Nene’s reading plan (from the end of March to early July during school)
The Communist Manifesto, The State and Revolution, Sadness, Family Private Country, Tasks of the Youth League, Chinese Civil Revolution. (These short-term plans aim to complete one every 7-10 days)
Long-term books include: Women and Socialism, Dawn Magazine, History of International Communist Movements, Political Economy.
After finishing each day’s reading, I will try to post my notes on the forum.
At the end of March, I will first read Family Private Country and Chinese Civil Revolution. For questions I don’t understand, I will ask everyone in the reading notes.
7 Likes
The length of the Chinese Civil War is comparable to a booklet, and it is much shorter than other books. Is it suitable for long-term reading?
Uh uh, I’ll make a change.
When reading the part about the polygamous family in the second chapter of “The Private Realm of the Family,” there was something I couldn’t understand. Why does it say that in previous marriage forms, men did not lack women? Is it because under the group marriage system, a group of men married a group of women, so there was no shortage of women? Then why does it say “women even had a little more”? And later it says “women became scarce,” what is going on here?
Besides, I have a point about my understanding of clans, and I don’t know if it’s correct. I’m also a bit confused myself, so I want to ask. Here’s my understanding of clans:
The emergence of clans is because, under the exogamous marriage system, the main clan needs to contact other clans for marriage, so there was a need to distinguish clans. The basis of clans is the blood kin group formed by exogamous marriage outside the tribe. In this group, with internal marriage prohibited, a series or a row of sisters formed the core of the commune, thus forming the necessary group for a fixed clan. And the reason why it is a matrilineal clan is because, within the clan, the group marriage system only recognizes the mother, not the father, so inheritance is confirmed from the mother’s side, which also leads to matriarchy.
If there are any errors, please correct me.
I feel very overwhelmed reading about the private realm of the family, there are many things I don’t understand, and my reading progress is very slow.
2 Likes
Because during the original group marriage system, there were no individual families, and without individual families, it meant that there was no possession of each other between the sexes. In matrilineal clans, women were also the dominant force in social production, and now society makes significant contributions, with bloodline inheritance also following the maternal lineage. Men were essentially married into the matrilineal clan, so in this family structure, there would be no phenomenon of women being insufficient. However, with the emergence of private property, individual families gradually formed, and at the same time, patriarchy replaced matriarchy. As a result, the family became a place where men oppressed women, and because it was an individual family, the head of the family possessed other family members. The individual family thus became a means for men to possess women, and since men’s status was higher than women’s, women had fallen into the private property of family and clan. Additionally, the so-called monogamy means that a wife must obey one husband. It does not exclude polygamy; rather, polygamy is a necessary supplement to it. Men became the masters of society, and women became commodities and property, which naturally made women appear insufficient.
1 Like
The reason for implementing exogamous clan marriage systems is that, on the one hand, marriage between close relatives can cause genetic defects; on the other hand, more importantly, the original primitive group size was limited, and to expand production and division of labor, cooperation between primitive groups must be achieved. Therefore, in the process of production and life, intermarriage between different primitive groups inevitably occurs. Before the implementation of exogamous clan marriage, primitive groups were all active together, with no blood relationship distinctions among them, so there was no concept of matrilineal kinship. Since the implementation of exogamous clan marriage, different clan groups are divided according to kinship, so exogamous clan marriage is a sign of the emergence of clans. The reason why early clan societies were matriarchal societies is not only because property inheritance was determined by matrilineal kinship but also because women held a higher social status and contributed more at that time, and their labor was recognized by society.
Additionally, I find the dualism system more difficult to understand than the Punaula family. Because Engels said that in the dual family, women are required to strictly observe chastity, and if there is an affair of adultery, it will be severely punished, but men can maintain the right to adultery and polygamy. I don’t understand this. If it was a period of polygamy, where everyone shared wives and husbands, I could understand, but at this time, demanding women’s chastity without requiring men’s fidelity seems to me more like the oppression of women that only occurred during capitalism.
If it were just like this, I wouldn’t completely fail to understand. What I find contradictory is that later, Engels mentioned that marriage could be dissolved according to the will of both parties, and after dissolution, both have the right to marry freely. If that’s the case, then the dual family seems to become “free” and “equal.”
And here it is mentioned that daughters are sold for a ransom, which makes me think of bride price. I always feel this is treating daughters as commodities for sale, but this is impossible, after all, it was not a commodity society at that time. So why does such a phenomenon exist? And what was the corresponding economic system at that time?
Additionally, I also saw some parts in the book mentioning the bride kidnapping system, which I also cannot understand. If it was a matriarchal clan at that time, why would respected women be seized as if they were objects? Or am I understanding the situation at that time with a vulgar perspective?
Because the pairing system is like a transition from a complete monogamous system, whether it is the pairing system or monogamy, both are processes where private factors are growing. As the family unit changes, the social significance of young women’s labor, which is household chores, gradually diminishes. They become politically and economically weaker than men, which is why there is a phenomenon where men demand women to preserve chastity during cohabitation while they themselves can indulge freely. This is a transitional stage, and you need to understand it from this perspective. Therefore, there are phenomena of oppressing women during cohabitation, but to some extent, this marriage relationship can be freely dissolved.
2 Likes
The reason why daughters are sold for ransom is indeed the same as later arranged marriages, because by that time private ownership had already begun to emerge. Women’s status had started to depend on men, so it already carried the nature of property.
1 Like
Robbery marriage is also a reflection of social relations that treat women as property, indicating that at that time, with the emergence of individual families, women’s labor was gradually no longer recognized by society, and their status declined.
1 Like
This is also something I cannot understand, why is it said that the relationship between the sexes has lost its simplicity? The idea of maintaining chastity also strikes me as strange.
As the socio-economic development progresses, particularly with the growth of private ownership factors, women’s social status tends to decline. At this point, gender relations become a matter of men possessing and playing with women. Therefore, women need to maintain their chastity or marry only one man for a long time.
I don’t understand again. I remember saying before that only the Democratic Republic could have the opportunity to expose workers’ oppression and promote Marxism. But does this mean the same here? (the part with the red line)
The domestic situation is very difficult for me. On one hand, many sentences are difficult to understand their meaning; on the other hand, even if I understand the meaning of each sentence, it is very hard for me to review and logically connect these sentences, paragraphs, and sections to summarize smoothly.
The democratic system is just formal equality, but in reality, it is inequality. After removing the formal inequality with coercive force, the contradiction becomes simplified, and the fact that inequality in political and economic status is easier for people to understand.
The same applies to marriage: if legally men and women are equal in status but women are still oppressed by men, people will easily understand that this is because women’s political and economic status is lower than that of men.
2 Likes
I don’t know if there is a detailed brochure explaining Jiashi Guo.
There is an explanation for the private country, but it’s not as detailed as the explanation. I can send you a few books.
Comrade, I also need it
“The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” Preliminary Explanation.pdf (9.6 MB)
Several Questions on Studying “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” 1975.pdf
“Critique of Political Economy” Preface “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” Explanation.pdf (2.1 MB)
Where did the original poster go? What about your long-term study plan?
2 Likes
Same question.