgust, right? But how do we resolve the contradiction… That communism will destroy the very conception of "normality" for present-day proletarians. I mean, we don't even need to speak of the incest, even the polygamy, or god forbid, MILFs leading society through the power of motherhood and sexy times, would elicit disgust from present-day proletarians.
Is it a tragedy or a comedy?
>>2289018Your confusion stems from the erroneous myth that humans were ever matriarchal.
https://medium.com/verve-up/bonobos-and-the-myth-of-matriarchy-6ea71be10bf0As 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.
>>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 dominancePatriarchy 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 malesThere is no ruling class.
>women cant build class societyAmazon 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 menWomen 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 apesFirstly, 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.
>>2289178That 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.
>>2289115>there is no ruling class, but we would live in a matriarchydo you know what matriarchy means?
"mater" - mother
"archien" - to rule
how can women "rule" without rulers? you are just being contradictory
>women will own their own bodies and be promiscuousunlike now?
>>2289119"savage" is a noun which refers to the uncivilised. before agriculture, everyone is savage. civilisation of course, is just more and more organised violence.
>>2289239>you are just being contradictoryThere'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 ownOf 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-JustIs it a tragedy or a comedy?
>>2289250Yes. And bonobos are specifically considered
matriarchal.
>>2289256>There's nothing contradictory about motherhood being matriarchalyou are equating motherhood and matriarchy
do we have matriarchy today?
>>2289016>>2289018>>2289044God 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.
>>2289305Yes. Fatherhood. As another anon pointed out, there is no such thing as fatherhood in polygamy.
>>2289325Engels literally uses the term patriarchy in
>>2289118It'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 saythe 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?
>>2289374Anon, there were no human matriarchies… Humans have been living in scarcity since day 1. Based on current evidence. See
>>2289024The evidence of monogamy among our oldest human ancestors is precisely evidence of scarcity.
>>2289375Do 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 >>2289118Cool, 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 theoryIdeology as far as the eye can see.
>>2289024>>2289383Agricultural 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.
>>2289475Communalism. Is not. Communism.
>>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 recordsThere 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 manI 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.
>>2290455You 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 theoryyeah 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>Muh MOP semantics argumentOk 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.
Unique IPs: 25