The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING
- This topic has 216 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:Emma Goldman was an individualist anarchist who held, as they do, that the majority was always wrong and that all progress comes from the action of "intelligent minorities" (like her). Not one of us.
I know. Some of our minority supporters in this forum should approve her actions. Doesn't she fit in the so called idea of the Electoral college of the us presidential election ?
rodmanlewis wrote:ALB wrote:In fact I'm not sure what an "addition [sic] to matrimony" might be.Bigamist? Masochist? Creature of habit?
Serial monogamist perhaps but in the sense of a series of legal arrangements? Anyway, Prakash's strictures seem to be addressed to men.
What about poliandry?
mcolome1 wrote:What about poliandry?You had me search 'Polyandry'. This is not a bad piece.https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-husbands-makes-sense/272726/
Matt wrote:mcolome1 wrote:What about polyandry?You had me search 'Polyandry'. This is not a bad piece.https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-husbands-makes-sense/272726/
It looks like Engels was not so mistaken as they have said, Polyandry was also practiced outside of the Greek and Roman world. Most peoples that want to negate the existence of Polynadry in the human society are relgious leaders to justify Monogamy. It also indicates that Engels made certain contributions to Anthropology
There is a classic in the anthropological literature called "Political systems in Highland Burma" by Edmund Leach which touches on the subject of polyandry. Its ages since I read the book but I think Leach offers what are basically environmental reasons as to why polyandry occurs among the Kachin people living in the mountains – something to do with migration of male labour to the valleys below where work is more plentiful though I might be quite wrong about this. Polyandry seems to be concentrated in places like Burma (Myanmar), Tibet and Malaysia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_IndiaWhile living in Kerala i was told by a very reliable local that in some hill villages polyandry was still practised.
This is the 2nd part of my reply to ALB's comment dated 23 March 2017. In the first part of my reply, I pointed to the fact that a veggie diet or a non-veggie diet happens to be something indispensable to life, and so it cannot be bracketed with smoking, drinking, gambling, taking drugs or the luxury of matrimony, NONE of which is not only something you need to live or something that has got anything meaningful you can expect to derive from it but something that deserves to be viewed as harmless. I also tried to bring home to you the fact that because communism is FUNDAMENTALLY opposed to matrimony, if you approve of someone's indulgence, as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao disgustingly relished such things, in the luxury of matrimony, there really happens to exist NO good reason why you should disapprove of their indulgence in stuff like smoking, drinking, gambling, or giving and taking bribes as well as a most important point, namely the fact that a communist party is NOT just any political party just as a communist canNOT be regarded as just any political activist. I also brought to your notice the fact that there truly exists NO justification for someone's infantile whim, such as that of a drug addict or someone addicted to matrimony or family life, to want, like kids, to play the make-believe that they're communists, and for this reason a true communist party cannot approve of such silly acts. ' … should members be expelled if they get marries ? Should we refuse to admit new members who are married? I don't think so. ' May I ask you why you ' don't think so ' ? May I ask you what meaningful purpose those silly ' members ' with nasty taste, so silly that they have yet to awake to the simple truth that it makes sense and becomes humans, beings superior to all other beings, to live a healthy and meaningful life, and so nasty their taste is that they find NOTHING wrong with their indulgence in something as obnoxious as matrimony. something that happens to be the second most odious thing whereas the most odious stuff to my eyes happens to be the act of killing a girl after gang raping her, has served thus far, and what meaningful purpose you expect them to serve in the future ? It passes my comprehension why such unenlightened people as those silly ' members ' should fancy themselves as communists, and why a true communist party should oblige them by recognising them, people that it knows are NOT communists, as true communist. My dear friend, did you ever before thought over all these points ?In regard to matrimony, I'd like you NOT to fail to take cognisance of the following points. ( 1 ) Matrimony has got NO merits. ( 2 ) Matrimony, true or a travesty of it, happens to be FUNDAMENTALLY antifeminine.( 3 ) Half the sky ( i.e. the entire womanhood ) have got NOTHING truly meaningful to derive from matrimony. ( 4 ) A man is NOT a lion of a man. ( I define a lion of a man as a guy with capacity to make a worthy husband, and by a worthy hubby, I mean a guy with capacity he need be possessed of in order to be able to fully and properly discharge his matrimonial duties and obligations, i.e. to ensure the financial and social security as well as a dcent lifestyle of all his family members and to ensure decent upbringing of all his kids, et cetera. ) ( 5 ) Matrimony performs NO meaningful role in an individual's life. ( 6 ) Matrimony performs NO meaningful role in society or the State. ( 7 ) All advanced civilisations along with some backward ones like India recognise and respect relationships outside of marriages and fruits of such relationships as ' natural children ' or ' biological children ', et cetera.
You need to spell out clearly what do you mean by "matrimony"? Is it the legal act of getting married? If that's what you mean, then you are right that it doesn't serve any purpose except in relation to the couple's property or tax status or who pays for the upkeep of their children. Since these won't be issues in socialism, where every man, woman and child will have free access to satisfy their material needs, it won't make sense in a socialist/communist society.But of course we are living in a capitalist society where such matters can't be ignored by individuals and it's up to individuals to decide how they navigate such issues, not for Socialists to tell them what to do. The State doesn't ignore these issues either as it doesn't want the responsibility of paying for the upkeep of children, "natural" or otherwise. Or do you mean "cohabiting" without the sanction of the state, as an increasing number do now? But even here the State's courts have a tendency to take this into account when sharing out property in case of separation or obligations to pay for the upkeep of any children ."Matrimony" is a contract between property owners and the courts are interpreting "cohabiting" an implicit contract too. It's capitalist private property society that makes these matters a problem. Refusing to get legally married won't make them go away.
[ This is the 3rd part of my reply to ALB's comment dated 23 March 2017. ]And did you ever care to think over the point that if socialism approves of the membership of those silly spineless people that seem to be unable, like Lenin, Mao, Leninists, and Maoists, to stay alive without the stuff like matrimony, the same way as a drug addict must take drugs in order to survive, the distinctions between scientific socialism ( i.e. communism ) and democratic socialism just disappears ? How would you differentiate a communist and a democratic socialist, I wonder. Just because matrimony and private property are inseparable, both historically and logically, if you approve of one of them, you canNOT, by any sound logic, refuse to approve of the other. And further, private property forms the basis matrimony is resting on. You canNOT make an edifice stay erect without its foundation, can you ? Approving of the stuff like private property implies approving of the division of society into the propertied class and the non-propertied class, RIGHT ? This is certain to lead to the approval of the exploitation of the non-propertied millions by the propertied few simply because in a class-ridden, unequal society, the non-propertied millions must consent to being EXPLOITED by the propertied in order to survive. The non-propertied must sell their LABOUR POWER, the only saleable stuff ( commodity ) they're in possession of to the propertied, i.e. the capitalists, the only people that own the capital needed to purchase their labour power and thus earn some money they need to buy the bare necessities of life for the SURVIVAL of themselves and their nearest and dearest ones, OK ? Thus, it ought to be clear as day now to the sensible that the approval of matrimony means, in turn, the approving of private property, the exploitation of man by man, the wage slavery, the production and exchange of commodities, the concentration of wealth at one pole accompanied by the impoverishment of millions at the other, et cetera, et cetera. Furthermore, there still remains the IRRECONCILABLE contradiction between yourself as a husband and as a father of your kids and yourself as the member of the communist party. As the husband and as the father of your kids, you're bound to spend all of your time and earnings to ensure the social and financial security and decent lifestyle of your spouse and children and decent upbringing of your children, et cetera, i.e. to discharge your matrimonial and familial duties and obligations. Nevertheless, as a communist, you have to spend all your time and money on COMMUNIST missions you must accomplish, RIGHT ?
Prakash RP wrote:Nevertheless, as a communist, you have to spend all your time and money on COMMUNIST missions you must accomplish, RIGHT ?No, but I'm beginning to see what you're getting it and don't agree with it. It implies that socialists will be only an ascetic self-sacrificing minority. We hold that socialism (or communism, the same thing) can only come into being when a majority want it, i.e it depends on majority political action, but you are never going to get a majority to behave as you propose. Besides, getting legally married is no more necessarily "approving matrimony" than using money is approving money.
Prakash RP wrote:[ This is the 3rd part of my reply to ALB's comment dated 23 March 2017. ]And did you ever care to think over the point that if socialism approves of the membership of those silly spineless people that seem to be unable, like Lenin, Mao, Leninists, and Maoists, to stay alive without the stuff like matrimony, the same way as a drug addict must take drugs in order to survive, the distinctions between scientific socialism ( i.e. communism ) and democratic socialism just disappears ? How would you differentiate a communist and a democratic socialist, I wonder. Just because matrimony and private property are inseparable, both historically and logically, if you approve of one of them, you canNOT, by any sound logic, refuse to approve of the other. And further, private property forms the basis matrimony is resting on. You canNOT make an edifice stay erect without its foundation, can you ? Approving of the stuff like private property implies approving of the division of society into the propertied class and the non-propertied class, RIGHT ? This is certain to lead to the approval of the exploitation of the non-propertied millions by the propertied few simply because in a class-ridden, unequal society, the non-propertied millions must consent to being EXPLOITED by the propertied in order to survive. The non-propertied must sell their LABOUR POWER, the only saleable stuff ( commodity ) they're in possession of to the propertied, i.e. the capitalists, the only people that own the capital needed to purchase their labour power and thus earn some money they need to buy the bare necessities of life for the SURVIVAL of themselves and their nearest and dearest ones, OK ? Thus, it ought to be clear as day now to the sensible that the approval of matrimony means, in turn, the approving of private property, the exploitation of man by man, the wage slavery, the production and exchange of commodities, the concentration of wealth at one pole accompanied by the impoverishment of millions at the other, et cetera, et cetera. Furthermore, there still remains the IRRECONCILABLE contradiction between yourself as a husband and as a father of your kids and yourself as the member of the communist party. As the husband and as the father of your kids, you're bound to spend all of your time and earnings to ensure the social and financial security and decent lifestyle of your spouse and children and decent upbringing of your children, et cetera, i.e. to discharge your matrimonial and familial duties and obligations. Nevertheless, as a communist, you have to spend all your time and money on COMMUNIST missions you must accomplish, RIGHT ?It appears that is only room for men on your ascetic high horse, presumably women aren't allowed to climb up there, despite making up approximartely 50% of the working class.I think I'll decline the offer of climbing up there with you, it sounds a pretty miserable place!
In this forum we get all kind of inventions, this is like the yunkyard of all the reformists. We never get peoples trying to get information about our principles, or about the real concept of socialism. We need workers searching for new ideasThis is just another branch of the so called green socialism, we do not have to be vegetarian in order to be socialists, there are thousands of reactionaries and peoples with backward ideas who are vegetarian
jondwhite wrote:Is this brocialism?Dunno, never heard of it. Has it something to do with a particular brand of vegetarianism that favours the consumption of broccoli?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.