In my eyes this theory has always been both Marx and Engels' biggest inherit flaw. It should be noted for any modern Marxist that both Marx and Engels had an understanding of human sociology that was sometimes presumptuous and often has not stood the test of time. While there is certainly a fair case to be made that modern family structures (the "nuclear" family) are in many ways influenced by capitalism, both Marx and Engels overstep their bounds in their belief to what aspects of which are in fact products of capitalism, specifically monogamy. Both made the (even at the time baseless) assumption that monogamy is a social construct tracing it's roots in the creation of capital, and that humans are more naturally inclined to unrestrained polyamory. This is a naturalist argument against monogamy, so in the sake of fairness let's give it a naturalist answer. The problem with this is that since then sociology has developed further as a field and it seems as though this does not reflect reality. Humans in a tribal society seem to be, with any exception exceedingly rare and more often than not cause for conflict, predisposed to three main forms of relationship; monogamy, serial-monogamy (a series of monogamous partners) and polygyny (the act of a male having multiple female mates). Monogamy as the status quo, serial-monogamy when a male partner dies and polygyny more often than not to account for the higher female:male sex ratio due to the higher male mortality rate. Thus making not only monogamy natural, but making this "promiscuous horde" concept his very own construct.
It's so nice and crisp! No distractions or, garbage mixed with facts, no dilution. Yet, sadly enough, it's a thoughtful topic, needs a lot of attention, so your video didn't become popular. It's a fact that people avoid serious topics, because of their short attention span and lazy minds. 😊
thank you for you for the effort and work you have put in for this video, many people tend to destruct the works of Marx and Engels by what happened during the soviet union both of them could not imagine the cost to make such a state being created. even though I like Lenin his biggest misshape was not establishing a relationship to the Marxist ideals of a revolution to the people of the soviet union. the fact that you can look beyond this is astonishing to say the least keep it up
And yet, in all states where this doctrine was implemented in a "better" way, it still failed. Venezuela is a prime example. Often, we say Russia failed because the leaders needed to implement the doctrine properly, North Korea as well, etc.; however, the doctrine seems to always fail in practice.
@@RangellaloThere's a great lecture of a college professor explaining to students, how the next generation that is taught socialism/communism/Marxism is better, and would bring about a utopia if it were implemented correctly, which is up to their generation to do. Then he explains that's what all the psychopaths that want to use that system to inflict suffering & tyranny on us always claim : USSR, China during Mao's great leap forward, the tens of millions dead, they'll claim, well that wasn't real socialism/communism/Marxism, we'll get it right next time. Oh really ? What's your goal next time ? 200 million starved to death to install your oppressive system ? And the next generation will be taught the same garbage. "Useful Idiots"
@@Rangellalo I'm curious about what metrics you are using to judge that they have failed. Current socialist countries are very succesful on a lot of points such as education, healthcare, alleviating poverty, and fighting corruption.
88 likes, 8 comments in one year? Seriously? It's such a top notch presentation!
Help spread the word!?
In my eyes this theory has always been both Marx and Engels' biggest inherit flaw. It should be noted for any modern Marxist that both Marx and Engels had an understanding of human sociology that was sometimes presumptuous and often has not stood the test of time. While there is certainly a fair case to be made that modern family structures (the "nuclear" family) are in many ways influenced by capitalism, both Marx and Engels overstep their bounds in their belief to what aspects of which are in fact products of capitalism, specifically monogamy.
Both made the (even at the time baseless) assumption that monogamy is a social construct tracing it's roots in the creation of capital, and that humans are more naturally inclined to unrestrained polyamory. This is a naturalist argument against monogamy, so in the sake of fairness let's give it a naturalist answer.
The problem with this is that since then sociology has developed further as a field and it seems as though this does not reflect reality. Humans in a tribal society seem to be, with any exception exceedingly rare and more often than not cause for conflict, predisposed to three main forms of relationship; monogamy, serial-monogamy (a series of monogamous partners) and polygyny (the act of a male having multiple female mates). Monogamy as the status quo, serial-monogamy when a male partner dies and polygyny more often than not to account for the higher female:male sex ratio due to the higher male mortality rate.
Thus making not only monogamy natural, but making this "promiscuous horde" concept his very own construct.
It's so nice and crisp! No distractions or, garbage mixed with facts, no dilution. Yet, sadly enough, it's a thoughtful topic, needs a lot of attention, so your video didn't become popular. It's a fact that people avoid serious topics, because of their short attention span and lazy minds. 😊
We hear you! Heavy-hitting content isn’t as ‘fun’ as cute puppies 😂
THANK YOU SOO MUCH... EXACTLY WHTA I WAS LOOKING FOR
Thank you 🙏 so glad you find out videos helpful!
Well said
amen joel
thank you for you for the effort and work you have put in for this video, many people tend to destruct the works of Marx and Engels by what happened during the soviet union both of them could not imagine the cost to make such a state being created. even though I like Lenin his biggest misshape was not establishing a relationship to the Marxist ideals of a revolution to the people of the soviet union. the fact that you can look beyond this is astonishing to say the least keep it up
Much appreciated!
And yet, in all states where this doctrine was implemented in a "better" way, it still failed. Venezuela is a prime example. Often, we say Russia failed because the leaders needed to implement the doctrine properly, North Korea as well, etc.; however, the doctrine seems to always fail in practice.
@@RangellaloThere's a great lecture of a college professor explaining to students, how the next generation that is taught socialism/communism/Marxism is better, and would bring about a utopia if it were implemented correctly, which is up to their generation to do. Then he explains that's what all the psychopaths that want to use that system to inflict suffering & tyranny on us always claim : USSR, China during Mao's great leap forward, the tens of millions dead, they'll claim, well that wasn't real socialism/communism/Marxism, we'll get it right next time. Oh really ? What's your goal next time ? 200 million starved to death to install your oppressive system ? And the next generation will be taught the same garbage. "Useful Idiots"
@@Rangellalo I'm curious about what metrics you are using to judge that they have failed. Current socialist countries are very succesful on a lot of points such as education, healthcare, alleviating poverty, and fighting corruption.
@@PrecookedSociologyit took me a while to find this video, but man I also gotta say thanks. Really good information ❤
Hello
👍🏾