GenZhou

982 readers

1 users here now

GenZhou is GenZedong without the shitposts

See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space (shared with GenZedong). See this thread for more information.

Rules:

This community is explicitly pro-AES (China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos and Vietnam)
No ableism, racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc.
No pro-imperialists, liberals or electoralists
No dogmatism/idealism
For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
Shitposts will be removed (please post them to /c/GenZedong or elsewhere instead)

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml

Is there an "updated" version of Engels's Origin of Family, etc. (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 4 days ago by King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml to c/genzhou@lemmygrad.ml

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The work is good and from what I can tell, the points about the discussion on the State (which is the basis for Lenin's thesis in State and Revolution), seem solid. But a lot of the family stuff seems...I don't know. I was never taught that stuff and I really have no anthropological background to begin researching such stuff, and I know Engels wrote it based on the very start of (respectable) anthropology.

Basically what I'm asking is, is it still accurate and just not accepted by most people because Marxism (Similar to the LTV and such), or is it outdated? And if it's the latter, is there a more up to date source, and what does it change about Marxist thinking of pre-capitalist society?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kultronx@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

lol yes i listened to the audiobook. the main argument seems to be "contemporary western understandings of early 'civilization' is flawed as the types of societies that existed were varied and different". Not sure what you're trying to get at with your comment, I was merely asking for further explanation what you mean

[–] durduramayacaklar@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

That book is very idealistic not materialistic. He is literally saying that “you change the society by thinking”. He can’t be in a Marxist anthropology section. Another thing is he points so many issues at the same time but doesn’t explain them. My point is that he’s an anarchist and can’t be in a Marxist literature. Also, he’s very anti-Marxist.

LACK OF IMAGINATION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT That’s the main idea of the book which we reject because of the materialism

[–] Kultronx@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Uh, oookay regardless, there is a lot interesting anthropological/archaeological information in the book.

[–] durduramayacaklar@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 days ago

There are too many “what abouts,” “ifs,” and “maybes” too much speculation without evidence. If you’re familiar with archaeological arguments, you can see they’re being revised without clear proof or proper research. At one point the book even says, “We did occupy Wall Street and we stopped neoliberalism.” That shows it’s more about a political movement than science. Reading it felt like reading Proudhon.