Private Ownership, Inheritance Rights, Family and Kinship Issues Discussion
Recently, comrades in the association encountered many questions while studying the book “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” one of the more important being the significance of inheritance rights. Below are the chat records of the related discussion, followed by a summary from chatGPT.
Original Discussion:
Swamp Soldier: Why do men in the family hope that their sons will inherit the property, rather than caring about floods and other disasters after I die?
Five Nine: It depends on class; for the proletariat, there is essentially no property to inherit, only the bourgeoisie has property to pass down.
Red Art: What Five Nine said and what Swamp Soldier said are not the same issue. Swamp Soldier’s question is based on the premise of inheriting property; he is asking why, under patriarchy, men choose to inherit property instead of just being selfish and not caring after death. The proletariat has no property, while the bourgeoisie has property to inherit—that’s a different matter from why they choose to inherit rather than die.
Red Jacobin: To provide for old age. It’s not for serving after death. Dead men know nothing, all is empty.
Swamp Soldier: Well, the bourgeoisie can live quite comfortably without having sons, but that feels unscientific. I remember saying I want to live casually, and my mom asked what we would do when we’re old (you need to support us). I felt that with so much money, they could just manage their business to keep living comfortably—what’s that got to do with me?
October Wind: Many bourgeois think that if they don’t pass down their property, their life has no meaning. They see capital appreciation and developing the family business as their only goal. My dad is like that; he thinks I don’t want to gamble with him or inherit the family business, and he goes crazy, feeling that there’s no point in striving anymore.
Nannah: Why do the bourgeois have such ideas? I remember someone asked a similar question before and I answered, but I forgot how I said it.
Fury Flame: Doesn’t Swamp Soldier play historical simulation games? Which monarch doesn’t care about their descendants?
Swamp Soldier: I rarely play.
Fury Flame: Without descendants, it’s game over.
October Wind: After no heirs, it’s all over.
Five Nine: Descendants need to have enough ability to continue what they inherit; otherwise, it’s a failure.
Swamp Soldier: I understand the principle, but it’s hard to imagine. I know it’s common, but still hard to picture.
Fury Flame: It’s hard for Swamp Soldier to imagine. For children, they are the heirs to their parents’ ideals, but children may not follow their parents’ ideals. Different parents have different ideals. The bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie hope their children inherit and develop the family business to make the family proud. Materially, private property in a private society is everything; if children succeed, it’s like oneself succeeding. The family is oneself, and oneself is the family. Without heirs, it’s like having nothing.
Jinsong: Speaking of which, I used to play a cultivation sect simulation game, where I loved recruiting disciples with good “talents,” then expanding the sect—kind of like capitalists raising children to inherit wealth.
Fury Flame: In a private society, the family is a private economic unit.
Four Eight: Exactly, my mom wants me to gamble on becoming a worker noble, but I’ve never heard him say that.
Fury Flame: The counterpart to inheritance rights is the obligation to support, which is a contradiction. Private families bind parents and children through interests. When children need care, parents provide good food and drink; when parents need care, children repay them. But this interest relationship isn’t only when children are young or parents are old. Inheritance rights and support obligations establish the deepest economic ties between parents and children in private families. In a private society, private owners are always scheming—there are no eternal friends, only eternal interests. The deepest interest connection is between parents and children, so they say “Only family is truly trustworthy.”
Swamp Soldier: Do they maintain contact after death to let children continue to succeed?
Fury Flame: Feudal patriarchs naturally see this inheritance relationship as the most important and reliable. Once children accept their worldview, they will think so too. Before death, children should succeed; if they succeed, it’s like the parent succeeding. Aren’t you alive? The living should focus on living. Setting aside old age care, isn’t the alliance of interests between parents and children always in effect? Private owners only trust those with shared interests. From this logic, parents and children are the most trustworthy. That’s why most private owners, including parents and children, promote and believe in this essentially interest-based kinship. Family, private ownership, and the state—do you know why Engels titled his book “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”?
Swamp Soldier: Why fear losing one’s property after death?
Fury Flame: Family issues must be understood from the perspective of private ownership. Only capital that is constantly moving can exert influence.
Swamp Soldier: Is it because they want to uphold private ownership itself?
Fury Flame: From a practical standpoint, without heirs, what if you get old and can’t manage your affairs? There are many unexpected situations. What if your business collapses? What if your body fails? Don’t you need to consider all this? Private ownership is fragile, especially small private ownership, so it needs allies to maintain it. The bourgeoisie also fears their power and status collapsing. Because private society involves fierce struggles, they must rely on allies, and the most trustworthy allies are family members, because sharing family property and inheritance interests binds them together. That’s why exploiters always prefer nepotism. Swamp Soldier’s speculative questions are detached from reality. It’s repeatedly emphasized that family members are interest alliances, and inheritance relationships are economic interest ties connecting the living. Swamp Soldier keeps asking if inheritance is about fear of death—unknown life, how can one know death? You don’t care about what living people want, so why care about the dead?
Red Jacobin: If you have no children and pass capital to a professional agent, it might be taken away immediately. The bourgeoisie wants to expand capital, not like petty bourgeoisie who think having some money in the bank is enough for carefree enjoyment.
Fury Flame: What’s the most important logic here? It’s a quote from Churchill, reflecting the private owner’s mentality: only eternal interests, no eternal friends. In the eyes of private owners, only those with shared interests are trustworthy. They don’t look at morality; there’s no supra-class morality. The most moral thing for private owners is interests. The relationship of property inheritance and sharing between parents and children is the most crucial economic interest relationship, so it’s considered the most trustworthy in their view. Even brothers are unreliable; parents and children are the most reliable. Even close siblings need to settle accounts, but parents and children don’t need to settle accounts openly. In a private society, everywhere is scheming, everywhere is conflict of interests, everywhere is deception. Competition is everywhere, so naturally, they want more friends and fewer enemies, and the most important friends are their parents and children. Of course, friends are ultimately just friends, not oneself; if conflicts of interest occur between parents and children, it can turn deadly. Private owners are ultimately private owners. Does Swamp Soldier have a super-class illusion about family love? I feel that way—Swamp Soldier is too fond of kinship. Swamp Soldier said: “This is fatherly love,” then tears flowed freely.