/R9K/ - Robot - 9000

probably bait but whatever, marriage is older than capitalism and monogamy is a mating strategy found in many other species, even other highly social animals like crows and wolves, and when a species isn't monogamous it isn't usually some hippie free-love thing and instead a ruthless competition where they butt heads and constantly fight for mates. in what way has capitalism made us more monogamous? as capitalism has progressed and commodified more of our lives it has done the same thing to bodies and sex as it has to the price of televisions or other "luxury" commodities, the free market with the invention of contraceptives has driven down the cost of sex by atomizing the sexual act, removing it from reproduction!

don't you wonder why monogamy has been the norm in 99% of civilizations since the discovery of agricultural? it's because it is the most stable mating strategy for a long-lived social species that is trying to maintain cohesion and avoid internal strife. if everyone is spending most of their time trying to find, woo, or compete for a mate it is going to affect their cohesion and take up extra time resources that could be put towards making advancements, whereas if you all agree to have only one mate everyone is basically guaranteed to have offspring and can work together and improve your collective living situation because everyone has a stake in it in the form of their children.

birth rates are falling fast in developed nations where sexual and romantic freedom are highest, people are spending more time and energy trying to find a mate and avoid "loneliness" than any time in human history, it is you who has fetishized romance and love by making them separate from the material conditions of reproduction, group cohesion, and child rearing that brought them about in our biology.

>>52
How you actually define capitalism plays a lare role in your understanding of this question. If you actually read "Origin of family and private property" Engels goes on to extrapolate the fact that marriage as an institution arose largely in conjunction with the rise of mercantilism and capitalism through out the fall and development of Feudalism as marriage is (and has always been) a bourgeoisie institution. Also this appeal to nature that your are making about monogamy is lame because even if humans are naturally monogamous something "being natural" doesn't actually say anything about whether or not it is good for us, or, that it is something worth perusing. Now I am not here to bash monogamous relationships. I actually don't really care what for your relationship takes, but, trying to flip[ the script is so dull and lame. Yes many concepts are commodified under capitalism and its precarious that the one concept you seem to cling to (romance) you seem to think is excluded from this fact because it's "natural" or whatever.

>>53
Monogomy is the most stable mating strategy so long as you have an economy dependent upon the production of infinite profits and so long as you require an ever updating and self replicating work force to secure sed profits; agriculture, fedualism, slavery, capitalism, all of these things share one thing in common and that is the commodification of labor and the requirement that one owned class work at the behest of an ownership class and that is the point you are missing.

True freedom; True love, is allowing people the freedom and love to love everyone how they want and how they see fit in a system free of these capitalist relations.

You have a very warped understanding of the world.

>>55
the animal examples were more to show that monogamy isn't an inherently human trait and and showcase it existing outside of human conceptions than an appeal to some natural human state, we wouldn't be having this conversation if all humans were instinctively monogamous would we? I'm trying to show that there are intersectional reasons that monogamy has predominated and that it isn't just class based society.

in the second half you correctly point out but incorrectly analyzed that the reproduction of people is necessary to uphold class based society, but it is not necessarily the other way around, self replication precedes class structure but class structure is not the inevitable result of self replication.

how can we have a communist society if it doesn't also self-replicate? will we have a utopia for a single generation and then disappear? for me communism is desirable because human life and sapience are more valuable to me than the maximization of my own pleasure, if i wanted i could live in heaven for a couple weeks if i just spent all my money on heroin and hookers, and maybe that is what some people want out of socialism, but it isn't replicable in the long run.

yup my view of things is probably pretty messed up, and the pills don't help, just make my dick sad

>>56
The thing you don't understand is that self replication should be a voluntary act committed by two people (or peoples) who enjoy each other. Humans are biologically created to receive rewards through neurotransmitters to seek out this behavior and copulate. This doesn't just go away with the decline of monogamous relationships. People have a biological determination to reproduce not to be with one person. That is the point you are missing is that monogamy and the nuclear family had it's place historically and now that time, along with the subjugation of labor, is coming to a close on the historical stage.

Whether we like of or not you cannot make some one love you more can I me more can we force them to be with us. That is part of being an adult. Understanding that in spite of your desires allowing people the freedom to be happy regardless of your own intentions. This is also the path to the things you desire.

>>51
Capitalism has two factions:

The first faction (that has existed for longer) wants men to buy women as property.
The second faction (that is more recent) wants men to rent women as commodity from a capitalist service provider.

OP strikes me to have aligned with the second faction. And might be trying to manufacture consent by rebranding capitalist development as socialists. This is mildly irritating. Saying this is about monogamy vs polygamy is missing the point, because it lacks class analysis.

Socialist will not pick one of these capitalist factions, they are both very reactionary forces. Commodification of social relations isn't any better. The propertarian faction wants to reduce women to a household appliance and a baby maker for the owner. The commoditarian faction wants to reduce women to a whoring service and surrogate womb provider for the customers. There is no progress here, it's just variation in the method of subjugation. Both methods of subjugation are instruments for the reproduction of class society, and a way for the ruling class to control access to sex and reproduction.

Socialism is going to put the interests of the working class above other interests. If i had to make a guess, a lot of workers, both man and women, will continue to form something similar to traditional families, because that's what they prefer. Other workers will chose to live in different social arrangements. We will try to build appropriate structures regardless. Socialism will have fewer constraining factors because it only needs to reproduce it self at the level of society. The additional hurdles that have to be put in place for reproducing a ruling class will fall away. Without the extra burden of a ruling class social relations will improve somewhat.

>>58
I don't get how you could get that from what I was saying at all considering that several times I explained that its not monogamy that's fucked up bit the expectation that one is owed a monogamous relationship that is fucked up and our society through the inclination of profits drives us to treat eachother (namely women) as commodities where our loves is only valuable to the investments we put into it through our purchases on the market and through mass media that has played a role in sculpting out expectations and enforcing the nuclear family along with the general development of capitalism as a whole.

I don't get how you interpreted what I said as this false dichotomy of "monogamy vs polyamory"." You're missing the point of what I am saying whole still, more or less, getting to the conclusion.


As I said, people should be free to enter into relationships with one another voluntarily and autonomously as they see fit, but, you have to do some level of development on yourself to be able to participate. Or, get a robot wafui.

Bumping

>>57
>Whether we like of or not you cannot make some one love you more can I me more can we force them to be with us. That is part of being an adult. Understanding that in spite of your desires allowing people the freedom to be happy regardless of your own intentions. This is also the path to the things you desire.


Inrony is, this is omething more kids experience. Adults will often use their financial and legal powers to impose their love.

See how men treat their wives and children?

Or how parents in general view their kids when theyre babies vs when theyre autonomous young adults?


Adults dont believe in "live and let live."

>>5091
>omg oof yikes love is bad
"Love" is a dream of a united consciousness.
Hence the famous quote of Che about what drives a real revo mf which still manages to turn the majority of commiefaggot pseudofascist christians mk.2 into neverending economism seething.
kys faggot.

>>5658
what did I say that was wrong