What do you think?
Rate this book
賲賳卮丕亍 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴貙 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 賵 丿賵賱鬲
賲賳卮丕 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴貙 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 賵 丿賵賱鬲 乇爻丕賱賴鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲 丕夭 賮乇蹖丿乇蹖卮 丕賳诏賱爻 亘賴 爻丕賱 郾鄹鄹鄞. 丕賳诏賱爻 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲丕鬲乇蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 亘乇乇爻蹖 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 賵 鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 賵 倬丿蹖丿 丌賲丿賳 丿賵賱鬲 亘賴 讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭屫必�. 讴鬲丕亘 鬲丕賯爻賲鬲蹖 亘乇 倬丕蹖賴 蹖丕丿丿丕卮鬲鈥屬囏й� 讴丕乇賱 賲丕乇讴爻 亘乇 讴鬲丕亘 噩丕賲毓賴 亘丕爻鬲丕賳 丕孬乇 賱賵蹖爻 賲賵乇诏丕賳 賳賵卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲.
賮氐賱 丕賵賱 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 丿賵乇丕賳鈥屬囏й� 賲丕賯亘賱 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賮乇賴賳诏 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 賵 丿賵乇賴鈥屬囏й� 鬲賵丨卮 賵 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 乇丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
賮氐賱 丿賵賲 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 賵 丕夭 亘禺卮鈥屬囏й� 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 賴賲禺賵賳貙 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 倬賵賳丕賱賵丕卅蹖貙 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 蹖丕乇诏蹖乇貙 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 鬲讴鈥屬囐呚池� 鬲卮讴蹖賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.
賮氐賱鈥屬囏й� 爻賵賲 鬲丕 賳賴賲 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 鬲蹖乇賴 丕蹖乇賵讴賵卅蹖貙 鬲蹖乇賴 蹖賵賳丕賳蹖貙 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 丿賵賱鬲 丌鬲賳貙 鬲蹖乇賴 賵 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 乇賵賲貙 鬲蹖乇賴 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 爻賱鬲蹖鈥屬囏� 賵 跇乇賲賳鈥屬囏ж� 鬲卮讴蹖賱 丿賵賱鬲 賲蹖丕賳 跇乇賲賳鈥屬囏ж� 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 賵 鬲賲丿賳 丕禺鬲氐丕氐 丿丕乇賳丿.
倬蹖賵爻鬲 讴鬲丕亘 卮丕賲賱 蹖讴 賲賵乇丿 鬲丕夭賴 讴卮賮 卮丿賴 丕夭 丕夭丿賵丕噩 诏乇賵賴蹖 丕爻鬲.
鬲乇噩賲賴 賮丕乇爻蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳 丕亘鬲丿丕 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 禺賱丕氐賴贁 讴鬲丕亘 鬲賵爻胤 鬲賯蹖 丕乇丕賳蹖 丿乇 丿賴賴 郾鄢郾郯 賵 亘毓丿賴丕 亘賴 胤賵乇 讴丕賲賱 鬲賵爻胤 丿讴鬲乇 禺爻乇賵 倬丕乇爻丕 丕賳噩丕賲 诏乇賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 賳讴鬲賴 噩丕賱亘 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲丿鬲賴丕 賳丕賲 賲鬲乇噩賲 丌賳 亘賴 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 賲爻毓賵丿 丕丨賲丿夭丕丿賴 匕讴乇 卮丿賴 亘賵丿. 趩賵賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲丿鬲賴丕 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 讴鬲丕亘 噩賱丿 爻賮蹖丿 讴倬蹖 賲蹖鈥屫簇� 氐賮丨賴 丕賵賱 賳爻禺賴 丕氐賱蹖 讴賴 賳丕賲 賲鬲乇噩賲 乇丕 丿丕卮鬲 诏賲 卮丿賴 亘賵丿 賵 氐賮丨賴 丿賵賲 讴賴 賲鬲乇噩賲貙 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 亘賴 賲爻毓賵丿 丕丨賲丿夭丕丿賴 鬲賯丿蹖賲 讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿貙 賳丕卮乇丕賳 乇丕 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 丕賳丿丕禺鬲賴 亘賵丿.
賮氐賱 丕賵賱 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 丿賵乇丕賳鈥屬囏й� 賲丕賯亘賱 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賮乇賴賳诏 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 賵 丿賵乇賴鈥屬囏й� 鬲賵丨卮 賵 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 乇丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
賮氐賱 丿賵賲 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 賵 丕夭 亘禺卮鈥屬囏й� 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 賴賲禺賵賳貙 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 倬賵賳丕賱賵丕卅蹖貙 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 蹖丕乇诏蹖乇貙 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 鬲讴鈥屬囐呚池� 鬲卮讴蹖賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.
賮氐賱鈥屬囏й� 爻賵賲 鬲丕 賳賴賲 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 鬲蹖乇賴 丕蹖乇賵讴賵卅蹖貙 鬲蹖乇賴 蹖賵賳丕賳蹖貙 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 丿賵賱鬲 丌鬲賳貙 鬲蹖乇賴 賵 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 乇賵賲貙 鬲蹖乇賴 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 爻賱鬲蹖鈥屬囏� 賵 跇乇賲賳鈥屬囏ж� 鬲卮讴蹖賱 丿賵賱鬲 賲蹖丕賳 跇乇賲賳鈥屬囏ж� 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 賵 鬲賲丿賳 丕禺鬲氐丕氐 丿丕乇賳丿.
倬蹖賵爻鬲 讴鬲丕亘 卮丕賲賱 蹖讴 賲賵乇丿 鬲丕夭賴 讴卮賮 卮丿賴 丕夭 丕夭丿賵丕噩 诏乇賵賴蹖 丕爻鬲.
鬲乇噩賲賴 賮丕乇爻蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳 丕亘鬲丿丕 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 禺賱丕氐賴贁 讴鬲丕亘 鬲賵爻胤 鬲賯蹖 丕乇丕賳蹖 丿乇 丿賴賴 郾鄢郾郯 賵 亘毓丿賴丕 亘賴 胤賵乇 讴丕賲賱 鬲賵爻胤 丿讴鬲乇 禺爻乇賵 倬丕乇爻丕 丕賳噩丕賲 诏乇賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 賳讴鬲賴 噩丕賱亘 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲丿鬲賴丕 賳丕賲 賲鬲乇噩賲 丌賳 亘賴 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 賲爻毓賵丿 丕丨賲丿夭丕丿賴 匕讴乇 卮丿賴 亘賵丿. 趩賵賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲丿鬲賴丕 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 讴鬲丕亘 噩賱丿 爻賮蹖丿 讴倬蹖 賲蹖鈥屫簇� 氐賮丨賴 丕賵賱 賳爻禺賴 丕氐賱蹖 讴賴 賳丕賲 賲鬲乇噩賲 乇丕 丿丕卮鬲 诏賲 卮丿賴 亘賵丿 賵 氐賮丨賴 丿賵賲 讴賴 賲鬲乇噩賲貙 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 亘賴 賲爻毓賵丿 丕丨賲丿夭丕丿賴 鬲賯丿蹖賲 讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿貙 賳丕卮乇丕賳 乇丕 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 丕賳丿丕禺鬲賴 亘賵丿.
272 pages
First published May 26, 1884
1,091 people are currently reading
19k people want to read
About the author
Friedrich Engels
1,638听books1,418听followersGerman social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on
The Communist Manifesto
in 1848 and on numerous other works.
With the help of Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867-1894).
Friedrich Engels, a philosopher, political, historian, journalist, revolutionary, and also a businessman, closest befriended his lifelong colleague.
With the help of Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867-1894).
Friedrich Engels, a philosopher, political, historian, journalist, revolutionary, and also a businessman, closest befriended his lifelong colleague.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 562 reviews
Read
August 21, 2016I read Engels鈥� The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State in the interest of sorting out the Marx-Engels position on the family and for background to the frequently mis-read passage in The Communist Manifesto about the 鈥渃ommunity of women.鈥�
Engels composed Origin, published in 1884, from notes he and Marx had made from their reading of the anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan鈥檚 Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery Through Barbarism to Civilization (1877). Regarding Morgan, Engels says, 鈥渋n his own way [he] discovered afresh in America the materialistic conception of history discovered by Marx 40 years ago.鈥� Morgan鈥檚 study involves analysis of the social organization of the Iroquois nation from an anthropological perspective. This analysis of 鈥渂arbarian鈥� Iroquois society (鈥渂arbarian鈥� being a value neutral term for the stage of societal development between 鈥渟avage鈥� and 鈥渃ivilization鈥�), structured upon a 鈥済ens鈥� system (a complicated familial system to be contrasted with the bourgeois, patriarchal, 鈥渘uclear鈥� family), is used as the basis from which to trace the emergence of 鈥渃ivilization鈥� and its attendant class divisions, rise of the commodity, suppression of women, and rise of the state. After a description of the Iroquois society, Engels describes the transformation of the gens-based organizations of society in Athens, Rome, and Germany into state organizations with their attendant divisions of classes, development of slavery, etc. All of which would tend to feel like a fall from a state of egalitarianism into an oppressive 鈥渃ivilization.鈥� But there is, of course, no return.
Written in 1884 Origin is clearly outdated in terms of the rigors of current anthropological data and methodologies. Oddly, though, Engels鈥� work feels less dated than does the editorial material provided by Leacock in this 1971 edition. I assume that this is the case due to Engels鈥� interest in the broader theoretical strokes and outlines than in the details of data. Certainly portions of Origin can be set aside on the basis of more modern anthropology, but data is not the reason for reading this volume. The interest in this volume is for teasing out the Marx-Engels position on the status of the family.
The first impression one always receives upon reading any anthropology is that societies are not necessarily organized in the manner in which I have experienced my society. And the same goes for the structure of the family. There is no necessity in the organization of the family as a 鈥渘uclear鈥� family; it is contingent and changes over time according to its conditions. The Marx-Engels thesis, in a nutshell, is that the family is organized according to the needs of the modes of production of any given society. The family under capitalism is organized in the interests of private property. Period. Its purpose is to regulate the private ownership of the means of production. Inheritance laws make this a rather uncontroversial thesis. It is the fundamental unit of organization in a capitalist society. In contrast, Morgan鈥檚 study of the Iroquois describes a society without knowledge of private property, a society more or less egalitarian, and with a family structure based upon the gens, a family organization fully distinct from the patriarchal. When paternity is never certain, familial organization can only operate along matrilineal lines. When the possession by men of the means of production arises, men must assert control of the women so that they may know that their property will pass to their own heirs.
What does all this mean for the communist? That the family, as a fundamental economic unit for the organization of private property, will disappear when private ownership of the means of production is eliminated. Does this mean that women will be herded into whorehouses? By no means. But such is the practice under a system of private property, when labor is a commodity, women are commodities, and marriages take place in the interest of the transfer of property. Only under a communist organization of society for the needs of its citizens, will the pure sexual love of persons, as sung by our most romantical poets, be freed from the fetters of inheritance and economic anxieties. When the woman is not chained out of economic dependency to a man, or vice versa, or when the economic well being of children is not dependent upon two people not loving each other, only then can relationships based solely upon affection flourish. Far from the communists creating a 鈥渃ommunity of women鈥� they would create the social and economic conditions in which relationships would only be formed and sustained upon 鈥渢rue love.鈥� Thus, the patriarchal family structure, like religion, will disappear upon the elimination of private ownership of the means of production; when marriages will be made and sustained on the basis of love and not upon economic anxiety.
Engels鈥� own words, clearer, perhaps than mine:
鈥淏ut what will quite certainly disappear from monogamy are all the features stamped upon it through its origin in property relations; these are, in the first place, supremacy of the man and secondly, the indissolubility of marriage. The supremacy of the man in marriage is the simple consequence of his economic supremacy, and with the abolition of the latter will disappear of itself. The indissolubility of marriage is partly a consequence of the economic situation in which monogamy arose, partly tradition from the period when the connection between this economic situation and monogamy was not yet fully understood and was carried to extremes under a religious form. Today it is already broken through at a thousand points. If only the marriage based on love is moral, then also only the marriage is moral in which love continues. But the intense emotion of individual sex love varies very much in duration from one individual to another, especially among men, and if affection definitely comes to an end or is supplanted by a new passionate love, separation is a benefit for both partners as well as for society--only people will then be spared having to wade through the useless mire of a divorce case.
鈥淲hat we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production [which is merely another word for 鈥渃ommunism鈥� --NR] is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman's surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences.鈥�
This final paragraph of the quote should be kept in mind any time someone asks about what this future 鈥渃ommunist utopia鈥� will look like and how it will be structured. It will depend upon the will of those never having been corrupted by social relations dominated by exploitative economic relations and the commodity.
One should also note that Marx-Engels have little or no interest in your sex lives. The regulation of and preoccupation with sexual practices is a trope of the liberal bourgeois. It is their own hang ups and obsessions which they project upon the communists; their own fantasies they imagine the communists realizing. The liberal bourgeois preoccupation with correct sexual relations has little to do with love and has everything do to with the maintenance of capitalist property relations. Nor should we fall for that most treacherous of ideological traps, 鈥淲on鈥檛 someone please think of the children?鈥� Capitalist relations are not healthy for children, not when their parents are little more than wage-slaves or relegated to the rolls of the unemployed.
Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your bourgeois morality!
___________
A note on the edition:
For those interested, there exist several editions and translations. I have made no thorough comparison. Penguin has the newer translation, but it appears to lack annotations which would be, in my opinion, very helpful in excavating the 19th century anthropology upon which Engels based his work. Contrasts with our current state of anthropological data would be a very important element of a thorough edition. Leacock鈥檚 1971 edition, which I read, does include a number of annotations in this regard, but her notes feel even more outdated than Engels鈥� text. The short selection found in the Tucker Marx-Engels Reader would seem rather too little, but the full volume maybe more than the average student of Marx would require. I would recommend the chapters II, III, and IX, 鈥淭he Family,鈥� 鈥淭he Iroquois Gens,鈥� and 鈥淏arbarism and Civilization.鈥� Leacock also includes a report from a Russian anthropologist entitled 鈥淎 Recently Discovered Case of Group Marriage鈥� and Engels鈥� unfinished text 鈥淭he Part Played by Labor in the Transition From Ape to Man.鈥�
Addendum: Engels鈥� style proved to be wittier and demonstrating a stronger ironic sense than I had anticipated. Perhaps he is still not the rhetorician that Marx is, but his prose here is not as awful as his completion of Kapital is reputed to be.
Engels composed Origin, published in 1884, from notes he and Marx had made from their reading of the anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan鈥檚 Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery Through Barbarism to Civilization (1877). Regarding Morgan, Engels says, 鈥渋n his own way [he] discovered afresh in America the materialistic conception of history discovered by Marx 40 years ago.鈥� Morgan鈥檚 study involves analysis of the social organization of the Iroquois nation from an anthropological perspective. This analysis of 鈥渂arbarian鈥� Iroquois society (鈥渂arbarian鈥� being a value neutral term for the stage of societal development between 鈥渟avage鈥� and 鈥渃ivilization鈥�), structured upon a 鈥済ens鈥� system (a complicated familial system to be contrasted with the bourgeois, patriarchal, 鈥渘uclear鈥� family), is used as the basis from which to trace the emergence of 鈥渃ivilization鈥� and its attendant class divisions, rise of the commodity, suppression of women, and rise of the state. After a description of the Iroquois society, Engels describes the transformation of the gens-based organizations of society in Athens, Rome, and Germany into state organizations with their attendant divisions of classes, development of slavery, etc. All of which would tend to feel like a fall from a state of egalitarianism into an oppressive 鈥渃ivilization.鈥� But there is, of course, no return.
Written in 1884 Origin is clearly outdated in terms of the rigors of current anthropological data and methodologies. Oddly, though, Engels鈥� work feels less dated than does the editorial material provided by Leacock in this 1971 edition. I assume that this is the case due to Engels鈥� interest in the broader theoretical strokes and outlines than in the details of data. Certainly portions of Origin can be set aside on the basis of more modern anthropology, but data is not the reason for reading this volume. The interest in this volume is for teasing out the Marx-Engels position on the status of the family.
The first impression one always receives upon reading any anthropology is that societies are not necessarily organized in the manner in which I have experienced my society. And the same goes for the structure of the family. There is no necessity in the organization of the family as a 鈥渘uclear鈥� family; it is contingent and changes over time according to its conditions. The Marx-Engels thesis, in a nutshell, is that the family is organized according to the needs of the modes of production of any given society. The family under capitalism is organized in the interests of private property. Period. Its purpose is to regulate the private ownership of the means of production. Inheritance laws make this a rather uncontroversial thesis. It is the fundamental unit of organization in a capitalist society. In contrast, Morgan鈥檚 study of the Iroquois describes a society without knowledge of private property, a society more or less egalitarian, and with a family structure based upon the gens, a family organization fully distinct from the patriarchal. When paternity is never certain, familial organization can only operate along matrilineal lines. When the possession by men of the means of production arises, men must assert control of the women so that they may know that their property will pass to their own heirs.
What does all this mean for the communist? That the family, as a fundamental economic unit for the organization of private property, will disappear when private ownership of the means of production is eliminated. Does this mean that women will be herded into whorehouses? By no means. But such is the practice under a system of private property, when labor is a commodity, women are commodities, and marriages take place in the interest of the transfer of property. Only under a communist organization of society for the needs of its citizens, will the pure sexual love of persons, as sung by our most romantical poets, be freed from the fetters of inheritance and economic anxieties. When the woman is not chained out of economic dependency to a man, or vice versa, or when the economic well being of children is not dependent upon two people not loving each other, only then can relationships based solely upon affection flourish. Far from the communists creating a 鈥渃ommunity of women鈥� they would create the social and economic conditions in which relationships would only be formed and sustained upon 鈥渢rue love.鈥� Thus, the patriarchal family structure, like religion, will disappear upon the elimination of private ownership of the means of production; when marriages will be made and sustained on the basis of love and not upon economic anxiety.
Engels鈥� own words, clearer, perhaps than mine:
鈥淏ut what will quite certainly disappear from monogamy are all the features stamped upon it through its origin in property relations; these are, in the first place, supremacy of the man and secondly, the indissolubility of marriage. The supremacy of the man in marriage is the simple consequence of his economic supremacy, and with the abolition of the latter will disappear of itself. The indissolubility of marriage is partly a consequence of the economic situation in which monogamy arose, partly tradition from the period when the connection between this economic situation and monogamy was not yet fully understood and was carried to extremes under a religious form. Today it is already broken through at a thousand points. If only the marriage based on love is moral, then also only the marriage is moral in which love continues. But the intense emotion of individual sex love varies very much in duration from one individual to another, especially among men, and if affection definitely comes to an end or is supplanted by a new passionate love, separation is a benefit for both partners as well as for society--only people will then be spared having to wade through the useless mire of a divorce case.
鈥淲hat we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production [which is merely another word for 鈥渃ommunism鈥� --NR] is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman's surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences.鈥�
This final paragraph of the quote should be kept in mind any time someone asks about what this future 鈥渃ommunist utopia鈥� will look like and how it will be structured. It will depend upon the will of those never having been corrupted by social relations dominated by exploitative economic relations and the commodity.
One should also note that Marx-Engels have little or no interest in your sex lives. The regulation of and preoccupation with sexual practices is a trope of the liberal bourgeois. It is their own hang ups and obsessions which they project upon the communists; their own fantasies they imagine the communists realizing. The liberal bourgeois preoccupation with correct sexual relations has little to do with love and has everything do to with the maintenance of capitalist property relations. Nor should we fall for that most treacherous of ideological traps, 鈥淲on鈥檛 someone please think of the children?鈥� Capitalist relations are not healthy for children, not when their parents are little more than wage-slaves or relegated to the rolls of the unemployed.
Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your bourgeois morality!
___________
A note on the edition:
For those interested, there exist several editions and translations. I have made no thorough comparison. Penguin has the newer translation, but it appears to lack annotations which would be, in my opinion, very helpful in excavating the 19th century anthropology upon which Engels based his work. Contrasts with our current state of anthropological data would be a very important element of a thorough edition. Leacock鈥檚 1971 edition, which I read, does include a number of annotations in this regard, but her notes feel even more outdated than Engels鈥� text. The short selection found in the Tucker Marx-Engels Reader would seem rather too little, but the full volume maybe more than the average student of Marx would require. I would recommend the chapters II, III, and IX, 鈥淭he Family,鈥� 鈥淭he Iroquois Gens,鈥� and 鈥淏arbarism and Civilization.鈥� Leacock also includes a report from a Russian anthropologist entitled 鈥淎 Recently Discovered Case of Group Marriage鈥� and Engels鈥� unfinished text 鈥淭he Part Played by Labor in the Transition From Ape to Man.鈥�
Addendum: Engels鈥� style proved to be wittier and demonstrating a stronger ironic sense than I had anticipated. Perhaps he is still not the rhetorician that Marx is, but his prose here is not as awful as his completion of Kapital is reputed to be.
June 11, 2020
Un libro que cambia muchas perspectivas y realmente me ha abierto la mente en muchos aspectos, lamentablemente en trayectos resulta un poco repetitivo y aburrido pero en ese camino vienen ocultas varias ideas muy poderosas que al ser detectadas son capaces de hacer pensar a cualquiera, tanto as铆 que sin ser la intenci贸n de este libro, el cap铆tulo dos resultar铆a muy importante que una feminista lo leyera ya que trae conceptos muy buenos sobre el matrimonio y la monogamia.
De las dos ideas m谩s poderosas que rescato del texto es el origen del matrimonio y principalmente de la monogamia como una estrategia del patriarcado para asegurar sus bienes y su herencia dentro de los mismos de su sangre. Y la idea de que al vivir en una sociedad capitalista, cuando nos unimos al matrimonio intentamos cambiar a un ambiente comunista donde todo es de todos y probablemente ah铆 este el fallo de muchos matrimonios, en esa adaptaci贸n al cambio que no se lleva de manera correcta por haber sido criados siempre bajo el influjo capitalista e individualista de cada quien con su esfuerzo obtener sus productos y bienes.
De las dos ideas m谩s poderosas que rescato del texto es el origen del matrimonio y principalmente de la monogamia como una estrategia del patriarcado para asegurar sus bienes y su herencia dentro de los mismos de su sangre. Y la idea de que al vivir en una sociedad capitalista, cuando nos unimos al matrimonio intentamos cambiar a un ambiente comunista donde todo es de todos y probablemente ah铆 este el fallo de muchos matrimonios, en esa adaptaci贸n al cambio que no se lleva de manera correcta por haber sido criados siempre bajo el influjo capitalista e individualista de cada quien con su esfuerzo obtener sus productos y bienes.
December 24, 2015
The book, written in 1884, examines controversies of the time as to the origin of the State. Research and knowledge available up to that point seem to point to common levels of human progress which the author says confirms his idea that society was once based on a communistic model. He cites information on the American Indians, the German tribes that conquered Rome (and why Rome fell), how Greek society was organized prior to a State organization. Engels says that all State structures are designed to assist the exploiters exploit the exploited. Simply put, monogamy and private property are linked in antiquity, with slavery also coming into existence because of the inability of the herd-owning man to care by himself for his livestock. Once primeval society had become more complex, including the production of excess goods for trade, there was a need for more workers and that was when raiding parties began capturing defeated enemies to turn into slaves. The State in classical antiquity was able to keep order in Greek cities that contained many times more slaves than free Greeks.
The antithesis to the State is the former communistic system of common, shared land, lack of money, and no poor, no rich, no need for police or State, no concept of private ownership of flocks or land. The author discusses in detail how these societies were organized and states that American Indian society was based along communistic concepts. The author states that tribes, if they are organized along matriarchal lines - because of group marriage/casual pairing being allowed - which the author states is the original social organization of mankind, tribal affiliation is first and foremost - he states that in the Pacific NW, sometimes entire tribes occupied one long house, while in other areas of the US, a number of families might occupy a long house, and share the use of canoes, land. There might be individual allotments of land for garden plots, but the allotments might be re-allocated, and there was no concept that the land was actually the current holder's property, or that the land could be bought/sold.
The author mentions the use of cattle as money at a certain stage of social development, and the eventual supplanting of cattle with coinage/money - which thereafter took on a life of its own. He is particularly negative toward middle-men and merchants, using various colorful phrases to describe their parasitic existence since they are not involved in production directly.
The edition I read was a wonderful edition copyright 1902 by Charles H. Kerr & Company, which included the Translator's Preface (by Ernest Untermann, written in Chicago in August 1902) as well as the Author's preface to the first edition (1884) and Author's preface to the Fourth Edition (1891).
I actually did not think this book is that well-written, nor does it seem particularly scholarly or rigorous. The author occasionally slides into polemics - but not very often. I could follow his reasoning, which was based on knowledge collected up to that point. I have no doubt that much of what he says is actually true, and is not well-publicized since it would point to various uncomfortable facts about the organization of human society and the State in general (that is, any State). One thing I did notice is the author's marked pro-German slant, which is, perhaps unsurprising considering the author was a German. The tribal German past, the theory that the German tribes invigorated Europe by conquering Rome, and the admiration for the German respect for women, work, democracy, is remarkable - he seems to think that the outpouring or migration of German tribes from Germany into Northern France and thence to England, means that these three geographic areas (Germany, France, England) received the impetus toward democracy from their Germanic tribal heritage. I suppose the US - founded by Americans of English descent - then could be said to have also benefited from the tribes. (Interestingly, it's said that the Founders may have drawn some inspiration from the political organization of the Iroquois Federation - but were they really aware of the analogies of Germanic tribes, that they also had common lands, group marriage, and so forth?)
I'm not sure the author's analysis can explain the origin of the State, as an extension of the oppression of women in a monogamous marriage, and the development of the concept of private property, with the rise of herding culture and the need for additional labor with the development of commodity production. The book is obviously key to understanding theories of communism - ideally, the State would disappear as classes disappeared with the disappearance of private property (or most private property). I think this book challenges many concepts that are deeply ingrained in human society, such as lineage traced through the father. The author claims that once the man laid claim to ownership of herds, and with it the concept of private property , and the woman was in effect locked into non-social work in the home, classes arose as it became possible to amass larger herds, masses of slaves, and so forth. The State arose because of the contradictions in society - the fact that there were many slaves (or, in the general, the exploited) or the poor free people, vs. the rich (whether or not they owned slaves). A mechanism had to be set up to keep order in a society that included vast inequality and exploitation, as well as a way to ensure women's or the wife's "subservience." The mechanism was the State, which Engels says was set up - in any form it might take - to maintain the conditions for continued exploitation, ownership of private property. He directly links the rise of the State to the rise of private property, and claims that the rise of the concept of private property occurred when the men in the former matriarchal-lineage tribes began to claim livestock as their own property, rather than held in common by the tribe. The men previously had been hunters, and made their own tools/weapons, which they owned. Once livestock was tamed, they realized it was no longer necessary to constantly hunt and much more and varied food was then available, which permitted populations to expand. Cattle became the equivalent of money. Once the man had split off from the tribe, patriarchy took hold - and the man's interest was descent, insuring his wealth (since now there was a concept of private property/wealth) would descend to his heirs on his death. Hence the need to essentially "imprison" the female - the end of group marriage or casual pairing, the end of polyandry (where it might have existed) - although adultery and prostitution simultaneously arose with monogamy/polygamy. Engels traces the entire state of affairs to covetousness - the focus on acquisition. In this, the link to the revolutionary message of Christianity is evident. On a religious side, greed is said to be wrong, there is rhetoric "The meek shall inherit the Earth" and that there will be a "Kingdom of Heaven" on Earth as opposed to the secular State, which is perhaps organized to protect private property, as Engels says. Yet, after approximately 2,000 years of Xian teaching that greed is not good, along with the example of Jesus himself, who obviously personally shunned private property, nothing has changed - other than that more and more information is amassed on social organization and development.
Engels was obviously a reformer who decried the exploitation ongoing in his time. Serfdom persisted in his time in Russia. To say that communism - no, or not much private property, thus no need for a State to protect private property - was the answer to exploitation, which is the message of Marx and the other communist thinkers, is perhaps an oversimplification. Also, it is extremely difficult to re-engineer human nature now after ?4,000+ years of private property/patriarchy. In fact, I don't think it would have worked even had communism overspread the entire Earth, as envisioned by various thinkers.
There is a lot of what Engels says that seems to make sense, such as, mankind once was organized along tribal lines, and as tribes, there was no private property (other than perhaps a few garden plots although they were not "owned" per se and could be re-allocated) other than implements (hunting implements made and owned by the males, agricultural/cooking/weaving/sewing implements made and owned individually by the females). There was little trade, and no need for money. There were no tame livestock, and cooperation was needed to hunt. The animals so hunted were then shared with the tribe. According to Engels, this was the ideal, because it was a completely flat/classless society. Democracy was in force with participation of women as well as men at council meetings. North American Indian society, since it had not tamed livestock (and no livestock had been tamed in the W. hemisphere other than the turkey in Mexico and the llama in Peru, according to the author) was therefore free of greed/private property/monogamy/patriarchy (although men were the warriors/political and war leaders). Thus, American Indian society as it was discovered/described by European settlers/scholars post-Discovery/Conquest is said to offer a glimpse into an earlier stage of human development in general.
The development of herding and private ownership of livestock is thus given as the key factor that led to the concept of society organized to protect private property, or, the State. And several thousand years of private property ownership, State structures probably in place to protect same, patriarchy, and so forth - is it possible to erase it all? Obviously, the experiments with communism in the last century didn't work out as expected, maybe because the State was still in force, and there was no democracy despite democracy being a key feature of prehistoric/early communistic/tribal society. Probably, the unplanned/random aspects of tribal life were what led to the lack of a need for private property. Remember, in those days, without herding, without much agriculture, there was "enforced" cooperation, because in order to survive, hunting/fishing/collecting seafood/gathering vegetables/fruits/wild grains needed to be done probably constantly. If there were no herds of livestock, there was no need to feed the herds. The development of organized large-scale grain agriculture is traced to the need to provide fodder for herds - grain was first grown for animals, according to Engels, and humans only later began eating the grain they were feeding to cattle.
A hunting/gathering/communistic society could not "take off" demographically because of the limited number of foods, uncertain food supply despite the vast amount of wildlife. If there was a never-ending need to hunt/fish & subsistence/rudimentary agriculture, there would have been little time/energy left for anything else.
What Engels misses is the attachment of humans to "anything else" - that is, activities that do not directly involve day-to-day existence/survival.
It is very difficult to detach humans from their affection for all the things that are uniquely human, after all, albeit they may have only been enabled by the accumulation of private property enabling leisure/study, and could have only existed as long as there was a market for these products, i.e. a great deal of extra money accumulated many times through exploitation if not slavery.
Let's say human society never did move much beyond tribal organization, with no classes, no private property, no monogamy although there might be casual pairing bonds, and no need to ensure descent along the male line, since the only "guaranteed" descent was through the female line and in any event any property was held in common by the tribe; and contrast that to the world today. You can even try to transpose the situation of several thousand years ago, or perhaps the tribal situation in North America (according to Engels) to today's world. How could you do it, and would you want to do it?
The question is: Is the bare-bones private-property less social arrangement, the communistic tribe, the only way to achieve a completely flat/non-exploiting society that contains no rich and no poor, no social classes whatsoever? Are money and the State the hallmarks of exploitation and class differences based on property? Is private property inextricably intertwined with poverty, exploitation, slavery, female "imprisonment" in the home, patriarchy?
It is truly difficult to say that the tribal arrangement is superior; I think much human development - such as inventions such as a written language probably did arise in response to questions of ownership/taxation/laws regarding the preservation of private property which may have initially consisted of livestock. Once mankind moved beyond the hunter-gatherer subsistence agriculture existence, and figured out how to tame and keep livestock, how can you undo what must have been as progress (more food available year-round, guaranteed food supply without hunting). The expansion of the population must have proved to the tribe that livestock ownership was a superior system to hunting - and at that point, it would not take long before private ownership of livestock was claimed, by those who tamed the cattle and wished to keep them around year-round (covetousness rather than sharing the livestock with the tribe as before animals that were hunted had been shared). There was an excess of cattle - more than needed to go around. The man may have wanted to ensure that his descendants only inherited his wealth (the cattle) and so patriarchy rather than group marriage/casual pairing began - including eventually the seclusion of women. At the same time, adultery, prostitution started once monogamy started. Private property - keeping livestock - which was based on covetousness (or possibly a tribal herd had become too big to manage collectively and it had to be split up among initially nominal "owners" or responsible people who eventually became actual owners) led to many social ills, in this analysis. The issue was the rise of the concept of (a) private property that could therefore be (b) inherited by an individual, such as a descendant or other kin, as opposed to tribal/collective property that cannot be inherited by any individual tribal member, but belongs instead to the tribe/collective group. Engels is saying the issue is covetousness/greed/self-interest.
How has the tribal model of human organization worked in human history vs. the private property model (whether under monarchy/democracy)?
Engels is right in that the tribe that lived collectively/communistic system probably did lack social classes/conflict, in the absence of private property. Yet that form of social organization did not result in a "critical mass" of population. In areas of sparse population, it may be that it is difficult to advance in terms of what we know as, or call, progress.
Is a population safer or more successful living in a relatively small group with no private property, no social discord, or in a much larger group? Do numbers alone signify success? Is demographic advance the indicator of success? How can success be measured? An expanded population base that can therefore become more specialized, and possibly hit upon inventions such as the wheel, or writing, or other developments? Learning is synonymous with progress, but is it synonymous with success, in discussing all of humankind.
Engels uses the terms "savagery" "barbarism" and "civilization" and divides these periods into phases, in discussing the progress of mankind. Tribalism is in the "barbarism" or higher barbarism period. For Engels, civilization, linked to the rise of the State, is therefore a problem - because of the simultaneous development of private property/monogamy/woman's loss of status/class differences. However, Engels can only make these observations as a man who is only able to perceive and comment on these issues because of civilization (having gone to school and become a scholar and so forth). If Engels were living in a tribe what would he know? The paradox is that we can only know that there are indeed problems, by living within a State (as a product of the problem).
Of course there are many problems - and individuals have come up many times over history to point out injustices. Some have lived and some have died, because the entrenched interests didn't want to see anyone upset the apple-cart of exploitation. The new ideas are then sometimes coopted by the establishment. Engels mentions how large church organization in the Middle Ages (abbeys) tricked small farmers into transferring land titles to the church, in exchange for protection, although the church itself was supposed to be carrying out a new, more fair, social schema as set forth by Jesus.
Engels decries specialization, production of commodities, the market, the merchants, middle-men - even the rise of money as a symbolic form of wealth that supplanted cattle, which was according to Engels, the first form of money. But Engels would not have been in a position to comment about all this had it not been for the society made possible by these "ills." He simply would not have known because he wouldn't have been affected by the problems, as a tribesman living in a tribe with no private property.
Certainly, human development diverged at the point when the tribal model split into individual households with private herds of livestock, as opposed to the original tribal model. I do not think Engels has thought through the paradox of how the good that arose with the branch that began keeping livestock, can be retained, in a setting of a sort of return to tribal life (no money, no classes, no private property, no State).
Was life in the tribe boring? I'm not sure Engels has addressed the question of what tribal life - possibly unchanging, or possibly satisfying - represented, as opposed to life with private property.
Also, once you have given people a materially better life - such as additional food, which might not have been possible with collective herding - it's not so easy to take it away. But, is the only way to give people a better life through the accumulation of private property/wealth/class divisions etc?
Is civilization linked to injustice, if civilization always involves the development of private property and the State? Even if that were true, how many would willingly wish to return to a more backward form of social organization in order to avoid the downsides of civilization? I do not think these thinkers thought through the implications of communism especially with respect to the State, which never did wither away. What they wanted to give to the people, had only become possible under a State system, or a system of private property (i.e. more of everything). The most important thing the people didn't have when they were exploited in pre-revolutionary days, communism couldn't give, because of the fear that covetousness would win over idealism: Democracy. Today, the culture of "more" is more prevalent than ever - arrogance/egoism/selfishness/greed is glorified. Income inequality is decried, but people still mock the opposite - sharing, selflessness, the group (vs. the individual). Engels would be dumbstruck by the exponential expansion of the world's population since the late 19th Century - what would he make of the 20th Century communist experiments? Would he still predict the imminent demise of capitalism - along with private property, the family, classes, exploitation, the State?
The antithesis to the State is the former communistic system of common, shared land, lack of money, and no poor, no rich, no need for police or State, no concept of private ownership of flocks or land. The author discusses in detail how these societies were organized and states that American Indian society was based along communistic concepts. The author states that tribes, if they are organized along matriarchal lines - because of group marriage/casual pairing being allowed - which the author states is the original social organization of mankind, tribal affiliation is first and foremost - he states that in the Pacific NW, sometimes entire tribes occupied one long house, while in other areas of the US, a number of families might occupy a long house, and share the use of canoes, land. There might be individual allotments of land for garden plots, but the allotments might be re-allocated, and there was no concept that the land was actually the current holder's property, or that the land could be bought/sold.
The author mentions the use of cattle as money at a certain stage of social development, and the eventual supplanting of cattle with coinage/money - which thereafter took on a life of its own. He is particularly negative toward middle-men and merchants, using various colorful phrases to describe their parasitic existence since they are not involved in production directly.
The edition I read was a wonderful edition copyright 1902 by Charles H. Kerr & Company, which included the Translator's Preface (by Ernest Untermann, written in Chicago in August 1902) as well as the Author's preface to the first edition (1884) and Author's preface to the Fourth Edition (1891).
I actually did not think this book is that well-written, nor does it seem particularly scholarly or rigorous. The author occasionally slides into polemics - but not very often. I could follow his reasoning, which was based on knowledge collected up to that point. I have no doubt that much of what he says is actually true, and is not well-publicized since it would point to various uncomfortable facts about the organization of human society and the State in general (that is, any State). One thing I did notice is the author's marked pro-German slant, which is, perhaps unsurprising considering the author was a German. The tribal German past, the theory that the German tribes invigorated Europe by conquering Rome, and the admiration for the German respect for women, work, democracy, is remarkable - he seems to think that the outpouring or migration of German tribes from Germany into Northern France and thence to England, means that these three geographic areas (Germany, France, England) received the impetus toward democracy from their Germanic tribal heritage. I suppose the US - founded by Americans of English descent - then could be said to have also benefited from the tribes. (Interestingly, it's said that the Founders may have drawn some inspiration from the political organization of the Iroquois Federation - but were they really aware of the analogies of Germanic tribes, that they also had common lands, group marriage, and so forth?)
I'm not sure the author's analysis can explain the origin of the State, as an extension of the oppression of women in a monogamous marriage, and the development of the concept of private property, with the rise of herding culture and the need for additional labor with the development of commodity production. The book is obviously key to understanding theories of communism - ideally, the State would disappear as classes disappeared with the disappearance of private property (or most private property). I think this book challenges many concepts that are deeply ingrained in human society, such as lineage traced through the father. The author claims that once the man laid claim to ownership of herds, and with it the concept of private property , and the woman was in effect locked into non-social work in the home, classes arose as it became possible to amass larger herds, masses of slaves, and so forth. The State arose because of the contradictions in society - the fact that there were many slaves (or, in the general, the exploited) or the poor free people, vs. the rich (whether or not they owned slaves). A mechanism had to be set up to keep order in a society that included vast inequality and exploitation, as well as a way to ensure women's or the wife's "subservience." The mechanism was the State, which Engels says was set up - in any form it might take - to maintain the conditions for continued exploitation, ownership of private property. He directly links the rise of the State to the rise of private property, and claims that the rise of the concept of private property occurred when the men in the former matriarchal-lineage tribes began to claim livestock as their own property, rather than held in common by the tribe. The men previously had been hunters, and made their own tools/weapons, which they owned. Once livestock was tamed, they realized it was no longer necessary to constantly hunt and much more and varied food was then available, which permitted populations to expand. Cattle became the equivalent of money. Once the man had split off from the tribe, patriarchy took hold - and the man's interest was descent, insuring his wealth (since now there was a concept of private property/wealth) would descend to his heirs on his death. Hence the need to essentially "imprison" the female - the end of group marriage or casual pairing, the end of polyandry (where it might have existed) - although adultery and prostitution simultaneously arose with monogamy/polygamy. Engels traces the entire state of affairs to covetousness - the focus on acquisition. In this, the link to the revolutionary message of Christianity is evident. On a religious side, greed is said to be wrong, there is rhetoric "The meek shall inherit the Earth" and that there will be a "Kingdom of Heaven" on Earth as opposed to the secular State, which is perhaps organized to protect private property, as Engels says. Yet, after approximately 2,000 years of Xian teaching that greed is not good, along with the example of Jesus himself, who obviously personally shunned private property, nothing has changed - other than that more and more information is amassed on social organization and development.
Engels was obviously a reformer who decried the exploitation ongoing in his time. Serfdom persisted in his time in Russia. To say that communism - no, or not much private property, thus no need for a State to protect private property - was the answer to exploitation, which is the message of Marx and the other communist thinkers, is perhaps an oversimplification. Also, it is extremely difficult to re-engineer human nature now after ?4,000+ years of private property/patriarchy. In fact, I don't think it would have worked even had communism overspread the entire Earth, as envisioned by various thinkers.
There is a lot of what Engels says that seems to make sense, such as, mankind once was organized along tribal lines, and as tribes, there was no private property (other than perhaps a few garden plots although they were not "owned" per se and could be re-allocated) other than implements (hunting implements made and owned by the males, agricultural/cooking/weaving/sewing implements made and owned individually by the females). There was little trade, and no need for money. There were no tame livestock, and cooperation was needed to hunt. The animals so hunted were then shared with the tribe. According to Engels, this was the ideal, because it was a completely flat/classless society. Democracy was in force with participation of women as well as men at council meetings. North American Indian society, since it had not tamed livestock (and no livestock had been tamed in the W. hemisphere other than the turkey in Mexico and the llama in Peru, according to the author) was therefore free of greed/private property/monogamy/patriarchy (although men were the warriors/political and war leaders). Thus, American Indian society as it was discovered/described by European settlers/scholars post-Discovery/Conquest is said to offer a glimpse into an earlier stage of human development in general.
The development of herding and private ownership of livestock is thus given as the key factor that led to the concept of society organized to protect private property, or, the State. And several thousand years of private property ownership, State structures probably in place to protect same, patriarchy, and so forth - is it possible to erase it all? Obviously, the experiments with communism in the last century didn't work out as expected, maybe because the State was still in force, and there was no democracy despite democracy being a key feature of prehistoric/early communistic/tribal society. Probably, the unplanned/random aspects of tribal life were what led to the lack of a need for private property. Remember, in those days, without herding, without much agriculture, there was "enforced" cooperation, because in order to survive, hunting/fishing/collecting seafood/gathering vegetables/fruits/wild grains needed to be done probably constantly. If there were no herds of livestock, there was no need to feed the herds. The development of organized large-scale grain agriculture is traced to the need to provide fodder for herds - grain was first grown for animals, according to Engels, and humans only later began eating the grain they were feeding to cattle.
A hunting/gathering/communistic society could not "take off" demographically because of the limited number of foods, uncertain food supply despite the vast amount of wildlife. If there was a never-ending need to hunt/fish & subsistence/rudimentary agriculture, there would have been little time/energy left for anything else.
What Engels misses is the attachment of humans to "anything else" - that is, activities that do not directly involve day-to-day existence/survival.
It is very difficult to detach humans from their affection for all the things that are uniquely human, after all, albeit they may have only been enabled by the accumulation of private property enabling leisure/study, and could have only existed as long as there was a market for these products, i.e. a great deal of extra money accumulated many times through exploitation if not slavery.
Let's say human society never did move much beyond tribal organization, with no classes, no private property, no monogamy although there might be casual pairing bonds, and no need to ensure descent along the male line, since the only "guaranteed" descent was through the female line and in any event any property was held in common by the tribe; and contrast that to the world today. You can even try to transpose the situation of several thousand years ago, or perhaps the tribal situation in North America (according to Engels) to today's world. How could you do it, and would you want to do it?
The question is: Is the bare-bones private-property less social arrangement, the communistic tribe, the only way to achieve a completely flat/non-exploiting society that contains no rich and no poor, no social classes whatsoever? Are money and the State the hallmarks of exploitation and class differences based on property? Is private property inextricably intertwined with poverty, exploitation, slavery, female "imprisonment" in the home, patriarchy?
It is truly difficult to say that the tribal arrangement is superior; I think much human development - such as inventions such as a written language probably did arise in response to questions of ownership/taxation/laws regarding the preservation of private property which may have initially consisted of livestock. Once mankind moved beyond the hunter-gatherer subsistence agriculture existence, and figured out how to tame and keep livestock, how can you undo what must have been as progress (more food available year-round, guaranteed food supply without hunting). The expansion of the population must have proved to the tribe that livestock ownership was a superior system to hunting - and at that point, it would not take long before private ownership of livestock was claimed, by those who tamed the cattle and wished to keep them around year-round (covetousness rather than sharing the livestock with the tribe as before animals that were hunted had been shared). There was an excess of cattle - more than needed to go around. The man may have wanted to ensure that his descendants only inherited his wealth (the cattle) and so patriarchy rather than group marriage/casual pairing began - including eventually the seclusion of women. At the same time, adultery, prostitution started once monogamy started. Private property - keeping livestock - which was based on covetousness (or possibly a tribal herd had become too big to manage collectively and it had to be split up among initially nominal "owners" or responsible people who eventually became actual owners) led to many social ills, in this analysis. The issue was the rise of the concept of (a) private property that could therefore be (b) inherited by an individual, such as a descendant or other kin, as opposed to tribal/collective property that cannot be inherited by any individual tribal member, but belongs instead to the tribe/collective group. Engels is saying the issue is covetousness/greed/self-interest.
How has the tribal model of human organization worked in human history vs. the private property model (whether under monarchy/democracy)?
Engels is right in that the tribe that lived collectively/communistic system probably did lack social classes/conflict, in the absence of private property. Yet that form of social organization did not result in a "critical mass" of population. In areas of sparse population, it may be that it is difficult to advance in terms of what we know as, or call, progress.
Is a population safer or more successful living in a relatively small group with no private property, no social discord, or in a much larger group? Do numbers alone signify success? Is demographic advance the indicator of success? How can success be measured? An expanded population base that can therefore become more specialized, and possibly hit upon inventions such as the wheel, or writing, or other developments? Learning is synonymous with progress, but is it synonymous with success, in discussing all of humankind.
Engels uses the terms "savagery" "barbarism" and "civilization" and divides these periods into phases, in discussing the progress of mankind. Tribalism is in the "barbarism" or higher barbarism period. For Engels, civilization, linked to the rise of the State, is therefore a problem - because of the simultaneous development of private property/monogamy/woman's loss of status/class differences. However, Engels can only make these observations as a man who is only able to perceive and comment on these issues because of civilization (having gone to school and become a scholar and so forth). If Engels were living in a tribe what would he know? The paradox is that we can only know that there are indeed problems, by living within a State (as a product of the problem).
Of course there are many problems - and individuals have come up many times over history to point out injustices. Some have lived and some have died, because the entrenched interests didn't want to see anyone upset the apple-cart of exploitation. The new ideas are then sometimes coopted by the establishment. Engels mentions how large church organization in the Middle Ages (abbeys) tricked small farmers into transferring land titles to the church, in exchange for protection, although the church itself was supposed to be carrying out a new, more fair, social schema as set forth by Jesus.
Engels decries specialization, production of commodities, the market, the merchants, middle-men - even the rise of money as a symbolic form of wealth that supplanted cattle, which was according to Engels, the first form of money. But Engels would not have been in a position to comment about all this had it not been for the society made possible by these "ills." He simply would not have known because he wouldn't have been affected by the problems, as a tribesman living in a tribe with no private property.
Certainly, human development diverged at the point when the tribal model split into individual households with private herds of livestock, as opposed to the original tribal model. I do not think Engels has thought through the paradox of how the good that arose with the branch that began keeping livestock, can be retained, in a setting of a sort of return to tribal life (no money, no classes, no private property, no State).
Was life in the tribe boring? I'm not sure Engels has addressed the question of what tribal life - possibly unchanging, or possibly satisfying - represented, as opposed to life with private property.
Also, once you have given people a materially better life - such as additional food, which might not have been possible with collective herding - it's not so easy to take it away. But, is the only way to give people a better life through the accumulation of private property/wealth/class divisions etc?
Is civilization linked to injustice, if civilization always involves the development of private property and the State? Even if that were true, how many would willingly wish to return to a more backward form of social organization in order to avoid the downsides of civilization? I do not think these thinkers thought through the implications of communism especially with respect to the State, which never did wither away. What they wanted to give to the people, had only become possible under a State system, or a system of private property (i.e. more of everything). The most important thing the people didn't have when they were exploited in pre-revolutionary days, communism couldn't give, because of the fear that covetousness would win over idealism: Democracy. Today, the culture of "more" is more prevalent than ever - arrogance/egoism/selfishness/greed is glorified. Income inequality is decried, but people still mock the opposite - sharing, selflessness, the group (vs. the individual). Engels would be dumbstruck by the exponential expansion of the world's population since the late 19th Century - what would he make of the 20th Century communist experiments? Would he still predict the imminent demise of capitalism - along with private property, the family, classes, exploitation, the State?
January 19, 2018
One of the very first IMPORTANT works that I ever read in university. This provoked discussion among my friends and felt RELEVANT despite being so very old. If Karl Marx is too 'dry' for you (or too long!) then try Engels, Marx's tag team partner in thought! --Jen from Quebec :0)
June 24, 2022
Written in two months and published in German, in October 1884, in Zurich, Switzerland, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State is one of the essential theoretical reflections of Marxism. Moreover, it is a fruitful dialogue of historical materialism with anthropology, especially Morgan's investigation.
I had to abstract myself from my essentially moderate political character of a left that takes so long to organize itself; it was a work that opened new horizons for me for what was to come.
I had to abstract myself from my essentially moderate political character of a left that takes so long to organize itself; it was a work that opened new horizons for me for what was to come.
July 9, 2024
"禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 丿爻鬲诏丕賴 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴 丿賵賱鬲 丕爻鬲 賵 亘乇毓讴爻"!
賴賲丕賳胤賵乇 讴賴 丕夭 賳丕賲 丕孬乇 亘乇賲蹖鈥屫③屫� 丕賳诏賱爻 丕夭 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖蹖 賳賵毓 亘卮乇 亘丕 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 蹖丕賮鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 賲賵乇诏丕賳 賵 丿丕乇賵蹖賳 卮乇賵毓 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 丿賵賱鬲 賵賳丨賵賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇讴乇丿 丌賳 賲蹖鈥屫必池�. 丕賵 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 丿乇 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屬囏� 賵 賯亘丕蹖賱 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖蹖 爻蹖爻鬲賲蹖 讴賲賵賳蹖 丿乇 噩乇蹖丕賳 亘賵丿賴貙 賴賲诏蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳丕賮毓蹖 賲卮鬲乇讴 丿乇 噩賴鬲 賲卮鬲乇讴 毓賲賱鈥� 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 賵 丌賳趩賴 乇丕 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必嗀� 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 賲卮鬲乇讴 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀�. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屬囏й� 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖蹖 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賵 鬲毓丕賲賱丕鬲 亘蹖賳 賮乇丿蹖 丕夭 丕夭丿賵丕噩 诏乇賮鬲賴 鬲丕 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘丕 爻乇丕賳 賯亘丕蹖賱 亘爻蹖丕乇 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 亘丕 丌賳趩賴 賲丕 丕賲乇賵夭 亘丿蹖賴蹖 賲蹖鈥屫з嗂ж臂屬� 亘賵丿賴鈥屫ж池�. 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 賵 鬲讴 賴賲爻乇蹖 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕卮鬲賴. 丕賲丕 讴賲 讴賲 亘丕 诏爻鬲乇卮 噩賲毓蹖鬲貙 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 卮讴賱 噩賲毓鈥屫①堌臂� 禺賵乇丕讴貙 倬丿蹖丿 丕賲丿賳 讴卮丕賵乇夭蹖 貙 丿丕賲倬乇賵乇蹖 貙 氐賳丕蹖毓蹖 亘乇丕蹖 讴卮鬲 賵 睾蹖乇賴 賲丕 卮丕賴丿 倬丿蹖丿 丕賲丿賳 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖貙 倬賵賱貙 爻賵丿丕诏乇蹖 賵 讴賲 讴賲 噩丕賲毓賴 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖 賴爻鬲蹖賲. 丕夭 丌賳 倬爻 噩丕賲毓賴 亘賴 丿賵 诏乇賵賴 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇诏乇 賵 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 卮賵賳丿賴貙 丕乇亘丕亘 賵 亘乇丿賴 賵 丿丕乇丕 賵 賳丿丕乇 鬲賯爻蹖賲 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 蹖讴 胤亘賯賴 賴賲蹖卮賴 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 丿蹖诏乇 乇丕 亘賴 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭屫必�. 胤亘賯賴鈥屰屰� 讴賴 賲賳丕賮毓 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇丿貙 亘賴 賳賴丕丿蹖 賯賴乇蹖 賵 賯丿乇鬲賲賳丿 亘乇丕蹖 爻乇讴賵亘 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 倬丕蹖蹖賳蹖 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕乇丿 賵 丕蹖賳诏賵賳賴 丿賵賱鬲 倬丿蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屫③屫�.
亘賴 胤賵乇 讴賱蹖 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賵 噩睾乇丕賮蹖 讴鬲丕亘 夭蹖丕丿 丕爻鬲貙 丕爻丕賲蹖 賯亘丕蹖賱 賵 賳跇丕丿賴丕 亘賴 诏爻鬲乇丿诏蹖 毓賳賵丕賳 卮丿賴 賵 亘丕夭賴鈥屸€嵺� 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賲賵乇丿 亘乇乇爻蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 胤賵賱丕賳蹖 丕爻鬲貙 丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 乇賵蹖 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 賯丿賲鈥屬囏й� 丕賵賱 讴賲蹖 禺爻鬲賴 讴賳賳丿賴 賵 丕賱亘鬲賴 诏蹖噩 讴賳賳丿賴 亘賴 賳馗乇 亘乇爻丿. 丕賲丕 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丿 賲賳 丕夭 賯爻賲鬲 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 丿賵賱鬲貙 亘蹖 丕賳丿丕夭賴 噩匕丕亘 卮丿.
讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 亘乇賳丕賲賴鈥屰� 賲胤丕賱毓賴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 爻蹖丕爻蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 賲賴賲 丕爻鬲 賵 亘賱丕禺乇賴 亘丕蹖丿 禺賵丕賳丿賴 卮賵丿. 诏乇趩賴 丕賲乇賵夭 亘毓丿 丕夭 爻丕賱鈥屬囏� 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 鬲丕夭賴 賵 賲毓鬲亘乇鬲乇蹖 丿乇 丿爻鬲 丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 賳賯胤賴 賳馗乇丕鬲 丕賳诏賱爻 賵 賲丕乇讴爻 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 鬲讴乇丕乇 賳卮丿賳蹖 賲蹖 賳賲丕蹖丿.鈥�
賴賲丕賳胤賵乇 讴賴 丕夭 賳丕賲 丕孬乇 亘乇賲蹖鈥屫③屫� 丕賳诏賱爻 丕夭 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖蹖 賳賵毓 亘卮乇 亘丕 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 蹖丕賮鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 賲賵乇诏丕賳 賵 丿丕乇賵蹖賳 卮乇賵毓 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 丿賵賱鬲 賵賳丨賵賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇讴乇丿 丌賳 賲蹖鈥屫必池�. 丕賵 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 丿乇 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屬囏� 賵 賯亘丕蹖賱 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖蹖 爻蹖爻鬲賲蹖 讴賲賵賳蹖 丿乇 噩乇蹖丕賳 亘賵丿賴貙 賴賲诏蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳丕賮毓蹖 賲卮鬲乇讴 丿乇 噩賴鬲 賲卮鬲乇讴 毓賲賱鈥� 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 賵 丌賳趩賴 乇丕 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必嗀� 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 賲卮鬲乇讴 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀�. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屬囏й� 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖蹖 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賵 鬲毓丕賲賱丕鬲 亘蹖賳 賮乇丿蹖 丕夭 丕夭丿賵丕噩 诏乇賮鬲賴 鬲丕 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘丕 爻乇丕賳 賯亘丕蹖賱 亘爻蹖丕乇 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 亘丕 丌賳趩賴 賲丕 丕賲乇賵夭 亘丿蹖賴蹖 賲蹖鈥屫з嗂ж臂屬� 亘賵丿賴鈥屫ж池�. 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 賵 鬲讴 賴賲爻乇蹖 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕卮鬲賴. 丕賲丕 讴賲 讴賲 亘丕 诏爻鬲乇卮 噩賲毓蹖鬲貙 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 卮讴賱 噩賲毓鈥屫①堌臂� 禺賵乇丕讴貙 倬丿蹖丿 丕賲丿賳 讴卮丕賵乇夭蹖 貙 丿丕賲倬乇賵乇蹖 貙 氐賳丕蹖毓蹖 亘乇丕蹖 讴卮鬲 賵 睾蹖乇賴 賲丕 卮丕賴丿 倬丿蹖丿 丕賲丿賳 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖貙 倬賵賱貙 爻賵丿丕诏乇蹖 賵 讴賲 讴賲 噩丕賲毓賴 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖 賴爻鬲蹖賲. 丕夭 丌賳 倬爻 噩丕賲毓賴 亘賴 丿賵 诏乇賵賴 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇诏乇 賵 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 卮賵賳丿賴貙 丕乇亘丕亘 賵 亘乇丿賴 賵 丿丕乇丕 賵 賳丿丕乇 鬲賯爻蹖賲 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 蹖讴 胤亘賯賴 賴賲蹖卮賴 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 丿蹖诏乇 乇丕 亘賴 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭屫必�. 胤亘賯賴鈥屰屰� 讴賴 賲賳丕賮毓 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇丿貙 亘賴 賳賴丕丿蹖 賯賴乇蹖 賵 賯丿乇鬲賲賳丿 亘乇丕蹖 爻乇讴賵亘 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 倬丕蹖蹖賳蹖 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕乇丿 賵 丕蹖賳诏賵賳賴 丿賵賱鬲 倬丿蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屫③屫�.
亘賴 胤賵乇 讴賱蹖 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賵 噩睾乇丕賮蹖 讴鬲丕亘 夭蹖丕丿 丕爻鬲貙 丕爻丕賲蹖 賯亘丕蹖賱 賵 賳跇丕丿賴丕 亘賴 诏爻鬲乇丿诏蹖 毓賳賵丕賳 卮丿賴 賵 亘丕夭賴鈥屸€嵺� 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賲賵乇丿 亘乇乇爻蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 胤賵賱丕賳蹖 丕爻鬲貙 丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 乇賵蹖 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 賯丿賲鈥屬囏й� 丕賵賱 讴賲蹖 禺爻鬲賴 讴賳賳丿賴 賵 丕賱亘鬲賴 诏蹖噩 讴賳賳丿賴 亘賴 賳馗乇 亘乇爻丿. 丕賲丕 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丿 賲賳 丕夭 賯爻賲鬲 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 丿賵賱鬲貙 亘蹖 丕賳丿丕夭賴 噩匕丕亘 卮丿.
讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 亘乇賳丕賲賴鈥屰� 賲胤丕賱毓賴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 爻蹖丕爻蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 賲賴賲 丕爻鬲 賵 亘賱丕禺乇賴 亘丕蹖丿 禺賵丕賳丿賴 卮賵丿. 诏乇趩賴 丕賲乇賵夭 亘毓丿 丕夭 爻丕賱鈥屬囏� 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 鬲丕夭賴 賵 賲毓鬲亘乇鬲乇蹖 丿乇 丿爻鬲 丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 賳賯胤賴 賳馗乇丕鬲 丕賳诏賱爻 賵 賲丕乇讴爻 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 鬲讴乇丕乇 賳卮丿賳蹖 賲蹖 賳賲丕蹖丿.鈥�
November 11, 2014
Friedrich Engels takes you on a tour around the evolution of the human society into the current establishment we take for granted as the ever-existing standard. No doubt there are many holes left in this study of anthropology, it provides a systematic study into the transformation of an egalitarian society of humans in their primitive stages (savagery/barbarism) to a state-controlled monogamist society (civilization).
I. What鈥檚 good about the book?
Its a great introduction to anthropology for everyone, inspite of the political inclinations of the author. Engels provides an explanation of how the economic conditions slowly influenced the social structure and changed the woman-centric group family into a monogamistic male-centric slave-owning one. Engels bases his foundations on Lewis H. Morgan鈥檚 kinship theory, the American anthropologist/social theorist. Although many aspects of Morgan鈥檚 anthropology theory have been rejected by the modern day anthropologists, Engels cannot be simply thrown away.
The matrilineal structure of a group family in the early tribes has been proven of recent [1][2]. Thus, inspite of the outdatedness of the theory built and possibly many faults with it, it is definitely worth re-assessing it again in light of recent findings.
II. Some of the let-downs/problems with the book
1. Engels has sadly not considered Indian societal structure, when he claims how exogamy amongst tribes was the norm amongst the Native American tribes. India exhibits an exact opposite norm of endogamy amongst tribes, owing to its caste system. The Indian system does have a system of 鈥済otras鈥� to prevent intermarriage amongst kins, but nevertheless, its a complicated system with endogamy at the top.
2. I found certain claims in the book a bit abrupt without a scientific backing, and need to dig in further to verify them.
a. The woman did not own any means of production but was more involved in household work. It seems a bit contradictory to me, given that women are known to be involved in agriculture/food gathering since antiquity. Additionally, women have been involved in many handicraft activities, its difficult to not own the means.
b. The woman was responsible for moving away from the group marriage into a pairing-family relationship which ultimately led to monogamy. Engels says that the woman found the group marriage inconvenient under growing population in a settling human community. However, why that was the case is not clearly mentioned.
3. Engels seems to show a remarkable personal hatred towards traders and middle-men, which I feel is not befitting a scientific objective thesis.
4. The flow of the book is a bit irksome. Explanations/elaborations for some of the claims in the book come much later.
III Brief Summary
1. Evolution of Economic Activity
Engels takes the example of a number of tribes which were evolving in different regions across the world -- the Iroquois Native Americans, the Athenians, Romans, Germans and Celts. Each of these start out in the form of a group marriage (everyone in group A is married to everyone in group B), arranging themselves with the 鈥済ens鈥� as a basic unit/clan, and undergoing further super-grouping the forms of phratries and tribes. Engels describes how each of these societies ended up into become a centrally controlled state held together by capitalism and mass-production as its pillars. The society starts out as a set of individual tribes, where humans participate together in producing goods as much as is required to sustain themselves locally. Through generation of surplus, it ends up as a hierarchy, where a few capitalists control a large-scale production of goods by employing the masses in exchange for wages. The produced, as well as the means of production such as the domesticated cattle, tools and the land used for growing crops which was jointly owned by the community, ended up as contested objects for private ownership under the new capitalist system. Engels states how a central state was established (along with a police force) to keep the rules of private ownership sustained (and often in the favour of the wealthy).
2. Evolution of Marriage
More importantly than the economic activity, is the evolution of the relationship between a man and a woman, and therefore, the social positions enjoyed by them. Engels discusses the various phases of marriage society went through -- group marriage, pairing marriage, and eventually monogamy. With the origin of mass production and the private property, Engels elaborates in his thesis how a female descent based society became a male descent one, how the property rights of a woman were slowly curtailed and how that of a man grew, and how monogamy -- the ultimate result -- gave man the ultimate freedom in his sexual activities while forcing the woman to maintain her chastity. Therefore, what is understood by monogamy is essentially, monogamy only for women. The discussion explains a number of observations in history and the present -- polygamy (male), prostitution (female), dowry, lack of female ownership, etc.
Engels concludes that the household activities of the woman, that were a social activity in the stages of barbarism, were no longer so in the new model of private property. The means of production being owned by the man (as according to his activities of hunting and food-gathering in the early stages), made him much powerful than the woman. Engels further concludes that with the arrival of machine-based mass-production, the woman can find her part in the social production, and thereby regain her rights of property making her equal to man.
3. The Division of Labor : From Barbarism to Civilization
Engels concludes his thesis with a summary of the above two evolutions together with an evolution of the division of labour starting from the primitive tribes of barbarism. The 3 revolutionary stages of the division of labour, which separate barbarism from civilization are --
Division of labour between tribes which had cattle v/s those who did not. This signifies the first stage of exchange of mass-produced goods.
Division of labour between agriculture and handicraft industry. The amount of work prevented a single person to be involved in both.
Introduction of the middle-man -- the trader, and along with him, the minted currency for exchange of goods. For the first time, a class is introduced that does not concern itself with the production but with the exchange of goods.
The introduction of the trader marks the threshold of the civilization, and also, the state as described above. Engels describes civilization as :
鈥淐ivilization is, therefore, according to the above analysis, the stage of development in society at which the division of labor, the exchange between individuals arising from it, and the commodity production which combines them both, come to their full growth and revolutionizes the whole of previous society.鈥�
Finally, Engels follows up with a number of consequences : loss of control of produce by the producer, slave labour, mortgages, and a growing hypocrisy in the society to cover up its contradictions.
IV References
[1]
[2]
(For a well formatted review (欧宝娱乐 really needs to improve their formatting), please go to : )
I. What鈥檚 good about the book?
Its a great introduction to anthropology for everyone, inspite of the political inclinations of the author. Engels provides an explanation of how the economic conditions slowly influenced the social structure and changed the woman-centric group family into a monogamistic male-centric slave-owning one. Engels bases his foundations on Lewis H. Morgan鈥檚 kinship theory, the American anthropologist/social theorist. Although many aspects of Morgan鈥檚 anthropology theory have been rejected by the modern day anthropologists, Engels cannot be simply thrown away.
The matrilineal structure of a group family in the early tribes has been proven of recent [1][2]. Thus, inspite of the outdatedness of the theory built and possibly many faults with it, it is definitely worth re-assessing it again in light of recent findings.
II. Some of the let-downs/problems with the book
1. Engels has sadly not considered Indian societal structure, when he claims how exogamy amongst tribes was the norm amongst the Native American tribes. India exhibits an exact opposite norm of endogamy amongst tribes, owing to its caste system. The Indian system does have a system of 鈥済otras鈥� to prevent intermarriage amongst kins, but nevertheless, its a complicated system with endogamy at the top.
2. I found certain claims in the book a bit abrupt without a scientific backing, and need to dig in further to verify them.
a. The woman did not own any means of production but was more involved in household work. It seems a bit contradictory to me, given that women are known to be involved in agriculture/food gathering since antiquity. Additionally, women have been involved in many handicraft activities, its difficult to not own the means.
b. The woman was responsible for moving away from the group marriage into a pairing-family relationship which ultimately led to monogamy. Engels says that the woman found the group marriage inconvenient under growing population in a settling human community. However, why that was the case is not clearly mentioned.
3. Engels seems to show a remarkable personal hatred towards traders and middle-men, which I feel is not befitting a scientific objective thesis.
4. The flow of the book is a bit irksome. Explanations/elaborations for some of the claims in the book come much later.
III Brief Summary
1. Evolution of Economic Activity
Engels takes the example of a number of tribes which were evolving in different regions across the world -- the Iroquois Native Americans, the Athenians, Romans, Germans and Celts. Each of these start out in the form of a group marriage (everyone in group A is married to everyone in group B), arranging themselves with the 鈥済ens鈥� as a basic unit/clan, and undergoing further super-grouping the forms of phratries and tribes. Engels describes how each of these societies ended up into become a centrally controlled state held together by capitalism and mass-production as its pillars. The society starts out as a set of individual tribes, where humans participate together in producing goods as much as is required to sustain themselves locally. Through generation of surplus, it ends up as a hierarchy, where a few capitalists control a large-scale production of goods by employing the masses in exchange for wages. The produced, as well as the means of production such as the domesticated cattle, tools and the land used for growing crops which was jointly owned by the community, ended up as contested objects for private ownership under the new capitalist system. Engels states how a central state was established (along with a police force) to keep the rules of private ownership sustained (and often in the favour of the wealthy).
2. Evolution of Marriage
More importantly than the economic activity, is the evolution of the relationship between a man and a woman, and therefore, the social positions enjoyed by them. Engels discusses the various phases of marriage society went through -- group marriage, pairing marriage, and eventually monogamy. With the origin of mass production and the private property, Engels elaborates in his thesis how a female descent based society became a male descent one, how the property rights of a woman were slowly curtailed and how that of a man grew, and how monogamy -- the ultimate result -- gave man the ultimate freedom in his sexual activities while forcing the woman to maintain her chastity. Therefore, what is understood by monogamy is essentially, monogamy only for women. The discussion explains a number of observations in history and the present -- polygamy (male), prostitution (female), dowry, lack of female ownership, etc.
Engels concludes that the household activities of the woman, that were a social activity in the stages of barbarism, were no longer so in the new model of private property. The means of production being owned by the man (as according to his activities of hunting and food-gathering in the early stages), made him much powerful than the woman. Engels further concludes that with the arrival of machine-based mass-production, the woman can find her part in the social production, and thereby regain her rights of property making her equal to man.
3. The Division of Labor : From Barbarism to Civilization
Engels concludes his thesis with a summary of the above two evolutions together with an evolution of the division of labour starting from the primitive tribes of barbarism. The 3 revolutionary stages of the division of labour, which separate barbarism from civilization are --
Division of labour between tribes which had cattle v/s those who did not. This signifies the first stage of exchange of mass-produced goods.
Division of labour between agriculture and handicraft industry. The amount of work prevented a single person to be involved in both.
Introduction of the middle-man -- the trader, and along with him, the minted currency for exchange of goods. For the first time, a class is introduced that does not concern itself with the production but with the exchange of goods.
The introduction of the trader marks the threshold of the civilization, and also, the state as described above. Engels describes civilization as :
鈥淐ivilization is, therefore, according to the above analysis, the stage of development in society at which the division of labor, the exchange between individuals arising from it, and the commodity production which combines them both, come to their full growth and revolutionizes the whole of previous society.鈥�
Finally, Engels follows up with a number of consequences : loss of control of produce by the producer, slave labour, mortgages, and a growing hypocrisy in the society to cover up its contradictions.
IV References
[1]
[2]
(For a well formatted review (欧宝娱乐 really needs to improve their formatting), please go to : )
November 20, 2018
In 1877 an American anthropologist, Lewis Henry Morgan, published a book, Ancient Society. In this book, Morgan offered an approach, based on Darwin鈥檚 theory of evolution, to tracing the development of the family-structure in different stages of society, According to Morgan, there is a historical road of progress from savage, via barbaric, to civilized society. There are two important lines of thought in Morgan鈥檚 work. (1) Man learns to make tools, apparatus and machines, and gains every greater control over production. The savage collects fish and plants; the barbarian uses axes, knifes and bow & arrow; the civilized man sustains himself with domesticated animals and highly developed agriculture. (2) As society passes from one phase to another, the social relations, or the structure of society, changes. Savages live in matrilineal clans, with only a taboo on paternal incest; barbarians live in group marriages, with taboos on all forms of incest and with exogamy (sexual intercourse only outside the clan); civilization is characterised by patriarchal family structure, based on inheritance of accumulated property.
Morgan based his findings in evolutionary anthropology and sociology on his observations on American Indian tribes. He was a fervent student of the Indian customs, traditions and ways of life, and he thought he saw in these people the pure state of mankind. Or rather, the most purest state, since according to him, the ultimate natural state of Man was long gone and didn鈥檛 fossilize, so was untraceable.
Karl Marx, already in 1845 (The German Ideology), proclaimed that history proceeds in a dialectic fashion. Mankind inherits the past from his parents (property, knowledge, etc.) and uses this material, combined with his own conscious reflections, to build the future. In other words: economics determines politics; material determines thought. So, it doesn鈥檛 surprise us to see Marx becoming excited and happy when he read Morgan鈥檚 book. In fact, he was so happy and excited that he decided to write a book and incorporate Morgan鈥檚 sociological ideas into his own economic theories. Alas, Marx died before he could finish the book.
But then Engels picked up the manuscripts and decided to finish the work himself. Enter The Origin of the Family, Property and the State (1884). In this book, Engels extends the ideas of Morgan to fit into the dialectical materialistic framework he and Marx developed over the years. The result? A highly speculative story about how the family-structure, private property and the State arose (necessarily) out of historical developments, culminating 鈥� of course 鈥� in nineteenth century capitalism.
As man passes the stages of savagery and barbarism, and enters civilization, the family structure changes. As savages, mankind lived in groups, in which everyone had sex with everyone. People lived in clans in which every child was everyone鈥檚 child, and property wasn鈥檛 there (it would perish, since it comprised natural products) or was communal. Soon, man learns to use tools and fire (with which to process new foods), and the primitive division of labour arises: man hunts, women gathers fruits and vegetables and takes care of the kids. With this way of living, man is passing into a state of barbarism, in which clans form and sexual intercourse becomes more restricted. No incest allowed, and gradually people start to live in family groups and look for mates in other clans (i.e. exogamy). Stable pair bonding forms, and regulations to start and terminate marriage originate.
But then something peculiar happened. In the Old World (i.e. on the Eurasian continent) people found domesticable animals and cultivatable plants. So now a new division of labour developed: tribes (comprised of multiple clans) herding flocks of animals on pastures, and tribes who traded their products with these nomads for meat and milk. With this new way of production, social relations changed immediately: as animals became domesticated, it became important to own as much of them as possible and to pass them over to your offspring. Hence, private property becomes a part of the way of life.
But private property and herding animals have one precondition. If you own animals, you want to make sure that your offspring are really your offspring 鈥� you don鈥檛 want to be cheated by your wife, and pass over your property to another man鈥檚 children. This is a deep-rooted evolutionary problem: the woman is sure of her parenthood, the man isn鈥檛. This way of living, this way of production, forced upon the clans the need for patriarchal family-structure. The man dominates the family and sexual intercourse is highly restricted; of course, the man is allowed mistresses and prostitution, but the woman is punished severely for any form of adultery. The monogamous family and private property are both a product of this new form of production.
And then things start to proceed faster. The division of labour into herdsmen and agricultural producers leads immediately to a second division of labour. As capital (cattle) starts to accumulate, 鈥榬ich鈥� and 鈥榩oor鈥� become concepts. The family is now the social unit within society, and property becomes a dividing force.
Now, Engels, has managed to get his foot in between the door, and he proceeds brilliantly. Population increases due to increased productivity of food and clothing (i.e. division of labour), family wealth increases, but also growing differences between have鈥檚 and have not鈥檚, and this calls for a structural authority that can impose order on society. And when you can get some from someone else, why produce yourself? War becomes an end in itself: plunder and rape become instruments of the tribe to acquire property without producing.
Witness here the third major division of labour: working for a living becomes degrading, the use of power and force become tools, and slavery becomes an important part of social production and slave economies become widespread. Working becomes something particularly suited to the oppressed, money is to be made primarily in trading the products of slavery, or through the possession of land and cattle. It is here that civilization truly breaks through. Being a merchant becomes a profession 鈥� 鈥減arasites鈥� or 鈥済enuine social sycophants鈥�, as Engels calls them 鈥� and metallic money replaces cattle as the universal commodity. The commodity is now a tool for non-producers to dominate the producers and appropriate their production.
We have here, for the first time, a class society: an aristocracy (inherited wealth), workers, artisans and slaves. Slaves, money and land lead to new social relationships and create a heterogeneous society, in which class relationships cut through existing genealogical (clan) relationships. Gentile constitution consisted of elections, assemblies and appointed military commanders, but lacked coercive power; the exploitation of the many demands permanent coercion and force. This phase of society thus sees the end of the gentile (i.e. clan) constitution and its replacement by the State and its laws.
According to Engels, 鈥渢he state is the product of a society that has plunged itself into self-contradictions and split itself up into class antagonisms.鈥� A power is wanted to resolve these conflicts of economic interests. This power is the state: (1) it has a territorial basis (as opposed to bonds of kinship); (2) it possesses public force (police, army, prison system, etc.); (3) it taxes the people to finance itself 鈥� later on state debts emerge; (4) authority enters the hands of permanent officials, who are above and alienated from society (as opposed to earlier appointed temporary military leaders); (5) the rights of a citizen are based on property (as opposed to earlier family relationships) 鈥� later on, this becomes universal suffrage and the state plays off the people against each other (Engels has Bismarck in mind).
So, for Engels, there is a direct historical development to be traced by studying American Indians, ancient Greece and Rome, the Germans and Celts, and contemporary (for Engels) society. It shows multiple divisions of labour: between the sexes, between rich and poor (families), between merchants and producers, between slaves and freemen; culminating in a class society that is completely determined by the means of social production and in which the oppressed multitude becomes 鈥� due to the law of accumulation of capital 鈥� becomes ever greater, until it reaches the breaking point. Class antagonisms and self-contradictions run rampant and money is the universal commodity. The monogamous family (and adulterating husband) is the social unit of this society, and women are oppressed.
To summarize: the monogamous family (in which the woman is oppressed), private property and the state and its laws all arise from the historical development of social division of labour. Culture follows economics 鈥� new ways of production lead to new values and ways of living. Some societies remain in the stage of savagery or barbarism, while others develop, both for contingent historical reasons (like climate, availability of domesticable animals, etc.), into civilizations 鈥� of which some perish (ancient Greece and Rome) and some proceed yet further (contemporary Britain and Germany).
As always, Engels (just like Marx) ends his interesting speculations with threats and promises. Civilization, with its state, its laws, its monogamous family-structure, its private property, is a transitory historical phase 鈥� Communism will end this and herald a new time, in which class relationships are broken down, sexual freedom will reign and property will be communal. In short: a Utopian vision of how mankind should live. Engels and Marx weren鈥檛 really familiar with the naturalistic fallacy, which says that you can鈥檛 get an 鈥榦ught鈥� from an 鈥榠s鈥� 鈥� throughout their work they mix up their highly interesting and speculative theories with their own ideological values. Engels鈥� predictions about Communism as prophylactic to modern day civilization are nothing but ideological wishes, and have nothing to do with the theories he describes earlier in the book.
But to be fair, this doesn鈥檛 make the content of The Origin of the Family, Property and the State less interesting. Although Engels primarily uses Morgan鈥檚 findings, which are by now superseded by newer anthropological theories, there are two major issues which deserve to be remembered.
(1) Engels is one of the first to recognize human biology in the problem of sexual freedom. Why don鈥檛 communal living and free sex work? Because human beings come equipped with emotions, like jealousy, lust, uncertainty about parenthood (for men). Marriage and oppression of women can be traced to the ultimate biological dilemma: I want to know for sure that the child of my wife is mine 鈥� all cultures have found ways to tackle this question, some of which we disapprove highly (the treatment of women in Muslim societies) and some which aren鈥檛 working at all (the way Western society is functioning right now). Engels points to human sexuality as an important causal factor in family-structure, marriage regulations, property rights, etc.
(2) Engels is also the first one to clearly state the impact of contingent historical factors in the development of societies. The availability of domesticable animals, cultivatable (and eatable) plants, favourable climatic and geographical conditions, etc. True, Montesquieu and Adam Smith also pointed to things like climate and geography as causes of juridical and economic developments, but (in my opinion) they weren鈥檛 so explicit as Friedrich Engels in this book. Contemporary scholar Jared Diamond has come to the conclusion (in his Guns, Germs and Steel [1997) that the availability of domesticable animals and plants was a contingent factor in the rise of European civilization. For this, Engels deserves to be praised.
Nevertheless, he bases his own theory of dialectical materialism on evolutionary anthropological theories of Morgan, which were highly speculative. Both Marx, Engels and Morgan have a conception of history as a succession of phases 鈥� this is flawed thinking. There is no 鈥榣adder to civilization鈥�, just like there is no 鈥榟ierarchy of species鈥�. In the times of Engels and Morgan, intellectuals still believed in Victorian Britain as the culmination of civilization and in British Man as the supreme organism 鈥� tribes in far off regions (colonies, mostly) were deemed to be brutes or savages, the Africans, for example, were regarded as a station of passage from ape to Man. The way people spoke about other cultures during these times betrays racism and supremacist/colonist thinking. For this reason, one cannot really accept the principles underlying the sociological theories of those times.
(This is, by the way, not the same as contemporary cultural relativism, which states that all cultures are equal, etc. Up to World War II, racism and racial theories were 鈥榤ainstream鈥� ideas and should be treated, in my opinion, as merely historical facts - without drawing any ethical implications about those ideas or their proponents. We all know these ideas were ethically wrong, but let鈥檚 leave that outside historical analysis of past ideas.)
Anyway, this book is the second work of Friedrich Engels that I read. Engels is a much more clear and accessible writer than Marx was. And in general they adhered to the same economic theory. It鈥檚 just that Engels picked much more interesting subjects to write about and did a much better job explaining his underlying ideas. But due to the materials, theories and facts that Engels used in this book, it is possibly slightly outdated as a purely scientific work. Read The Origin of the Family, Property, and the State if you鈥檙e interested in understanding Marxism and don鈥檛 want to read through 3000+ pages of Marx.
Morgan based his findings in evolutionary anthropology and sociology on his observations on American Indian tribes. He was a fervent student of the Indian customs, traditions and ways of life, and he thought he saw in these people the pure state of mankind. Or rather, the most purest state, since according to him, the ultimate natural state of Man was long gone and didn鈥檛 fossilize, so was untraceable.
Karl Marx, already in 1845 (The German Ideology), proclaimed that history proceeds in a dialectic fashion. Mankind inherits the past from his parents (property, knowledge, etc.) and uses this material, combined with his own conscious reflections, to build the future. In other words: economics determines politics; material determines thought. So, it doesn鈥檛 surprise us to see Marx becoming excited and happy when he read Morgan鈥檚 book. In fact, he was so happy and excited that he decided to write a book and incorporate Morgan鈥檚 sociological ideas into his own economic theories. Alas, Marx died before he could finish the book.
But then Engels picked up the manuscripts and decided to finish the work himself. Enter The Origin of the Family, Property and the State (1884). In this book, Engels extends the ideas of Morgan to fit into the dialectical materialistic framework he and Marx developed over the years. The result? A highly speculative story about how the family-structure, private property and the State arose (necessarily) out of historical developments, culminating 鈥� of course 鈥� in nineteenth century capitalism.
As man passes the stages of savagery and barbarism, and enters civilization, the family structure changes. As savages, mankind lived in groups, in which everyone had sex with everyone. People lived in clans in which every child was everyone鈥檚 child, and property wasn鈥檛 there (it would perish, since it comprised natural products) or was communal. Soon, man learns to use tools and fire (with which to process new foods), and the primitive division of labour arises: man hunts, women gathers fruits and vegetables and takes care of the kids. With this way of living, man is passing into a state of barbarism, in which clans form and sexual intercourse becomes more restricted. No incest allowed, and gradually people start to live in family groups and look for mates in other clans (i.e. exogamy). Stable pair bonding forms, and regulations to start and terminate marriage originate.
But then something peculiar happened. In the Old World (i.e. on the Eurasian continent) people found domesticable animals and cultivatable plants. So now a new division of labour developed: tribes (comprised of multiple clans) herding flocks of animals on pastures, and tribes who traded their products with these nomads for meat and milk. With this new way of production, social relations changed immediately: as animals became domesticated, it became important to own as much of them as possible and to pass them over to your offspring. Hence, private property becomes a part of the way of life.
But private property and herding animals have one precondition. If you own animals, you want to make sure that your offspring are really your offspring 鈥� you don鈥檛 want to be cheated by your wife, and pass over your property to another man鈥檚 children. This is a deep-rooted evolutionary problem: the woman is sure of her parenthood, the man isn鈥檛. This way of living, this way of production, forced upon the clans the need for patriarchal family-structure. The man dominates the family and sexual intercourse is highly restricted; of course, the man is allowed mistresses and prostitution, but the woman is punished severely for any form of adultery. The monogamous family and private property are both a product of this new form of production.
And then things start to proceed faster. The division of labour into herdsmen and agricultural producers leads immediately to a second division of labour. As capital (cattle) starts to accumulate, 鈥榬ich鈥� and 鈥榩oor鈥� become concepts. The family is now the social unit within society, and property becomes a dividing force.
Now, Engels, has managed to get his foot in between the door, and he proceeds brilliantly. Population increases due to increased productivity of food and clothing (i.e. division of labour), family wealth increases, but also growing differences between have鈥檚 and have not鈥檚, and this calls for a structural authority that can impose order on society. And when you can get some from someone else, why produce yourself? War becomes an end in itself: plunder and rape become instruments of the tribe to acquire property without producing.
Witness here the third major division of labour: working for a living becomes degrading, the use of power and force become tools, and slavery becomes an important part of social production and slave economies become widespread. Working becomes something particularly suited to the oppressed, money is to be made primarily in trading the products of slavery, or through the possession of land and cattle. It is here that civilization truly breaks through. Being a merchant becomes a profession 鈥� 鈥減arasites鈥� or 鈥済enuine social sycophants鈥�, as Engels calls them 鈥� and metallic money replaces cattle as the universal commodity. The commodity is now a tool for non-producers to dominate the producers and appropriate their production.
We have here, for the first time, a class society: an aristocracy (inherited wealth), workers, artisans and slaves. Slaves, money and land lead to new social relationships and create a heterogeneous society, in which class relationships cut through existing genealogical (clan) relationships. Gentile constitution consisted of elections, assemblies and appointed military commanders, but lacked coercive power; the exploitation of the many demands permanent coercion and force. This phase of society thus sees the end of the gentile (i.e. clan) constitution and its replacement by the State and its laws.
According to Engels, 鈥渢he state is the product of a society that has plunged itself into self-contradictions and split itself up into class antagonisms.鈥� A power is wanted to resolve these conflicts of economic interests. This power is the state: (1) it has a territorial basis (as opposed to bonds of kinship); (2) it possesses public force (police, army, prison system, etc.); (3) it taxes the people to finance itself 鈥� later on state debts emerge; (4) authority enters the hands of permanent officials, who are above and alienated from society (as opposed to earlier appointed temporary military leaders); (5) the rights of a citizen are based on property (as opposed to earlier family relationships) 鈥� later on, this becomes universal suffrage and the state plays off the people against each other (Engels has Bismarck in mind).
So, for Engels, there is a direct historical development to be traced by studying American Indians, ancient Greece and Rome, the Germans and Celts, and contemporary (for Engels) society. It shows multiple divisions of labour: between the sexes, between rich and poor (families), between merchants and producers, between slaves and freemen; culminating in a class society that is completely determined by the means of social production and in which the oppressed multitude becomes 鈥� due to the law of accumulation of capital 鈥� becomes ever greater, until it reaches the breaking point. Class antagonisms and self-contradictions run rampant and money is the universal commodity. The monogamous family (and adulterating husband) is the social unit of this society, and women are oppressed.
To summarize: the monogamous family (in which the woman is oppressed), private property and the state and its laws all arise from the historical development of social division of labour. Culture follows economics 鈥� new ways of production lead to new values and ways of living. Some societies remain in the stage of savagery or barbarism, while others develop, both for contingent historical reasons (like climate, availability of domesticable animals, etc.), into civilizations 鈥� of which some perish (ancient Greece and Rome) and some proceed yet further (contemporary Britain and Germany).
As always, Engels (just like Marx) ends his interesting speculations with threats and promises. Civilization, with its state, its laws, its monogamous family-structure, its private property, is a transitory historical phase 鈥� Communism will end this and herald a new time, in which class relationships are broken down, sexual freedom will reign and property will be communal. In short: a Utopian vision of how mankind should live. Engels and Marx weren鈥檛 really familiar with the naturalistic fallacy, which says that you can鈥檛 get an 鈥榦ught鈥� from an 鈥榠s鈥� 鈥� throughout their work they mix up their highly interesting and speculative theories with their own ideological values. Engels鈥� predictions about Communism as prophylactic to modern day civilization are nothing but ideological wishes, and have nothing to do with the theories he describes earlier in the book.
But to be fair, this doesn鈥檛 make the content of The Origin of the Family, Property and the State less interesting. Although Engels primarily uses Morgan鈥檚 findings, which are by now superseded by newer anthropological theories, there are two major issues which deserve to be remembered.
(1) Engels is one of the first to recognize human biology in the problem of sexual freedom. Why don鈥檛 communal living and free sex work? Because human beings come equipped with emotions, like jealousy, lust, uncertainty about parenthood (for men). Marriage and oppression of women can be traced to the ultimate biological dilemma: I want to know for sure that the child of my wife is mine 鈥� all cultures have found ways to tackle this question, some of which we disapprove highly (the treatment of women in Muslim societies) and some which aren鈥檛 working at all (the way Western society is functioning right now). Engels points to human sexuality as an important causal factor in family-structure, marriage regulations, property rights, etc.
(2) Engels is also the first one to clearly state the impact of contingent historical factors in the development of societies. The availability of domesticable animals, cultivatable (and eatable) plants, favourable climatic and geographical conditions, etc. True, Montesquieu and Adam Smith also pointed to things like climate and geography as causes of juridical and economic developments, but (in my opinion) they weren鈥檛 so explicit as Friedrich Engels in this book. Contemporary scholar Jared Diamond has come to the conclusion (in his Guns, Germs and Steel [1997) that the availability of domesticable animals and plants was a contingent factor in the rise of European civilization. For this, Engels deserves to be praised.
Nevertheless, he bases his own theory of dialectical materialism on evolutionary anthropological theories of Morgan, which were highly speculative. Both Marx, Engels and Morgan have a conception of history as a succession of phases 鈥� this is flawed thinking. There is no 鈥榣adder to civilization鈥�, just like there is no 鈥榟ierarchy of species鈥�. In the times of Engels and Morgan, intellectuals still believed in Victorian Britain as the culmination of civilization and in British Man as the supreme organism 鈥� tribes in far off regions (colonies, mostly) were deemed to be brutes or savages, the Africans, for example, were regarded as a station of passage from ape to Man. The way people spoke about other cultures during these times betrays racism and supremacist/colonist thinking. For this reason, one cannot really accept the principles underlying the sociological theories of those times.
(This is, by the way, not the same as contemporary cultural relativism, which states that all cultures are equal, etc. Up to World War II, racism and racial theories were 鈥榤ainstream鈥� ideas and should be treated, in my opinion, as merely historical facts - without drawing any ethical implications about those ideas or their proponents. We all know these ideas were ethically wrong, but let鈥檚 leave that outside historical analysis of past ideas.)
Anyway, this book is the second work of Friedrich Engels that I read. Engels is a much more clear and accessible writer than Marx was. And in general they adhered to the same economic theory. It鈥檚 just that Engels picked much more interesting subjects to write about and did a much better job explaining his underlying ideas. But due to the materials, theories and facts that Engels used in this book, it is possibly slightly outdated as a purely scientific work. Read The Origin of the Family, Property, and the State if you鈥檙e interested in understanding Marxism and don鈥檛 want to read through 3000+ pages of Marx.
April 4, 2016
Introduction
Note on the Text
--The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
Glossary of Some Contemporary Terms and Concordance with Engels's Usage
Index
Note on the Text
--The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
Glossary of Some Contemporary Terms and Concordance with Engels's Usage
Index
May 15, 2012
賰賲丕 賷丿賱 丕賱毓賳賵丕賳 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲亘丕丨孬 孬賱丕孬丞:
1-丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賰賵賳鬲 賲賳 丕賱毓卮賷乇丞 匕丕鬲 丕賱丨賯 丕賱兀賲賷 賰賵丨丿丞 亘賳丕亍 賱賱賲噩鬲賲毓 (丕賱賯亘賷賱丞) 賵賰賷賮賷丞 丕賱鬲夭丕賵噩 賵鬲胤賵乇賴丕 賲賳 丕賱夭賵丕噩 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷 廿賱賶 丕賱夭賵丕噩 丕賱孬賳丕卅賷 孬賲 亘毓丿賴丕 丕賱夭賵丕噩 丕賱賮乇丿賷貙 賵賰賷賮 鬲丨賵賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賵囟毓 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 鬲丿乇賷噩賷丕賸 廿賱賶 賲丕 賳丨賳 毓賱賷賴 丕賱丌賳 賲賳 賳馗丕賲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賷鬲賰賵賳 賲賳 丕賱兀爻乇丞 賵丕賱毓丕卅賱丞 賰兀氐睾乇 賵丨丿丞 賱亘賳丕亍 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賷賳鬲爻亘 賮賷賴丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱兀亘賷賴 賵賱賷爻 賱兀賲賴 賵丕賱夭賵丕噩 賮乇丿賷 賷爻賷胤乇 賮賷賴 丕賱乇噩賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賲乇丌丞 賵毓賱賶 丕賱毓丕卅賱丞 亘賲丕 賷賲賱賰 賲賳 賯賵丞 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 馗賴乇鬲 亘毓丿 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 丕賱夭乇丕毓丞
2-丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 賱丿賶 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷賷賳 丕賱匕賷 賷氐賮賴 賲丕乇賰爻 賵廿賳噩賱夭 亘丕賱卮賷賵毓賷丞 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 丨賷孬 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賮賷 兀囟賷賯 丕賱丨丿賵丿 賵賰丕賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷丨賷丕 毓賱賶 丕賱氐賷丿 賵丕賱孬賲丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 賲卮丕毓 賱賱噩賲賷毓 賵賱丕 賷賲賱賰賴丕 兀丨丿貙 賵賷馗賴乇 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷 丕賱賲賳馗賲 鬲賳馗賷賲丕 鬲賱賯丕卅賷丕賸 賱廿丿丕乇丞 亘賷賵鬲 鬲丨賵賷 丕賱賲卅丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 賷卮鬲乇賰賵賳 賮賷 兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱氐賷丿 賵賯胤賮 丕賱孬賲丕乇 賵丕賱丕毓賲丕賱 丕賱賲賳夭賱賷丞 賵丕賱賷丿賵賷丞 賵賰賷賮 賷鬲賵夭毓 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 亘賷賳 兀賮乇丕丿 丕賱賯亘賷賱丞 亘卮賰賱 鬲賱賯丕卅賷 毓丕丿賱 丿賵賳 丕賱丨丕噩丞 賱賱賳賯賵丿 賵賱丕 丕賱賲賯丕賷囟丞 賵賱丕 丕賱賲鬲丕噩乇丞 賵賱丕 丕賱賲囟丕乇亘丞貙 丕賱鬲賷 馗賴乇鬲 賱丕丨賯丕賸 賲毓 馗賴賵乇 丕賱夭乇丕毓丞 丨賷孬 亘丿兀 丕賱賮乇丿 賷禺氐氐 賱賳賮爻賴 賯胤毓丞 兀乇囟 賷夭乇毓賴丕 賵賷賲賳毓 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 賲賳 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴丕貙 丨賷賳賴丕 馗賴乇鬲 丕賵賱賶 兀卮賰丕賱 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞貙 賵兀賵賱賶 兀卮賰丕賱 禺囟賵毓 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱賱乇噩賱 丨賷孬 賰丕賳 丕賱兀賯丿乇 毓賱賶 丨賲丕賷丞 丕賱兀乇丕囟賷 丕賱夭乇丕毓賷丞貙 賮賰丕賳 賴賵 丕賱賲丕賱賰 賵丕賱賲鬲丨賰賲 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丕 賮賷 夭賵噩鬲賴 賵賮賷 丕賱兀爻乇丞. 賵賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱鬲禺氐氐 賵鬲賯爻賷賲 丕賱毓賲賱 賵丿賵乇賴賲丕 賮賷 馗賴賵乇 丕賱賳賯賵丿 賵賲賳 孬賲 馗賴賵乇 胤亘賯丞 丕賱鬲噩丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓賲賱 賰賵爻胤丕亍 賱賱賲賳鬲噩賷賳 賮賷乇亘丨賵賳 亘賱丕 廿賳鬲丕噩貙 亘賱 賵賷鬲丨賰賲賵賳 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱賲賳鬲噩丞 賵賷爻鬲毓亘丿賵賳賴賲 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 卮乇丕亍 賯丿乇鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賲賱.
3- 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賵丕賱賴賷賰賱 丕賱廿丿丕乇賷 賵丕賱鬲卮乇賷毓賷 毓賳丿 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷賷賳 賵丕賱匕賷 賷鬲賲賷夭 亘丕賱丕賱鬲丨丕賲 丕賱卮丿賷丿 亘丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賵賮賯丕 賱賲丕 賷乇丕賴 廿賳噩賱夭貨 賮鬲鬲禺匕 丕賱賯乇丕乇丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱毓卮賷乇丞 亘丕賱廿噩賲丕毓 賵賷丨賯 賱賱噩賲賷毓 丕賱賰賱丕賲 賮賷 丕噩鬲賲丕毓丕鬲賴丕 賵丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 乇兀賷賴 亘丨乇賷丞 賵廿匕丕 賰丕賳 丕賱兀賲乇 賷賲孬賱 卮兀賳丕 賱毓賲賵賲 丕賱賯亘賷賱丞 賷乇爻賱 賲賲孬賱 毓賳 丕賱毓卮賷乇丞 廿賱賶 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 丕賱賯亘賷賱丞 賷毓亘乇 毓賳 乇兀賷 丕賱毓卮賷乇丞 丕賱匕賷 鬲賵氐賱 廿賱賷賴 兀賮乇丕丿賴丕 賮賷 丕噩鬲賲丕毓丕鬲賴丕貙 賵賷鬲禺匕 丕賱賯乇丕乇 兀賷囟丕賸 亘丕賱廿噩賲丕毓 賵賷乇爻賱 賲賲孬賱丕賸 毓賳 丕賱賯亘賷賱丞 賷鬲賲 丕禺鬲賷丕乇賴 亘丕賱丕賳鬲禺丕亘 廿賱賶 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 賲噩賱爻 丕賱賯亘丕卅賱 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲禺匕 丕賱賯乇丕乇丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲禺氐 丕賱賯亘丕卅賱 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲. 賵賷鬲丨丿孬 廿賳噩賱夭 毓賳 鬲胤賵乇 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賲賵匕噩 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賱賷氐賱 亘丕賱鬲丿乇賷噩 廿賱賶 卮賰賱 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱亘胤乇賷乇賰賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀氐亘丨 賮賷賴丕 丕賱丨丕賰賲 賵氐賷丕賸 毓賱賶 丕賱卮毓亘 賵賲賱賰丕賸 賱賴賲.
1-丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賰賵賳鬲 賲賳 丕賱毓卮賷乇丞 匕丕鬲 丕賱丨賯 丕賱兀賲賷 賰賵丨丿丞 亘賳丕亍 賱賱賲噩鬲賲毓 (丕賱賯亘賷賱丞) 賵賰賷賮賷丞 丕賱鬲夭丕賵噩 賵鬲胤賵乇賴丕 賲賳 丕賱夭賵丕噩 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷 廿賱賶 丕賱夭賵丕噩 丕賱孬賳丕卅賷 孬賲 亘毓丿賴丕 丕賱夭賵丕噩 丕賱賮乇丿賷貙 賵賰賷賮 鬲丨賵賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賵囟毓 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 鬲丿乇賷噩賷丕賸 廿賱賶 賲丕 賳丨賳 毓賱賷賴 丕賱丌賳 賲賳 賳馗丕賲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賷鬲賰賵賳 賲賳 丕賱兀爻乇丞 賵丕賱毓丕卅賱丞 賰兀氐睾乇 賵丨丿丞 賱亘賳丕亍 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賷賳鬲爻亘 賮賷賴丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱兀亘賷賴 賵賱賷爻 賱兀賲賴 賵丕賱夭賵丕噩 賮乇丿賷 賷爻賷胤乇 賮賷賴 丕賱乇噩賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賲乇丌丞 賵毓賱賶 丕賱毓丕卅賱丞 亘賲丕 賷賲賱賰 賲賳 賯賵丞 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 馗賴乇鬲 亘毓丿 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 丕賱夭乇丕毓丞
2-丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 賱丿賶 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷賷賳 丕賱匕賷 賷氐賮賴 賲丕乇賰爻 賵廿賳噩賱夭 亘丕賱卮賷賵毓賷丞 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 丨賷孬 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賮賷 兀囟賷賯 丕賱丨丿賵丿 賵賰丕賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷丨賷丕 毓賱賶 丕賱氐賷丿 賵丕賱孬賲丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 賲卮丕毓 賱賱噩賲賷毓 賵賱丕 賷賲賱賰賴丕 兀丨丿貙 賵賷馗賴乇 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷 丕賱賲賳馗賲 鬲賳馗賷賲丕 鬲賱賯丕卅賷丕賸 賱廿丿丕乇丞 亘賷賵鬲 鬲丨賵賷 丕賱賲卅丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 賷卮鬲乇賰賵賳 賮賷 兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱氐賷丿 賵賯胤賮 丕賱孬賲丕乇 賵丕賱丕毓賲丕賱 丕賱賲賳夭賱賷丞 賵丕賱賷丿賵賷丞 賵賰賷賮 賷鬲賵夭毓 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 亘賷賳 兀賮乇丕丿 丕賱賯亘賷賱丞 亘卮賰賱 鬲賱賯丕卅賷 毓丕丿賱 丿賵賳 丕賱丨丕噩丞 賱賱賳賯賵丿 賵賱丕 丕賱賲賯丕賷囟丞 賵賱丕 丕賱賲鬲丕噩乇丞 賵賱丕 丕賱賲囟丕乇亘丞貙 丕賱鬲賷 馗賴乇鬲 賱丕丨賯丕賸 賲毓 馗賴賵乇 丕賱夭乇丕毓丞 丨賷孬 亘丿兀 丕賱賮乇丿 賷禺氐氐 賱賳賮爻賴 賯胤毓丞 兀乇囟 賷夭乇毓賴丕 賵賷賲賳毓 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 賲賳 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴丕貙 丨賷賳賴丕 馗賴乇鬲 丕賵賱賶 兀卮賰丕賱 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞貙 賵兀賵賱賶 兀卮賰丕賱 禺囟賵毓 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱賱乇噩賱 丨賷孬 賰丕賳 丕賱兀賯丿乇 毓賱賶 丨賲丕賷丞 丕賱兀乇丕囟賷 丕賱夭乇丕毓賷丞貙 賮賰丕賳 賴賵 丕賱賲丕賱賰 賵丕賱賲鬲丨賰賲 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丕 賮賷 夭賵噩鬲賴 賵賮賷 丕賱兀爻乇丞. 賵賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱鬲禺氐氐 賵鬲賯爻賷賲 丕賱毓賲賱 賵丿賵乇賴賲丕 賮賷 馗賴賵乇 丕賱賳賯賵丿 賵賲賳 孬賲 馗賴賵乇 胤亘賯丞 丕賱鬲噩丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓賲賱 賰賵爻胤丕亍 賱賱賲賳鬲噩賷賳 賮賷乇亘丨賵賳 亘賱丕 廿賳鬲丕噩貙 亘賱 賵賷鬲丨賰賲賵賳 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱賲賳鬲噩丞 賵賷爻鬲毓亘丿賵賳賴賲 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 卮乇丕亍 賯丿乇鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賲賱.
3- 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賵丕賱賴賷賰賱 丕賱廿丿丕乇賷 賵丕賱鬲卮乇賷毓賷 毓賳丿 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷賷賳 賵丕賱匕賷 賷鬲賲賷夭 亘丕賱丕賱鬲丨丕賲 丕賱卮丿賷丿 亘丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賵賮賯丕 賱賲丕 賷乇丕賴 廿賳噩賱夭貨 賮鬲鬲禺匕 丕賱賯乇丕乇丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱毓卮賷乇丞 亘丕賱廿噩賲丕毓 賵賷丨賯 賱賱噩賲賷毓 丕賱賰賱丕賲 賮賷 丕噩鬲賲丕毓丕鬲賴丕 賵丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 乇兀賷賴 亘丨乇賷丞 賵廿匕丕 賰丕賳 丕賱兀賲乇 賷賲孬賱 卮兀賳丕 賱毓賲賵賲 丕賱賯亘賷賱丞 賷乇爻賱 賲賲孬賱 毓賳 丕賱毓卮賷乇丞 廿賱賶 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 丕賱賯亘賷賱丞 賷毓亘乇 毓賳 乇兀賷 丕賱毓卮賷乇丞 丕賱匕賷 鬲賵氐賱 廿賱賷賴 兀賮乇丕丿賴丕 賮賷 丕噩鬲賲丕毓丕鬲賴丕貙 賵賷鬲禺匕 丕賱賯乇丕乇 兀賷囟丕賸 亘丕賱廿噩賲丕毓 賵賷乇爻賱 賲賲孬賱丕賸 毓賳 丕賱賯亘賷賱丞 賷鬲賲 丕禺鬲賷丕乇賴 亘丕賱丕賳鬲禺丕亘 廿賱賶 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 賲噩賱爻 丕賱賯亘丕卅賱 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲禺匕 丕賱賯乇丕乇丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲禺氐 丕賱賯亘丕卅賱 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲. 賵賷鬲丨丿孬 廿賳噩賱夭 毓賳 鬲胤賵乇 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賲賵匕噩 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賱賷氐賱 亘丕賱鬲丿乇賷噩 廿賱賶 卮賰賱 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱亘胤乇賷乇賰賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀氐亘丨 賮賷賴丕 丕賱丨丕賰賲 賵氐賷丕賸 毓賱賶 丕賱卮毓亘 賵賲賱賰丕賸 賱賴賲.
June 14, 2022
So obviously this book carries with it a ton of caveats. The modern reader absolutely must pair it with new texts based on updated anthropological data. Engels was working with the bad data he had available to him, which was unfortunately all from a racist, patriarchal, paternalistic perspective, and that is extremely evident in his sections on "savagery" and "barbarism ". So a lot of the early portions of the book are now extremely out of date.
However, there is still value to be taken from Engels' historical materialist method. His conclusion that the rise of the patriarchal state required the devaluation and oppression of women and their labor is obviously correct and a break from the scholarship of the time. Additionally, his sections in the last chapter regarding the origin of the state out of property relations based on surplus production and its unequal ownership is vital, even if the specific examples he uses may be off.
However, there is still value to be taken from Engels' historical materialist method. His conclusion that the rise of the patriarchal state required the devaluation and oppression of women and their labor is obviously correct and a break from the scholarship of the time. Additionally, his sections in the last chapter regarding the origin of the state out of property relations based on surplus production and its unequal ownership is vital, even if the specific examples he uses may be off.
May 27, 2012
This is a very interesting work, specially considering the time when it was written. Engels, being very modern for his time, portrays how the first class antagonism in history coincides with the development of a patriarchal society, as man started to settle down and gain private properties. He also shows a parallel between the domination of the male in the household with the antagonism between social classes.
February 28, 2015
Honestly it took me forever to read this (i think i started sometime last year) because outside of the fact that Engels simply *is not a good writer* (he isn't) and some of the examples in here are made up colonial anthropology (which they are) and don't really hold water as examples (you would get in trouble for citing the research although you can cite Engels conclusions frequently) for all of his proclaiming the historical materialist method as answering questions about family & private property & the state, Engels absolutely fails to interrogate sexuality (at all almost as a concept) or gender roles (appealing to a vague essentialism); this is a footnote (and it isn't though feminist marxists haven't used this as a jumping off point for much better work) but this is the sort of analysis that holds back dogmatic marxists from having any sort of intelligent conversation about gender or sexuality? On the bright side, this isn't Freud or Lacan?
December 11, 2014
Obviously this is an important book, and there are significant portions in this book are the necessary for a historical materialist understanding of, well, "the family, private property and the state". Unfortunately, and as much as I recognize Engels' importance as one of the "founders" of historical materialism, this book is harmed by its reliance on colonial historiography when it comes to the Americas, allowing Engels to accept claims about all indigenous nations pre-conquest being at the mercy of nature鈥撯€揳s if every pre-contact societies, violently underdeveloped by colonial violence, did not develop their own agrarian sciences, city-based cultures, etc.
August 15, 2016
Probably the most important book I've ever read in my life.
October 30, 2018
賳馗乇 亘賴 亘丕賵乇 乇爻賵禺鈥屭┴必� 丿乇 匕賴賳 亘卮乇 賲亘賳蹖 亘乇 賳丨賵賴鈥屰� 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 丕賳爻丕賳 賵 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 噩賵丕賲毓 賵 丕賴賲蹖鬲 賳賴丕丿 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 讴賴 丿乇 丿蹖丿诏丕賴鈥屬囏й� 賲匕賴亘蹖 丕丿蹖丕賳 丕亘乇丕賴蹖賲蹖 亘賴 丕賵噩 禺賵丿 賲蹖鈥屫必迟嗀� 亘賴 賲丿鬲 賯乇賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇禺卮丕賳鈥屫臂屬� 匕賴賳鈥屬囏й� 亘卮乇蹖 亘賴 禺胤丕 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 蹖讴鬲丕賴賲爻乇 賵 丿賵賱鬲 乇丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖蹖 丕夭賱蹖-丕亘丿蹖 賵 賴賲鈥屭嗁嗃屬� 丿丕乇丕蹖 丕乇夭卮 丕賵賱蹖 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀池嗀� 賵 亘蹖賴賵丿賴 賲蹖鈥屭┴促堌嗀� 鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 亘乇禺丕爻鬲賴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賳賴丕丿賴丕 乇丕 鬲賵噩蹖賴 讴賳賳丿 讴賴 丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 亘賴 賵丕跇诏賵賳蹖 鬲毓乇蹖賮 賵 賲賮賴賵賲 丨賯 胤亘蹖毓蹖 賲賳噩乇 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 丿賵賱鬲 乇丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賳丕噩蹖 賴賲蹖卮诏蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 鬲孬亘蹖鬲 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲.
丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 亘乇禺丕爻鬲賴 丕夭 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賲讴鬲賵亘 丕爻鬲貙 鬲丕 賴賳诏丕賲 卮讴賵賮丕蹖蹖 丿丕賳卮 亘丕爻鬲丕賳鈥屫促嗀ж驰屫� 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 賵 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳 賴乇 趩賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丕夭 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丿賵乇 卮丿賳丿 賵 鬲丕 賲丿鬲鈥屬囏� 倬爻 丕夭 丿爻鬲蹖丕亘蹖 亘賴 賲丿丕乇讴 毓蹖賳蹖貙 亘賴 胤乇夭蹖 賳丕亘丕賵乇丕賳賴 亘乇 亘蹖鈥屫必屸€屬囏й� 禺賵丿 倬丕蹖 賮卮乇丿賳丿.
丕賳诏賱爻 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕 亘賴乇賴鈥屭屫臂� 丕夭 丕爻賳丕丿 賲賵乇诏丕賳 賵 賴賲鈥屭嗁嗃屬� 鬲丨賯蹖賯丕鬲 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 夭賲蹖賳賴 鬲丕 丨丿蹖 讴賴 毓賱賲 毓氐乇 丕賵 丕噩丕夭賴 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 亘賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賲賳卮丌 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴貙 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 丿賵賱鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 賵 亘丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 賳賲賵賳賴鈥屬囏й� 鬲賲丿賳 丌鬲賳貙 乇賵賲 賵 跇乇賲賳鈥屬囏� 賮乇丕夭 賵 賮乇賵丿 賳丕卮蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲 睾蹖乇胤亘蹖毓蹖 丿乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵丕賯毓蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏�.
丿乇 賮氐賵賱 丕賵賱蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 亘賳丕亘乇 賲丿丕乇讴 亘賴 丿爻鬲 丌賲丿賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 丿賵乇丕賳 噩丿蹖丿 賲丨爻賵亘 賲蹖鈥屫簇嗀� 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗃屬� 讴賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘卮乇 亘賴 爻賴 丿賵乇賴鈥屰� 鬲賵丨卮貙 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 賵 鬲賲丿賳 鬲賯爻蹖賲 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 讴賴 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 丕夭 丿賵乇丕賳鈥屬囏й� 鬲賵丨卮 賵 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 乇丕 亘乇 倬丕蹖賴鈥屰� 丕亘夭丕乇 丕賳爻丕賳 賵 賲蹖夭丕賳 鬲賮賵賯卮 亘乇 胤亘蹖毓鬲 亘賴 爻賴 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 倬丕蹖蹖賳蹖貙 賲蹖丕賳蹖 賵 亘丕賱丕蹖蹖 鬲賯爻蹖賲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 亘卮乇 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 賲鬲丕賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖貙 賴賲蹖卮賴 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 噩賲毓蹖 賲蹖鈥屫槽屫池�. 丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 倬丕蹖蹖賳蹖 鬲賵丨卮 亘賴 噩賳诏賱鈥屬囏� 賵 丿乇禺鬲丕賳 賲丨丿賵丿 亘賵丿 鬲丕 丕夭 丿爻鬲 丨蹖賵丕賳丕鬲 賵丨卮蹖 丿乇 丕賲丕賳 亘丕卮丿. 亘丕 亘賴乇賴鈥屭屫臂� 丕夭 丌鬲卮 賵 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賲丕賴蹖 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賲賳亘毓 睾匕丕 亘賴 丿賵賲蹖賳 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 鬲賵丨卮 倬丕 诏匕丕卮鬲 賵 賯丕丿乇 卮丿 亘丕 丿賳亘丕賱鈥屭┴必� 乇賵丿賴丕 賵 爻賵丕丨賱 丿乇蹖丕蹖蹖 亘乇 賯爻賲鬲 丕毓馗賲 讴乇賴鈥屰� 夭賲蹖賳 倬乇丕讴賳丿賴 卮賵丿. 丌孬丕乇 丕蹖賳 賲賴丕噩乇鬲 鬲賯乇蹖亘丕賸 亘蹖鈥屫ж池嗀� 丿乇 爻乇鬲丕爻乇 噩賴丕賳 丌卮讴丕乇 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 丕蹖賳噩丕 賴賳賵夭 鬲賵丿賴鈥屬囏й� 卮讴丕乇趩蹖 乇丕 賳丿丕乇蹖賲 (亘丕賵乇 丕卮鬲亘丕賴蹖 丿蹖诏乇) 夭蹖乇丕 孬賲乇賴 卮讴丕乇 讴賲鈥屫� 丕夭 丌賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕噩丕夭賴 丿賴丿 丕賳爻丕賳 賮賯胤 亘丕 鬲讴蹖賴 亘乇 诏賵卮鬲 丨蹖賵丕賳丕鬲 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕丿丕賲賴 丿賴丿. 丨鬲蹖 讴賲亘賵丿 睾匕丕 丌賳鈥屬傌� 亘賵丿 讴賴 丌丿賲鈥屫堌ж臂� 卮乇賵毓 卮丿 賵 鬲丕 賲丿鬲鈥屬囏� 丕丿丕賲賴 蹖丕賮鬲. 亘丕 丕禺鬲乇丕毓 鬲蹖乇賵讴賲丕賳 亘卮乇 亘賴 亘丕賱丕鬲乇蹖賳 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 丿賵乇丕賳 鬲賵丨卮 乇爻蹖丿 讴賴 丨蹖賵丕賳丕鬲 卮讴丕乇蹖 噩夭賵 睾匕丕蹖 毓丕丿蹖鈥屫ж� 卮丿.亘丕 丕蹖賳 丨丕賱 賴乇 噩丕 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳 賳鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 亘賴 賴賳乇 爻賮丕賱鈥屭臂� 丿爻鬲 蹖丕亘丿貙 鬲讴丕賲賱 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫ж� 丿乇 亘丕賱丕鬲乇蹖賳 賲乇丨賱賴 鬲賵丨卮 賲鬲賵賯賮 卮丿.
丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴貙 丕賳诏賱爻 亘賴 亘乇乇爻蹖 丿賵乇丕賳 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 讴賴 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 倬丕蹖蹖賳蹖 丌賳 亘丕 丕禺鬲乇丕毓 爻賮丕賱鈥屭臂� 卮乇賵毓 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 鬲丕 丕蹖賳噩丕 鬲讴丕賲賱 亘卮乇 賮丕乇睾 丕夭 毓賳氐乇 噩睾乇丕賮蹖丕 丿乇 賴賲賴 噩丕 蹖讴爻丕賳 倬蹖卮 乇賮鬲 丕賲丕 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賳賯胤賴鈥屰� 鬲丕乇蹖禺貙 噩睾乇丕賮蹖丕 卮乇丕蹖胤 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇 丕賳爻丕賳 鬲丨賲蹖賱 讴乇丿. 禺賱賯鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮 亘賳丕亘乇 卮乇丕蹖胤 賲丨蹖胤蹖 亘賴 丕賴賱蹖鈥屭┴必� 賵 丿丕賲鈥屬矩辟堌臂� 賵 讴卮鬲 诏蹖丕賴丕賳 乇賵 丌賵乇丿賳丿. 賯丕乇賴 丕乇賵倬丕 賵 丌爻蹖丕 讴賴 卮乇丕蹖胤 亘賴鬲乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 亘賴鈥屫池必关� 禺蹖賱蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 爻蹖乇 鬲讴丕賲賱蹖鈥屫簇з� 乇丕 胤蹖 讴乇丿賳丿 賵 賳賯丕胤 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賲乇蹖讴丕 丿乇 賲乇丕丨賱 亘丕賱丕蹖蹖 鬲賵丨卮貙 倬丕蹖蹖賳蹖 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 蹖丕 賳賴丕蹖鬲丕賸 賲蹖丕賳蹖 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 賲鬲賵賯賮 卮丿.
丿乇 丌爻蹖丕 賵 丕乇賵倬丕亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 丕賴賱蹖鈥屭┴必� 丨蹖賵丕賳丕鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賵 賲氐乇賮 诏賵卮鬲貙 賲睾夭 丕賳爻丕賳 丨噩蹖賲鈥屫� 卮丿. 诏賱賴 鬲卮讴蹖賱 丿丕丿賳丿 賵 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 卮亘丕賳蹖 乇賵 丌賵乇丿賳丿 賵 讴賵丿讴丕賳 爻丕賱賲鈥屫臂� 倬乇賵乇卮 丿丕丿賳丿 讴賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 鬲讴丕賲賱 毓丕賱蹖鈥屫臂� 丌乇蹖丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏� 賵 爻丕賲蹖鈥屬囏ж池�.
亘丕 匕賵亘 賵 鬲氐賮蹖賴 爻賳诏鈥屫①囐� 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 亘丕賱丕蹖蹖 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 卮乇賵毓 卮丿 讴賴 卮禺賲 丌賴賳蹖 賵 讴卮鬲 夭賲蹖賳 賵爻蹖毓 賵 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 夭乇丕毓鬲 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇 丿丕卮鬲 讴賴 亘賴 賳賵亘賴鈥屰� 禺賵丿 亘賴 丕夭丿蹖丕丿 噩賲毓蹖鬲 賲賳鬲賴蹖 卮丿 賵 丿乇 丌禺乇貙 亘丕 丕禺鬲乇丕毓 賳賵卮鬲丕乇 丕賱賮亘丕蹖蹖 亘卮乇 亘賴 丿賵乇丕賳 鬲賲丿賳 倬丕 诏匕丕卮鬲.
丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲蹖丕賳 丕賲丕 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 亘卮乇 賴賲 丌乇丕賲鈥屫⒇必з� 丿趩丕乇 鬲睾蹖蹖乇賵鬲丨賵賱 賲蹖鈥屫簇�. 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏й� 丕賵賱蹖賴 丿乇 噩賲毓鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿卮丕賳 賴賲賴 亘丕 賴賲 丌賲蹖夭卮 噩賳爻蹖 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 賵 亘賴 丕氐胤賱丕丨 鬲丨鬲 丌賲蹖夭卮 噩賳爻蹖 賲禺鬲賱胤 賲蹖鈥屫槽屫池嗀� 讴賴 賳賴 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賴賲鈥屫操呚з� 亘丕 趩賳丿蹖賳 賳賮乇 亘賵丿賳 讴賴 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賳亘賵丿 賴蹖趩鈥屭堎嗁� 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲 丿乇 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 夭賵噩 丕爻鬲. 亘丕 鬲孬亘蹖鬲 賴乇 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲貙 爻亘讴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屫й� 噩丿蹖丿 爻乇 亘乇賲蹖鈥屫①堌必�. 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屰� 賴賲鈥屫堎� (賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲 丌賲蹖夭卮 亘蹖賳 賳爻賱鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮 蹖讴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴). 爻倬爻 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屰� 倬賵賳丕賱賵丕蹖蹖 (賲丨乇賵賲鈥屫簇� 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 賵 禺賵丕賴乇丕賳 夭丕丿賴 丕夭 蹖讴 賲丕丿乇 丕夭 丌賲蹖夭卮 亘丕 賴賲)讴賴 丿乇 賮乇賲 鬲讴丕賲賱鈥屰屫з佖団€屫ж� 亘賴 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲 丕夭丿賵丕噩 亘丕 丿蹖诏乇 毓賲賵貙 毓賲賴貙 禺丕賱賴 賵 丿丕蹖蹖鈥屫藏ж団€屬囏й� 丿乇趩賴 丕賵賱 賴賲 賲賳鬲賴蹖 卮丿. 賯亘蹖賱賴鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 丕蹖賳 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲鈥屬囏� 乇丕 丕毓賲丕賱 讴乇丿賳丿 爻乇蹖毓鈥屫� 丕夭 賯亘蹖賱賴鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 丕夭丿賵丕噩 禺賵丕賴乇 賵 亘乇丕丿乇 乇丕 賲噩丕夭 賲蹖鈥屫促呚必嗀� 乇卮丿 讴乇丿賳丿 賵 賴賲蹖賳 丕賲乇 亘丕毓孬 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 賳賴丕丿 鬲蹖乇賴 卮丿 讴賴 鬲丕 賲丿鬲鈥屬囏й� 丿乇丕夭 丕夭 丕賴賲蹖鬲 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丿乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘卮乇 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘賵丿.
亘丕 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴鈥屫簇� 乇賵夭丕賮夭賵賳 丕夭丿賵丕噩 诏乇賵賴蹖貙 亘卮乇 亘賴 爻賲鬲 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 蹖丕乇诏蹖乇 丨乇讴鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 蹖讴 夭賳 賵 賲乇丿 亘賴 賲丿鬲蹖 讴賴 賴乇 丿賵 亘禺賵丕賴賳丿 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 丕诏乇趩賴 丨賯 亘蹖鈥屬堎佖й屰� 诏賴鈥屭ж� 亘乇丕蹖 賲乇丿 亘丕賯蹖 賲蹖鈥屬呚з嗀� 賵賱蹖 丕夭 夭賳 賵賮丕丿丕乇蹖 丕讴蹖丿 禺賵丕爻鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 賲賳鬲賴丕 丨乇讴鬲 丕夭 丕夭丿賵丕噩 诏乇賵賴蹖 亘賴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 蹖丕乇诏蹖乇 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賳丕亘乇 禺賵丕爻鬲 夭賳丕賳 氐賵乇鬲 诏乇賮鬲 鬲丕 賲乇丿丕賳. 賵 賴賳賵夭 鬲丕 丕蹖賳噩丕貙 夭賳 賯丿乇鬲 丕氐賱蹖 鬲蹖乇賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賳爻亘 丕夭 丕賵 賲卮禺氐 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 亘卮乇 鬲丨鬲 丨賯 賲丕丿乇蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
丕夭 丿賱 賴賲蹖賳 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屰� 蹖丕乇诏蹖乇 賵 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 丕夭丿賵丕噩 丿乇賵賳鈥屫屫辟団€屫й� 讴賲鈥屭┵� 乇爻賵賲蹖 賲孬賱 丿夭丿蹖丿賳 蹖丕 禺乇蹖丿 賵 賮乇賵卮 夭賳丕賳 丕夭 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖诏乇 亘蹖乇賵賳 賲蹖鈥屫③屬嗀�. 鬲賲丕賲蹖 乇爻賵賲 賲匕賴亘蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 夭賳鈥屬囏� 胤蹖 乇賵夭賴丕蹖蹖 賲毓蹖賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 鬲爻賱蹖賲 賲毓丕亘丿 禺丕氐蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 蹖丕 丨賯賵賯蹖 趩賵賳 丨賯 卮亘 丕賵賱 丕夭丿賵丕噩 (讴賴 丿乇 丕亘鬲丿丕 丨賯蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲賴鈥屰� 賲乇丿丕賳 賲噩丕夭 亘賴 丕夭丿賵丕噩 亘丕 丌賳 夭賳 卮賲乇丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫簇� 賵 夭賳 亘丕蹖爻鬲蹖 丨賯 蹖讴鬲丕卮賵蹖蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賲蹖鈥屫臂屫� 賵 亘毓丿丕賸 亘丕 馗賴賵乇 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖貙 亘賴 丨賯蹖 亘乇丕蹖 乇卅蹖爻 賯亘蹖賱賴貙 禺丕賳鈥屬囏� 賵 賲丕賱讴蹖賳 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿) 賴賲賴 丿乇 丕孬乇 诏匕丕乇 丕夭丿賵丕噩 诏乇賵賴蹖 亘賴 丕夭丿賵丕噩 蹖丕乇诏蹖乇 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賲丿賳丿.
丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲蹖丕賳貙 亘卮乇 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 丿丕賲倬乇賵乇蹖貙貙 亘丕 孬乇賵鬲 夭蹖丕丿蹖 賲賵丕噩賴 卮丿 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 丕賵賱蹖賳 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賲蹖夭丕賳 賳蹖丕夭 禺賵丿卮 亘賵丿. 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 诏賱賴 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賲丿 讴賴 丕賵賱 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 鬲蹖乇賴 亘賵丿 (鬲蹖乇賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 丨賯 賲丕丿乇蹖 亘賳丕 亘賵丿) 賵 讴賲鈥屭┵� 丕亘夭丕乇蹖 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賲丿賳丿 讴賴 亘賳丕亘乇 鬲賯爻蹖賲 讴丕乇 胤亘蹖毓蹖(夭賳 丿乇 禺丕賳賴貙 賲乇丿 亘蹖乇賵賳 丕夭 禺丕賳賴) 丕乇夭卮 賵 丕賴賲蹖鬲 讴丕乇 亘蹖乇賵賳 丕夭 禺丕賳賴 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 讴丕乇 禺丕賳诏蹖 乇丕 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 丿丕丿賳丿 賵 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 讴賲鈥屭┵� 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屬囏й� 蹖丕乇诏蹖乇 亘賴 蹖讴鬲丕賴賲爻乇 (丿乇 诏匕乇 丕夭 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 賲蹖丕賳蹖 亘賴 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 亘丕賱丕蹖蹖) 亘丿賱 卮丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿 賵 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 丿乇 卮讴賱鈥屬囏й� 丕賵賱蹖賴鈥屫ж� 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賲丿賴 亘賵丿貙 賲乇丿 賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池� 丿丕乇丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏й屫� 亘賴 賮乇夭賳丿丕賳 禺賵丿 丕賵 亘乇爻賳丿 賵 賳賴 亘賴 賮乇夭賳丿丕賳賽 丿乇賵賳賽 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屰� 賲丕丿乇蹖鈥屫ж簇� 丨賯 賲丕丿乇蹖 亘賴 丨賯 倬丿乇蹖 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿 賵 噩丕賲毓賴 亘賴 爻賵蹖 賲乇丿爻丕賱丕乇蹖 倬蹖卮 乇賮鬲. 丕蹖賳 賳賯胤賴 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 卮讴爻鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 噩賳爻 夭賳 丿丕賳爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 賲賵噩亘 丨賯 倬丿乇蹖 讴賲鈥屭┵� 丕夭 鬲賲丕賲 丨賯賵賯 賵 丕賲鬲蹖丕夭丕鬲 讴賴賳 禺賵丿 賲丨乇賵賲 卮丿(讴賴 賳賯胤賴 丕賵噩 丕蹖賳 賲丨乇賵賲蹖鬲 丿乇 毓氐乇 卮讴賵賮丕蹖蹖 蹖賵賳丕賳 丿蹖丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.)
禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屰� 蹖讴鬲丕賴賲爻乇 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 亘丕賵乇 毓丕賲賴 賳賴 丕夭 爻乇 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 賲賮賴賵賲 毓卮賯 噩賳爻蹖 亘賱讴賴 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 卮乇丕蹖胤 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賲丿 賵 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屰� 蹖讴鬲丕賴賲爻乇 倬丿乇爻丕賱丕乇 亘賵丿 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘賴 鬲亘丿蹖賱 賴鬲丕乇蹖爻賲 (讴賴 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 丕夭 丕夭丿賵丕噩 诏乇賵賴蹖 賲賳卮丕 賲蹖鈥屭屫必�) 亘賴 賮丨卮丕 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丕賲乇賵夭蹖 (爻讴爻 丿乇 丕夭丕蹖 倬賵賱) 賲賳噩乇 卮丿. 丕蹖賳讴賴 趩乇丕 蹖讴鬲丕賴賲爻乇蹖 賮賯胤 丕夭 爻賵蹖 夭賳 賯丕賳賵賳 亘賵丿 賵 賲乇丿賴丕 诏丕賴蹖 亘蹖鈥屬堎佖й屰� 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 蹖丕 诏丕賴蹖 趩賳丿 賴賲爻乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 亘丕夭 亘賴 卮乇丕蹖胤 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 亘丕夭賲蹖鈥屭必�. 賲乇丿 亘賴 賲賵噩亘 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇丿丕卮鬲賳 丕亘夭丕乇 鬲賵賱蹖丿 賵 夭賲蹖賳貙 亘賴 賲乇賵乇 氐丕丨亘 亘乇丿诏丕賳蹖 卮丿 讴賴 賲丕賱讴鈥屫簇з� 亘賴 丨爻丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫①呚� 賵 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池� 丕夭 夭賳丕賳 賵 丿禺鬲乇丕賳 丌賳丕賳 爻賵亍丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 讴賳丿. 丕氐賱丕賸 丿賱蹖賱 丌賳讴賴 夭賳丕賳 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 丕爻倬丕乇鬲鈥屬囏� 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丌鬲賳蹖鈥屬囏� 丕夭 丕乇噩 賵 賲賳夭賱鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘賵丿賳丿貙 蹖讴蹖 丌夭丕丿蹖 噩賳爻蹖 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 丌賳丕賳貙 毓丿賲 賵噩賵丿 亘乇丿诏蹖 賵 丨囟賵乇 爻乇賮鈥屬囏� 丿賵乇 丕夭 賲丕賱讴蹖賳 (讴賲鈥屫� 亘賵丿賳 賵爻賵爻賴 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲鈥屫堌жㄚ� 亘丕 夭賳丕賳 賵 丿禺鬲乇丕賳 丌賳鈥屬囏�) 丿丕賳爻鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.)
丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 丕賳诏賱爻 噩丿丕诏丕賳賴 賵 亘賴 鬲賮爻蹖乇 亘乇乇爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 蹖賵賳丕賳貙 乇賵賲 賵 丕賲倬乇丕鬲賵乇蹖 跇乇賲賳鈥屬囏ж� 趩胤賵乇 鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲 賳馗丕賲 鬲賵賱蹖丿蹖 賵 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丿诏乇诏賵賳蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 乇丕賴 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 卮讴賱诏蹖乇蹖 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕夭 讴乇丿賳丿. 賳賴丕丿蹖 讴賴 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丿 賴賲蹖卮賴 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 賲乇丿賲 賯乇丕乇 丿丕乇丿 趩乇丕 讴賴 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 賳馗丕賲 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屫й� (讴賴 倬蹖卮鬲乇 丿乇 賴賲賴 噩丕 亘乇 賯乇丕乇 亘賵丿 賵 賯丕賳賵賳鈥� 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必� 賵 毓丿丕賱鬲 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲鈥屫屫辟団€屫й屸€屬囏� 賮乇丕賴賲 賲蹖鈥屭┴必�) 賲賳丕賮毓 蹖讴爻丕賳蹖 亘丕 鬲賵丿賴鈥屰� 賲乇丿賲 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 賲毓賲賵賱丕賸 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 禺丕爻鬲诏丕賴 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 禺賵丿 (鬲賳丕夭毓丕鬲 賵 鬲賳丕賯囟鈥屬囏й� 丿乇賵賳鈥屫з呚官団€屫й� 賲蹖丕賳 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖 讴賴 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 孬乇賵鬲 賵 賳賴 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 禺賵賳 賵 鬲蹖乇賴 卮讴賱鈥屭辟佖団€屫з嗀�) 賲噩亘賵乇 亘賴 噩丕賳亘丿丕乇蹖 丕夭 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 孬乇賵鬲賲賳丿 賵 賯丿乇鬲賲賳丿 噩丕賲毓賴 丕爻鬲. 丕賳诏賱爻 亘丕 丿賯鬲 夭蹖丕丿 亘賴 鬲賵氐蹖賮 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丕蹖賳 噩乇蹖丕賳丕鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 鬲丕 賳卮丕賳 丿賴丿 亘卮乇 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 噩賲毓蹖 賲蹖鈥屫槽屫池� 亘賱讴賴 亘蹖鈥屬囒屭� 賲卮讴賱蹖 賵 丿乇 讴賲丕賱 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屫槽屫池�. 賴賲鈥屭嗁嗃屬� 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賮乇賵倬丕卮蹖 丕賲倬乇丕鬲賵乇蹖 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘乇禺賱丕賮 丌賳趩賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 爻毓蹖 丿丕乇丿 賳卮丕賳 丿賴丿 賳賴 丿乇 丕孬乇 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丕孬乇 亘乇丿賴鈥屫ж臂� 賵 賮爻丕丿 夭蹖丕丿 亘賴 賵賯賵毓 倬蹖賵爻鬲. 丕賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 亘賳丕亘乇 丕鬲賮丕賯丕鬲 賳丕诏夭蹖乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 讴賴 丕夭 賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 丌賳 亘賴 鬲賯爻蹖賲鈥屭┴ж辟囏й� 亘夭乇诏 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 (賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 鬲賯爻蹖賲 讴丕乇: 丿乇 丕孬乇 馗賴賵乇 丿丕賲倬乇賵乇蹖 賵 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 賯亘丕蹖賱蹖 讴賴 卮亘丕賳蹖 賲蹖鈥屫槽屫池嗀� 賵 丌賳鈥屬囏� 讴賴 丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屫й� 倬丕蹖蹖賳鈥屫� 丕夭 鬲讴丕賲賱 亘賵丿賳丿貨 丿賵賲蹖: 噩丿丕蹖蹖 氐賳丕蹖毓 丿爻鬲蹖 丕夭 讴卮丕賵乇夭蹖 丿乇 毓氐乇 賳蹖賲鈥屫й屫з� 賵 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲亘丕丿賱丕鬲 讴丕賱丕蹖蹖 賵 丕夭 丿爻鬲鈥屫辟佖� 鬲爻賱胤 亘賴 乇賵蹖 讴丕賱丕蹖 鬲賵賱蹖丿蹖 禺賵丿 賵 鬲孬亘蹖鬲 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 讴丕賲賱 賵 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 鬲賲丕蹖夭 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 孬乇賵鬲 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲貙 爻賵賲蹖賳 鬲賯爻蹖賲鈥屭┴ж� 亘夭乇诏: 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 亘丕夭乇诏丕賳蹖 賵 爻乇 亘乇丌賵乇丿賳 鬲噩丕乇 讴賴 亘丕 讴丕乇 丕賳丿讴 賵 亘丕 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賲丨氐賵賱 丿蹖诏乇蹖 賮乇亘賴 賵 賮乇亘賴鈥屫� 賲蹖鈥屫簇嗀�) 亘丕蹖丿 丕卮丕乇賴 讴乇丿貙 鬲蹖乇賴 丿乇 賴賲 卮讴爻鬲 賵 賲賳丕賮毓 賮乇丿蹖 亘賴 噩丕蹖 賲賳丕賮毓 禺賵蹖卮丕賵賳丿蹖 亘丕 賲賳丕賮毓 诏乇賵賴鈥屬囏й� 讴丕乇蹖 诏乇賴 禺賵乇丿 賵 鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 亘乇丌賲丿賴 丕夭 鬲賯爻蹖賲 讴丕乇 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丌賳貙 蹖毓賳蹖 鬲賯爻蹖賲 噩丕锟斤拷毓賴 亘賴 胤亘賯丕鬲貙 丿賵賱鬲 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賲丿. 丕乇诏丕賳蹖 賳賵蹖賳 讴賴 丿乇 鬲賯丕亘賱 亘丕 賴乇 爻丕夭賲丕賳 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屫й屫� 丕夭 賲賳丕賮毓 賴賲賴鈥屰� 賲乇丿賲 丨乇丕爻鬲 讴賳丿. 丕鬲賮丕賯蹖 讴賴 丕诏乇趩賴 賳蹖賮鬲丕丿 賵 丿賵賱鬲 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 丌睾丕夭 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 禺賵丿 亘賴 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 賳蹖乇賵 賵 孬乇賵鬲 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 賴賲鬲 诏賲丕乇丿 趩乇丕 讴賴 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 丨乇氐 賵 孬乇賵鬲鈥屫з嗀堌槽� 亘賳蹖丕賳 賳賴丕丿賴 卮丿賴 亘賵丿. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 丿賵賱鬲 亘賴 賴蹖趩 毓賳賵丕賳 賳賴 賯丿乇鬲蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕夭 禺丕乇噩 亘賴 噩丕賲毓賴 鬲丨賲蹖賱 卮丿賴 亘丕卮丿 (趩賵賳丕賳 讴賴 亘乇禺蹖 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳 亘丕賵乇 丿丕乇賳丿 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 賳丕诏夭蹖乇 丕夭 賳丕丕賲賳蹖鈥屬囏й� 夭賳丿诏蹖 賮乇丿蹖 爻乇丕睾 賮乇夭丕賳賴鈥屫й� 乇賮鬲賳丿 賵 亘丕 丕賵 亘蹖毓鬲 亘爻鬲賳丿 (丨鬲蹖 丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 诏賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丨賯 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴 禺丿丕 賵丕诏匕丕卮鬲賳丿)) 賵 賳賴 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丕蹖丿賴 賲毓賳賵蹖貙 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賵 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 毓賯賱 (丕賳趩賳丕賳 讴賴 賴诏賱 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫�). 亘乇 毓讴爻 丿賵賱鬲 賲丨氐賵賱 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲 丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 賲毓蹖賳蹖 丕夭 鬲讴丕賲賱 讴賴 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 鬲囟丕丿 丨賱鈥屬嗀ж簇嗃� 亘丕 禺賵丿 丿乇诏蹖乇 丕爻鬲. 丿賵賱鬲 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 賳馗丕賲 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屫й� 讴賴賳貙 丿乇 丕亘鬲丿丕 丕鬲亘丕毓 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇 丨爻亘 爻乇夭賲蹖賳 鬲賯爻蹖賲 讴乇丿. 爻賱丕丨 丕夭 丿爻鬲 毓賲賵賲 賲乇丿賲 诏乇賮鬲. 賵 亘乇丕蹖 賳诏賴丿丕乇蹖 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲 毓賲賵賲蹖 賲賮賴賵賲 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 乇丕 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賵乇丿. 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 丿賵賱鬲 丕夭 賳蹖丕夭 亘賴 鬲丨鬲 讴賳鬲乇賱鈥屫ж簇� 鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖 亘乇禺丕爻鬲貙 亘賳丕亘乇 囟乇賵乇鬲貙 丿賵賱鬲賽 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 賯賵蹖鈥屫� 賵 亘賴 賱丨丕馗賽 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 賲爻賱胤 丕爻鬲. 亘丕 丕蹖賳 丨丕賱貙 丕夭 丕夭賱 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 噩賵丕賲毓蹖 亘賵丿賳丿 讴賴 亘丿賵賳 丿賵賱鬲 爻乇 讴乇丿賳丿 賵 賴蹖趩 鬲氐賵乇蹖 丕夭 趩賳蹖賳 賳賴丕丿蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲賳丿. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 賵賯鬲蹖 囟乇賵乇鬲 丕蹖賳 賳賴丕丿 亘賴 爻乇 乇爻丿貙 丿賵賱鬲 賮乇賵 賲蹖鈥屬矩ж簇� 賵 亘賴 賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏� 賲賳鬲賯賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.
丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 亘乇禺丕爻鬲賴 丕夭 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賲讴鬲賵亘 丕爻鬲貙 鬲丕 賴賳诏丕賲 卮讴賵賮丕蹖蹖 丿丕賳卮 亘丕爻鬲丕賳鈥屫促嗀ж驰屫� 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 賵 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳 賴乇 趩賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丕夭 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丿賵乇 卮丿賳丿 賵 鬲丕 賲丿鬲鈥屬囏� 倬爻 丕夭 丿爻鬲蹖丕亘蹖 亘賴 賲丿丕乇讴 毓蹖賳蹖貙 亘賴 胤乇夭蹖 賳丕亘丕賵乇丕賳賴 亘乇 亘蹖鈥屫必屸€屬囏й� 禺賵丿 倬丕蹖 賮卮乇丿賳丿.
丕賳诏賱爻 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕 亘賴乇賴鈥屭屫臂� 丕夭 丕爻賳丕丿 賲賵乇诏丕賳 賵 賴賲鈥屭嗁嗃屬� 鬲丨賯蹖賯丕鬲 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 夭賲蹖賳賴 鬲丕 丨丿蹖 讴賴 毓賱賲 毓氐乇 丕賵 丕噩丕夭賴 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 亘賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賲賳卮丌 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴貙 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 丿賵賱鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 賵 亘丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 賳賲賵賳賴鈥屬囏й� 鬲賲丿賳 丌鬲賳貙 乇賵賲 賵 跇乇賲賳鈥屬囏� 賮乇丕夭 賵 賮乇賵丿 賳丕卮蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲 睾蹖乇胤亘蹖毓蹖 丿乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵丕賯毓蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏�.
丿乇 賮氐賵賱 丕賵賱蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 亘賳丕亘乇 賲丿丕乇讴 亘賴 丿爻鬲 丌賲丿賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 丿賵乇丕賳 噩丿蹖丿 賲丨爻賵亘 賲蹖鈥屫簇嗀� 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗃屬� 讴賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘卮乇 亘賴 爻賴 丿賵乇賴鈥屰� 鬲賵丨卮貙 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 賵 鬲賲丿賳 鬲賯爻蹖賲 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 讴賴 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 丕夭 丿賵乇丕賳鈥屬囏й� 鬲賵丨卮 賵 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 乇丕 亘乇 倬丕蹖賴鈥屰� 丕亘夭丕乇 丕賳爻丕賳 賵 賲蹖夭丕賳 鬲賮賵賯卮 亘乇 胤亘蹖毓鬲 亘賴 爻賴 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 倬丕蹖蹖賳蹖貙 賲蹖丕賳蹖 賵 亘丕賱丕蹖蹖 鬲賯爻蹖賲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 亘卮乇 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 賲鬲丕賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖貙 賴賲蹖卮賴 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 噩賲毓蹖 賲蹖鈥屫槽屫池�. 丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 倬丕蹖蹖賳蹖 鬲賵丨卮 亘賴 噩賳诏賱鈥屬囏� 賵 丿乇禺鬲丕賳 賲丨丿賵丿 亘賵丿 鬲丕 丕夭 丿爻鬲 丨蹖賵丕賳丕鬲 賵丨卮蹖 丿乇 丕賲丕賳 亘丕卮丿. 亘丕 亘賴乇賴鈥屭屫臂� 丕夭 丌鬲卮 賵 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賲丕賴蹖 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賲賳亘毓 睾匕丕 亘賴 丿賵賲蹖賳 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 鬲賵丨卮 倬丕 诏匕丕卮鬲 賵 賯丕丿乇 卮丿 亘丕 丿賳亘丕賱鈥屭┴必� 乇賵丿賴丕 賵 爻賵丕丨賱 丿乇蹖丕蹖蹖 亘乇 賯爻賲鬲 丕毓馗賲 讴乇賴鈥屰� 夭賲蹖賳 倬乇丕讴賳丿賴 卮賵丿. 丌孬丕乇 丕蹖賳 賲賴丕噩乇鬲 鬲賯乇蹖亘丕賸 亘蹖鈥屫ж池嗀� 丿乇 爻乇鬲丕爻乇 噩賴丕賳 丌卮讴丕乇 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 丕蹖賳噩丕 賴賳賵夭 鬲賵丿賴鈥屬囏й� 卮讴丕乇趩蹖 乇丕 賳丿丕乇蹖賲 (亘丕賵乇 丕卮鬲亘丕賴蹖 丿蹖诏乇) 夭蹖乇丕 孬賲乇賴 卮讴丕乇 讴賲鈥屫� 丕夭 丌賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕噩丕夭賴 丿賴丿 丕賳爻丕賳 賮賯胤 亘丕 鬲讴蹖賴 亘乇 诏賵卮鬲 丨蹖賵丕賳丕鬲 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕丿丕賲賴 丿賴丿. 丨鬲蹖 讴賲亘賵丿 睾匕丕 丌賳鈥屬傌� 亘賵丿 讴賴 丌丿賲鈥屫堌ж臂� 卮乇賵毓 卮丿 賵 鬲丕 賲丿鬲鈥屬囏� 丕丿丕賲賴 蹖丕賮鬲. 亘丕 丕禺鬲乇丕毓 鬲蹖乇賵讴賲丕賳 亘卮乇 亘賴 亘丕賱丕鬲乇蹖賳 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 丿賵乇丕賳 鬲賵丨卮 乇爻蹖丿 讴賴 丨蹖賵丕賳丕鬲 卮讴丕乇蹖 噩夭賵 睾匕丕蹖 毓丕丿蹖鈥屫ж� 卮丿.亘丕 丕蹖賳 丨丕賱 賴乇 噩丕 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳 賳鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 亘賴 賴賳乇 爻賮丕賱鈥屭臂� 丿爻鬲 蹖丕亘丿貙 鬲讴丕賲賱 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫ж� 丿乇 亘丕賱丕鬲乇蹖賳 賲乇丨賱賴 鬲賵丨卮 賲鬲賵賯賮 卮丿.
丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴貙 丕賳诏賱爻 亘賴 亘乇乇爻蹖 丿賵乇丕賳 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 讴賴 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 倬丕蹖蹖賳蹖 丌賳 亘丕 丕禺鬲乇丕毓 爻賮丕賱鈥屭臂� 卮乇賵毓 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 鬲丕 丕蹖賳噩丕 鬲讴丕賲賱 亘卮乇 賮丕乇睾 丕夭 毓賳氐乇 噩睾乇丕賮蹖丕 丿乇 賴賲賴 噩丕 蹖讴爻丕賳 倬蹖卮 乇賮鬲 丕賲丕 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賳賯胤賴鈥屰� 鬲丕乇蹖禺貙 噩睾乇丕賮蹖丕 卮乇丕蹖胤 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇 丕賳爻丕賳 鬲丨賲蹖賱 讴乇丿. 禺賱賯鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮 亘賳丕亘乇 卮乇丕蹖胤 賲丨蹖胤蹖 亘賴 丕賴賱蹖鈥屭┴必� 賵 丿丕賲鈥屬矩辟堌臂� 賵 讴卮鬲 诏蹖丕賴丕賳 乇賵 丌賵乇丿賳丿. 賯丕乇賴 丕乇賵倬丕 賵 丌爻蹖丕 讴賴 卮乇丕蹖胤 亘賴鬲乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 亘賴鈥屫池必关� 禺蹖賱蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 爻蹖乇 鬲讴丕賲賱蹖鈥屫簇з� 乇丕 胤蹖 讴乇丿賳丿 賵 賳賯丕胤 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賲乇蹖讴丕 丿乇 賲乇丕丨賱 亘丕賱丕蹖蹖 鬲賵丨卮貙 倬丕蹖蹖賳蹖 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 蹖丕 賳賴丕蹖鬲丕賸 賲蹖丕賳蹖 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 賲鬲賵賯賮 卮丿.
丿乇 丌爻蹖丕 賵 丕乇賵倬丕亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 丕賴賱蹖鈥屭┴必� 丨蹖賵丕賳丕鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賵 賲氐乇賮 诏賵卮鬲貙 賲睾夭 丕賳爻丕賳 丨噩蹖賲鈥屫� 卮丿. 诏賱賴 鬲卮讴蹖賱 丿丕丿賳丿 賵 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 卮亘丕賳蹖 乇賵 丌賵乇丿賳丿 賵 讴賵丿讴丕賳 爻丕賱賲鈥屫臂� 倬乇賵乇卮 丿丕丿賳丿 讴賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 鬲讴丕賲賱 毓丕賱蹖鈥屫臂� 丌乇蹖丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏� 賵 爻丕賲蹖鈥屬囏ж池�.
亘丕 匕賵亘 賵 鬲氐賮蹖賴 爻賳诏鈥屫①囐� 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 亘丕賱丕蹖蹖 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 卮乇賵毓 卮丿 讴賴 卮禺賲 丌賴賳蹖 賵 讴卮鬲 夭賲蹖賳 賵爻蹖毓 賵 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 夭乇丕毓鬲 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇 丿丕卮鬲 讴賴 亘賴 賳賵亘賴鈥屰� 禺賵丿 亘賴 丕夭丿蹖丕丿 噩賲毓蹖鬲 賲賳鬲賴蹖 卮丿 賵 丿乇 丌禺乇貙 亘丕 丕禺鬲乇丕毓 賳賵卮鬲丕乇 丕賱賮亘丕蹖蹖 亘卮乇 亘賴 丿賵乇丕賳 鬲賲丿賳 倬丕 诏匕丕卮鬲.
丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲蹖丕賳 丕賲丕 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 亘卮乇 賴賲 丌乇丕賲鈥屫⒇必з� 丿趩丕乇 鬲睾蹖蹖乇賵鬲丨賵賱 賲蹖鈥屫簇�. 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏й� 丕賵賱蹖賴 丿乇 噩賲毓鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿卮丕賳 賴賲賴 亘丕 賴賲 丌賲蹖夭卮 噩賳爻蹖 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 賵 亘賴 丕氐胤賱丕丨 鬲丨鬲 丌賲蹖夭卮 噩賳爻蹖 賲禺鬲賱胤 賲蹖鈥屫槽屫池嗀� 讴賴 賳賴 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賴賲鈥屫操呚з� 亘丕 趩賳丿蹖賳 賳賮乇 亘賵丿賳 讴賴 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賳亘賵丿 賴蹖趩鈥屭堎嗁� 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲 丿乇 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 夭賵噩 丕爻鬲. 亘丕 鬲孬亘蹖鬲 賴乇 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲貙 爻亘讴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屫й� 噩丿蹖丿 爻乇 亘乇賲蹖鈥屫①堌必�. 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屰� 賴賲鈥屫堎� (賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲 丌賲蹖夭卮 亘蹖賳 賳爻賱鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮 蹖讴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴). 爻倬爻 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屰� 倬賵賳丕賱賵丕蹖蹖 (賲丨乇賵賲鈥屫簇� 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 賵 禺賵丕賴乇丕賳 夭丕丿賴 丕夭 蹖讴 賲丕丿乇 丕夭 丌賲蹖夭卮 亘丕 賴賲)讴賴 丿乇 賮乇賲 鬲讴丕賲賱鈥屰屫з佖団€屫ж� 亘賴 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲 丕夭丿賵丕噩 亘丕 丿蹖诏乇 毓賲賵貙 毓賲賴貙 禺丕賱賴 賵 丿丕蹖蹖鈥屫藏ж団€屬囏й� 丿乇趩賴 丕賵賱 賴賲 賲賳鬲賴蹖 卮丿. 賯亘蹖賱賴鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 丕蹖賳 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲鈥屬囏� 乇丕 丕毓賲丕賱 讴乇丿賳丿 爻乇蹖毓鈥屫� 丕夭 賯亘蹖賱賴鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 丕夭丿賵丕噩 禺賵丕賴乇 賵 亘乇丕丿乇 乇丕 賲噩丕夭 賲蹖鈥屫促呚必嗀� 乇卮丿 讴乇丿賳丿 賵 賴賲蹖賳 丕賲乇 亘丕毓孬 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 賳賴丕丿 鬲蹖乇賴 卮丿 讴賴 鬲丕 賲丿鬲鈥屬囏й� 丿乇丕夭 丕夭 丕賴賲蹖鬲 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丿乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘卮乇 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘賵丿.
亘丕 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴鈥屫簇� 乇賵夭丕賮夭賵賳 丕夭丿賵丕噩 诏乇賵賴蹖貙 亘卮乇 亘賴 爻賲鬲 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 蹖丕乇诏蹖乇 丨乇讴鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 蹖讴 夭賳 賵 賲乇丿 亘賴 賲丿鬲蹖 讴賴 賴乇 丿賵 亘禺賵丕賴賳丿 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 丕诏乇趩賴 丨賯 亘蹖鈥屬堎佖й屰� 诏賴鈥屭ж� 亘乇丕蹖 賲乇丿 亘丕賯蹖 賲蹖鈥屬呚з嗀� 賵賱蹖 丕夭 夭賳 賵賮丕丿丕乇蹖 丕讴蹖丿 禺賵丕爻鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 賲賳鬲賴丕 丨乇讴鬲 丕夭 丕夭丿賵丕噩 诏乇賵賴蹖 亘賴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 蹖丕乇诏蹖乇 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賳丕亘乇 禺賵丕爻鬲 夭賳丕賳 氐賵乇鬲 诏乇賮鬲 鬲丕 賲乇丿丕賳. 賵 賴賳賵夭 鬲丕 丕蹖賳噩丕貙 夭賳 賯丿乇鬲 丕氐賱蹖 鬲蹖乇賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賳爻亘 丕夭 丕賵 賲卮禺氐 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 亘卮乇 鬲丨鬲 丨賯 賲丕丿乇蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
丕夭 丿賱 賴賲蹖賳 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屰� 蹖丕乇诏蹖乇 賵 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 丕夭丿賵丕噩 丿乇賵賳鈥屫屫辟団€屫й� 讴賲鈥屭┵� 乇爻賵賲蹖 賲孬賱 丿夭丿蹖丿賳 蹖丕 禺乇蹖丿 賵 賮乇賵卮 夭賳丕賳 丕夭 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖诏乇 亘蹖乇賵賳 賲蹖鈥屫③屬嗀�. 鬲賲丕賲蹖 乇爻賵賲 賲匕賴亘蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 夭賳鈥屬囏� 胤蹖 乇賵夭賴丕蹖蹖 賲毓蹖賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 鬲爻賱蹖賲 賲毓丕亘丿 禺丕氐蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 蹖丕 丨賯賵賯蹖 趩賵賳 丨賯 卮亘 丕賵賱 丕夭丿賵丕噩 (讴賴 丿乇 丕亘鬲丿丕 丨賯蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲賴鈥屰� 賲乇丿丕賳 賲噩丕夭 亘賴 丕夭丿賵丕噩 亘丕 丌賳 夭賳 卮賲乇丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫簇� 賵 夭賳 亘丕蹖爻鬲蹖 丨賯 蹖讴鬲丕卮賵蹖蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賲蹖鈥屫臂屫� 賵 亘毓丿丕賸 亘丕 馗賴賵乇 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖貙 亘賴 丨賯蹖 亘乇丕蹖 乇卅蹖爻 賯亘蹖賱賴貙 禺丕賳鈥屬囏� 賵 賲丕賱讴蹖賳 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿) 賴賲賴 丿乇 丕孬乇 诏匕丕乇 丕夭丿賵丕噩 诏乇賵賴蹖 亘賴 丕夭丿賵丕噩 蹖丕乇诏蹖乇 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賲丿賳丿.
丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲蹖丕賳貙 亘卮乇 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 丿丕賲倬乇賵乇蹖貙貙 亘丕 孬乇賵鬲 夭蹖丕丿蹖 賲賵丕噩賴 卮丿 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 丕賵賱蹖賳 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賲蹖夭丕賳 賳蹖丕夭 禺賵丿卮 亘賵丿. 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 诏賱賴 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賲丿 讴賴 丕賵賱 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 鬲蹖乇賴 亘賵丿 (鬲蹖乇賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 丨賯 賲丕丿乇蹖 亘賳丕 亘賵丿) 賵 讴賲鈥屭┵� 丕亘夭丕乇蹖 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賲丿賳丿 讴賴 亘賳丕亘乇 鬲賯爻蹖賲 讴丕乇 胤亘蹖毓蹖(夭賳 丿乇 禺丕賳賴貙 賲乇丿 亘蹖乇賵賳 丕夭 禺丕賳賴) 丕乇夭卮 賵 丕賴賲蹖鬲 讴丕乇 亘蹖乇賵賳 丕夭 禺丕賳賴 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 讴丕乇 禺丕賳诏蹖 乇丕 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 丿丕丿賳丿 賵 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 讴賲鈥屭┵� 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屬囏й� 蹖丕乇诏蹖乇 亘賴 蹖讴鬲丕賴賲爻乇 (丿乇 诏匕乇 丕夭 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 賲蹖丕賳蹖 亘賴 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 亘丕賱丕蹖蹖) 亘丿賱 卮丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿 賵 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 丿乇 卮讴賱鈥屬囏й� 丕賵賱蹖賴鈥屫ж� 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賲丿賴 亘賵丿貙 賲乇丿 賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池� 丿丕乇丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏й屫� 亘賴 賮乇夭賳丿丕賳 禺賵丿 丕賵 亘乇爻賳丿 賵 賳賴 亘賴 賮乇夭賳丿丕賳賽 丿乇賵賳賽 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屰� 賲丕丿乇蹖鈥屫ж簇� 丨賯 賲丕丿乇蹖 亘賴 丨賯 倬丿乇蹖 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿 賵 噩丕賲毓賴 亘賴 爻賵蹖 賲乇丿爻丕賱丕乇蹖 倬蹖卮 乇賮鬲. 丕蹖賳 賳賯胤賴 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 卮讴爻鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 噩賳爻 夭賳 丿丕賳爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 賲賵噩亘 丨賯 倬丿乇蹖 讴賲鈥屭┵� 丕夭 鬲賲丕賲 丨賯賵賯 賵 丕賲鬲蹖丕夭丕鬲 讴賴賳 禺賵丿 賲丨乇賵賲 卮丿(讴賴 賳賯胤賴 丕賵噩 丕蹖賳 賲丨乇賵賲蹖鬲 丿乇 毓氐乇 卮讴賵賮丕蹖蹖 蹖賵賳丕賳 丿蹖丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.)
禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屰� 蹖讴鬲丕賴賲爻乇 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 亘丕賵乇 毓丕賲賴 賳賴 丕夭 爻乇 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 賲賮賴賵賲 毓卮賯 噩賳爻蹖 亘賱讴賴 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 卮乇丕蹖胤 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賲丿 賵 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屰� 蹖讴鬲丕賴賲爻乇 倬丿乇爻丕賱丕乇 亘賵丿 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘賴 鬲亘丿蹖賱 賴鬲丕乇蹖爻賲 (讴賴 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 丕夭 丕夭丿賵丕噩 诏乇賵賴蹖 賲賳卮丕 賲蹖鈥屭屫必�) 亘賴 賮丨卮丕 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丕賲乇賵夭蹖 (爻讴爻 丿乇 丕夭丕蹖 倬賵賱) 賲賳噩乇 卮丿. 丕蹖賳讴賴 趩乇丕 蹖讴鬲丕賴賲爻乇蹖 賮賯胤 丕夭 爻賵蹖 夭賳 賯丕賳賵賳 亘賵丿 賵 賲乇丿賴丕 诏丕賴蹖 亘蹖鈥屬堎佖й屰� 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 蹖丕 诏丕賴蹖 趩賳丿 賴賲爻乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 亘丕夭 亘賴 卮乇丕蹖胤 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 亘丕夭賲蹖鈥屭必�. 賲乇丿 亘賴 賲賵噩亘 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇丿丕卮鬲賳 丕亘夭丕乇 鬲賵賱蹖丿 賵 夭賲蹖賳貙 亘賴 賲乇賵乇 氐丕丨亘 亘乇丿诏丕賳蹖 卮丿 讴賴 賲丕賱讴鈥屫簇з� 亘賴 丨爻丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫①呚� 賵 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池� 丕夭 夭賳丕賳 賵 丿禺鬲乇丕賳 丌賳丕賳 爻賵亍丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 讴賳丿. 丕氐賱丕賸 丿賱蹖賱 丌賳讴賴 夭賳丕賳 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 丕爻倬丕乇鬲鈥屬囏� 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丌鬲賳蹖鈥屬囏� 丕夭 丕乇噩 賵 賲賳夭賱鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘賵丿賳丿貙 蹖讴蹖 丌夭丕丿蹖 噩賳爻蹖 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 丌賳丕賳貙 毓丿賲 賵噩賵丿 亘乇丿诏蹖 賵 丨囟賵乇 爻乇賮鈥屬囏� 丿賵乇 丕夭 賲丕賱讴蹖賳 (讴賲鈥屫� 亘賵丿賳 賵爻賵爻賴 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲鈥屫堌жㄚ� 亘丕 夭賳丕賳 賵 丿禺鬲乇丕賳 丌賳鈥屬囏�) 丿丕賳爻鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.)
丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 丕賳诏賱爻 噩丿丕诏丕賳賴 賵 亘賴 鬲賮爻蹖乇 亘乇乇爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 蹖賵賳丕賳貙 乇賵賲 賵 丕賲倬乇丕鬲賵乇蹖 跇乇賲賳鈥屬囏ж� 趩胤賵乇 鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲 賳馗丕賲 鬲賵賱蹖丿蹖 賵 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丿诏乇诏賵賳蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 乇丕賴 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 卮讴賱诏蹖乇蹖 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕夭 讴乇丿賳丿. 賳賴丕丿蹖 讴賴 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丿 賴賲蹖卮賴 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 賲乇丿賲 賯乇丕乇 丿丕乇丿 趩乇丕 讴賴 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 賳馗丕賲 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屫й� (讴賴 倬蹖卮鬲乇 丿乇 賴賲賴 噩丕 亘乇 賯乇丕乇 亘賵丿 賵 賯丕賳賵賳鈥� 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必� 賵 毓丿丕賱鬲 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲鈥屫屫辟団€屫й屸€屬囏� 賮乇丕賴賲 賲蹖鈥屭┴必�) 賲賳丕賮毓 蹖讴爻丕賳蹖 亘丕 鬲賵丿賴鈥屰� 賲乇丿賲 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 賲毓賲賵賱丕賸 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 禺丕爻鬲诏丕賴 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 禺賵丿 (鬲賳丕夭毓丕鬲 賵 鬲賳丕賯囟鈥屬囏й� 丿乇賵賳鈥屫з呚官団€屫й� 賲蹖丕賳 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖 讴賴 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 孬乇賵鬲 賵 賳賴 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 禺賵賳 賵 鬲蹖乇賴 卮讴賱鈥屭辟佖団€屫з嗀�) 賲噩亘賵乇 亘賴 噩丕賳亘丿丕乇蹖 丕夭 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 孬乇賵鬲賲賳丿 賵 賯丿乇鬲賲賳丿 噩丕賲毓賴 丕爻鬲. 丕賳诏賱爻 亘丕 丿賯鬲 夭蹖丕丿 亘賴 鬲賵氐蹖賮 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丕蹖賳 噩乇蹖丕賳丕鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 鬲丕 賳卮丕賳 丿賴丿 亘卮乇 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 噩賲毓蹖 賲蹖鈥屫槽屫池� 亘賱讴賴 亘蹖鈥屬囒屭� 賲卮讴賱蹖 賵 丿乇 讴賲丕賱 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屫槽屫池�. 賴賲鈥屭嗁嗃屬� 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賮乇賵倬丕卮蹖 丕賲倬乇丕鬲賵乇蹖 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘乇禺賱丕賮 丌賳趩賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 爻毓蹖 丿丕乇丿 賳卮丕賳 丿賴丿 賳賴 丿乇 丕孬乇 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丕孬乇 亘乇丿賴鈥屫ж臂� 賵 賮爻丕丿 夭蹖丕丿 亘賴 賵賯賵毓 倬蹖賵爻鬲. 丕賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 亘賳丕亘乇 丕鬲賮丕賯丕鬲 賳丕诏夭蹖乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 讴賴 丕夭 賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 丌賳 亘賴 鬲賯爻蹖賲鈥屭┴ж辟囏й� 亘夭乇诏 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 (賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 鬲賯爻蹖賲 讴丕乇: 丿乇 丕孬乇 馗賴賵乇 丿丕賲倬乇賵乇蹖 賵 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 賯亘丕蹖賱蹖 讴賴 卮亘丕賳蹖 賲蹖鈥屫槽屫池嗀� 賵 丌賳鈥屬囏� 讴賴 丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屫й� 倬丕蹖蹖賳鈥屫� 丕夭 鬲讴丕賲賱 亘賵丿賳丿貨 丿賵賲蹖: 噩丿丕蹖蹖 氐賳丕蹖毓 丿爻鬲蹖 丕夭 讴卮丕賵乇夭蹖 丿乇 毓氐乇 賳蹖賲鈥屫й屫з� 賵 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲亘丕丿賱丕鬲 讴丕賱丕蹖蹖 賵 丕夭 丿爻鬲鈥屫辟佖� 鬲爻賱胤 亘賴 乇賵蹖 讴丕賱丕蹖 鬲賵賱蹖丿蹖 禺賵丿 賵 鬲孬亘蹖鬲 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 讴丕賲賱 賵 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 鬲賲丕蹖夭 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 孬乇賵鬲 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲貙 爻賵賲蹖賳 鬲賯爻蹖賲鈥屭┴ж� 亘夭乇诏: 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 亘丕夭乇诏丕賳蹖 賵 爻乇 亘乇丌賵乇丿賳 鬲噩丕乇 讴賴 亘丕 讴丕乇 丕賳丿讴 賵 亘丕 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賲丨氐賵賱 丿蹖诏乇蹖 賮乇亘賴 賵 賮乇亘賴鈥屫� 賲蹖鈥屫簇嗀�) 亘丕蹖丿 丕卮丕乇賴 讴乇丿貙 鬲蹖乇賴 丿乇 賴賲 卮讴爻鬲 賵 賲賳丕賮毓 賮乇丿蹖 亘賴 噩丕蹖 賲賳丕賮毓 禺賵蹖卮丕賵賳丿蹖 亘丕 賲賳丕賮毓 诏乇賵賴鈥屬囏й� 讴丕乇蹖 诏乇賴 禺賵乇丿 賵 鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 亘乇丌賲丿賴 丕夭 鬲賯爻蹖賲 讴丕乇 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丌賳貙 蹖毓賳蹖 鬲賯爻蹖賲 噩丕锟斤拷毓賴 亘賴 胤亘賯丕鬲貙 丿賵賱鬲 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賲丿. 丕乇诏丕賳蹖 賳賵蹖賳 讴賴 丿乇 鬲賯丕亘賱 亘丕 賴乇 爻丕夭賲丕賳 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屫й屫� 丕夭 賲賳丕賮毓 賴賲賴鈥屰� 賲乇丿賲 丨乇丕爻鬲 讴賳丿. 丕鬲賮丕賯蹖 讴賴 丕诏乇趩賴 賳蹖賮鬲丕丿 賵 丿賵賱鬲 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 丌睾丕夭 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 禺賵丿 亘賴 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 賳蹖乇賵 賵 孬乇賵鬲 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 賴賲鬲 诏賲丕乇丿 趩乇丕 讴賴 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 丨乇氐 賵 孬乇賵鬲鈥屫з嗀堌槽� 亘賳蹖丕賳 賳賴丕丿賴 卮丿賴 亘賵丿. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 丿賵賱鬲 亘賴 賴蹖趩 毓賳賵丕賳 賳賴 賯丿乇鬲蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕夭 禺丕乇噩 亘賴 噩丕賲毓賴 鬲丨賲蹖賱 卮丿賴 亘丕卮丿 (趩賵賳丕賳 讴賴 亘乇禺蹖 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳 亘丕賵乇 丿丕乇賳丿 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 賳丕诏夭蹖乇 丕夭 賳丕丕賲賳蹖鈥屬囏й� 夭賳丿诏蹖 賮乇丿蹖 爻乇丕睾 賮乇夭丕賳賴鈥屫й� 乇賮鬲賳丿 賵 亘丕 丕賵 亘蹖毓鬲 亘爻鬲賳丿 (丨鬲蹖 丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 诏賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丨賯 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴 禺丿丕 賵丕诏匕丕卮鬲賳丿)) 賵 賳賴 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丕蹖丿賴 賲毓賳賵蹖貙 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賵 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 毓賯賱 (丕賳趩賳丕賳 讴賴 賴诏賱 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫�). 亘乇 毓讴爻 丿賵賱鬲 賲丨氐賵賱 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲 丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 賲毓蹖賳蹖 丕夭 鬲讴丕賲賱 讴賴 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 鬲囟丕丿 丨賱鈥屬嗀ж簇嗃� 亘丕 禺賵丿 丿乇诏蹖乇 丕爻鬲. 丿賵賱鬲 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 賳馗丕賲 鬲蹖乇賴鈥屫й� 讴賴賳貙 丿乇 丕亘鬲丿丕 丕鬲亘丕毓 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇 丨爻亘 爻乇夭賲蹖賳 鬲賯爻蹖賲 讴乇丿. 爻賱丕丨 丕夭 丿爻鬲 毓賲賵賲 賲乇丿賲 诏乇賮鬲. 賵 亘乇丕蹖 賳诏賴丿丕乇蹖 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲 毓賲賵賲蹖 賲賮賴賵賲 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 乇丕 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賵乇丿. 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 丿賵賱鬲 丕夭 賳蹖丕夭 亘賴 鬲丨鬲 讴賳鬲乇賱鈥屫ж簇� 鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖 亘乇禺丕爻鬲貙 亘賳丕亘乇 囟乇賵乇鬲貙 丿賵賱鬲賽 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 賯賵蹖鈥屫� 賵 亘賴 賱丨丕馗賽 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 賲爻賱胤 丕爻鬲. 亘丕 丕蹖賳 丨丕賱貙 丕夭 丕夭賱 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 噩賵丕賲毓蹖 亘賵丿賳丿 讴賴 亘丿賵賳 丿賵賱鬲 爻乇 讴乇丿賳丿 賵 賴蹖趩 鬲氐賵乇蹖 丕夭 趩賳蹖賳 賳賴丕丿蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲賳丿. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 賵賯鬲蹖 囟乇賵乇鬲 丕蹖賳 賳賴丕丿 亘賴 爻乇 乇爻丿貙 丿賵賱鬲 賮乇賵 賲蹖鈥屬矩ж簇� 賵 亘賴 賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏� 賲賳鬲賯賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.
November 4, 2009
Most of the work outlined in this book has been disproved. It is rudimentary, a great summation of mid-19th century anthropology. I like his analysis of Iroquois tribes as compared with Far Eastern configurations of the family. Basically his argument is that pre-capitalist societies and non-western societies, notably Native American tribes have already understood basic principles of communism, and that in many ways it is more natural to have common property rights, and community based child raising, than the way the family is configured in contemporary society. He makes some arguments that have kind of become glossed over or completely forgotten by contemporary Marxists; that capitalism is inherently patriarchal, that "it takes a village to raise a child" and that we are all better of when we know how to share. Although he constantly reverts to teleological discussions (Progressivist arguments about how feudalism becomes capitalism which becomes socialism which then becomes communism). Most contemporary Marxists have abandoned this schematic for reasons I have yet to fully understand.
January 4, 2009
I re-read this after some 30 years after having recommended it to someone. Engels provides a materialist view of the origin and development of human social structures by linking the then-recent findings of Lewis Morgan on primitive families to the underlying means of procurring food, shelter, and tools.
He traces the origin of the modern male dominated monogamous family through early group marriage, development of the incest taboos, and gens clan structure arriving at the monogamous family with the advent of private property and the ability for a human to produce more than necessary to stay alive. With private property comes class-divided society, the relegation of women to the status of domestic slave, the need to know heirs to pass the property to, and the begining of the exploitation of man by man, in the first instance, through ancient slavery. He additionally shows that the end of the oppression of women will occur only when that family structure disappears, she is fully freed from the constraints of household drudgery and she plays a full role in productive society.
A triumph of the application of historical materialism.
A few years ago I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond who summarizes contemporary understanding of the transition of the hunter-gatherer to settled agricultural status. By my memory, he doesn't deal at all with social structures. Diamond decides that environmental accident governs differences between European versus other human development. It would be interesting to re-look at the Diamond book now.
He traces the origin of the modern male dominated monogamous family through early group marriage, development of the incest taboos, and gens clan structure arriving at the monogamous family with the advent of private property and the ability for a human to produce more than necessary to stay alive. With private property comes class-divided society, the relegation of women to the status of domestic slave, the need to know heirs to pass the property to, and the begining of the exploitation of man by man, in the first instance, through ancient slavery. He additionally shows that the end of the oppression of women will occur only when that family structure disappears, she is fully freed from the constraints of household drudgery and she plays a full role in productive society.
A triumph of the application of historical materialism.
A few years ago I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond who summarizes contemporary understanding of the transition of the hunter-gatherer to settled agricultural status. By my memory, he doesn't deal at all with social structures. Diamond decides that environmental accident governs differences between European versus other human development. It would be interesting to re-look at the Diamond book now.
October 20, 2020
To discover the feminist in Engels. On the early development of social structures, on how the matrilineal clan came into existence even before the family system and how women slowly lost their dominance. Some of the theories in this book have been disputed, but it is still as important a read as the manifesto, for the perspectives that it provide
October 22, 2019
Gives an account of the transition from gentile (tribal and less organized) societies to 'civilization' or what we would understand as feudalism. The approved pre-history of Marxism, everything up to the entrance of the commodity.
March 3, 2020
Senza alcuna sorpresa anche in questo caso Engels si dimostra un importante ed abile divulgatore, leggetelo e ne rimarrete sorpresi da quanto sia semplice il suo linguaggio, racconta i fatti per quel che sono stati e prevedendo il futuro per quel che dopo il suo tempo si sono rivelati.
Non leggetelo con l'occhio politico ma con la fame di conoscenza e il gusto di ascoltare una lezione di un grande studioso.
Non leggetelo con l'occhio politico ma con la fame di conoscenza e il gusto di ascoltare una lezione di un grande studioso.
March 22, 2021
賲乇丕噩毓鬲賷 賱賱賰鬲丕亘:
鬲鬲賲丨賵乇 丕賱乇丐賷丞 丕賱賳爻賵賷丞 丕賱賷爻丕乇賷丞 亘丕禺鬲氐丕乇 丨賵賱 賳馗乇賷丞 廿賳噩賱夭 丕賱賲賮爻乇丞 亘丿賯丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 丕賱賯丕卅賱丞 亘兀賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 賰丕賳鬲 兀賲賵賲賷丞貙 兀賷 兀賳 賳爻亘 丕賱兀亘賳丕亍 賷賰賵賳 賱賱兀賲貙 賱兀賳 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 鈥撡冑呚� 丕賱丨賷丕夭丕鬲- 賰丕賳鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賲卮丕毓貙 賵賱賲 鬲賵噩丿 "賲丐爻爻丞" 丕賱兀爻乇丞. 賮賰丕賳鬲 丕賱兀賲賵賲丞 賷賯賷賳賷丞 賵丕賱兀亘賵丞 馗賳賷丞貙 孬賲 丕賳鬲賯賱鬲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 賱賱賳爻亘 丕賱兀亘賵賷 賲毓 馗賴賵乇 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞.
賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賳爻丕亍 賮賷 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賵丨卮賷丞 賵 賮賷 賲乇丕丨賱 賲賳 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱亘乇亘乇賷丞貙 鬲賯賵賲 亘賰賱 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱賲賳鬲噩丞 匕丕鬲 丕賱賯賷賲丞 賮賷 丕賱賲賳夭賱 賰丕賱賳爻賷噩 賵丕賱鬲胤亘賷亘 賵丕賱胤賴賷貙 賲賲丕 兀丿賶 廿賱賶 廿爻賳丕丿 丕賱賯賷丕丿丞 賱賱賳爻丕亍 丿丕禺賱 兀爻乇賴賳 賵賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲賴賳. 賵賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 賲毓賳賶 賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞貙 賮賰丕賳 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 賱賱丨丕噩丞 賵丕賱兀丿賵丕鬲 賱賱賲卮丕毓.
賳賯胤丞 丕賱鬲丨賵賱 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賵囟毓 賰丕賳鬲 "賲兀爻爻丞 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞" 賵賴賷 賲丕 賷爻賲賷賴丕 廿賳噩賱夭 "賱丨馗丞 丕賱賴夭賷賲丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賱噩賳爻 丕賱賳爻丕亍". 賮賰丕賳 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賴賲 賲賳 丨乇賰賴賲 丨亘 丕賱鬲賲賱賰 賮賵賯 丕賱丨丕噩丞貙 賮賴賲 賯丕丿賲賵賳 賲賳 丕賱睾丕亘丞 亘丕賱鬲賳丕賮爻 賵賲賴丕乇丕鬲賴 賵兀禺賱丕賯賴貙 亘爻亘亘 鬲賲乇爻賴賲 賮賷 丕賱氐賷丿 賵丕賱氐乇丕毓 賲毓 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵 賲毓 亘毓囟賴賲 丕賱亘毓囟. 賵賲毓 禺賵賮 丕賱賲爻鬲丨賵匕賷賳 賲賳 賮賯丿丕賳 兀賲賱丕賰賴賲貙 鬲賲 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 賲賳 丨丕賱丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 廿賱賶 丨丕賱丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞. 賮丕賱丿賵賱丞 鬲丨賲賷 丕賱賲賲鬲賱賰丕鬲 賵丨賯 丕賱丨賷丕夭丞 賵匕賱賰 亘丕禺鬲乇丕毓 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 賵亘丌賱賷丞 丕賱鬲賳賮賷匕 賵賴賷 丕賱丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱賲爻賱丨丞.賯亘賱 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 鬲賳馗賷賲丕鬲 賯丕賳賵賳賷丞 兀賵 爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵丕禺鬲丕乇 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賴匕丕 丕賱卮賰賱 賱鬲賯賳賷賳 丨賯 "丕睾鬲氐丕亘 丕賱賲賲鬲賱賰丕鬲" 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 賲卮丕毓賸丕 賵 丨賯賸丕 賱賱噩賲賷毓貙 賵鬲丨賵賷賱 賴匕丕 丕賱丕睾鬲氐丕亘 廿賱賶 丨賯 賷丨賲賷賴 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳.
賵賲賳 賴賳丕貙 兀乇丕丿 丕賱乇噩丕賱 丕賳鬲賯丕賱 丨賯 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 賱賱賳爻賱 丕賱賲賳爻賵亘 賱賴賲貙 賮鬲賲兀爻爻鬲 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 丕賱丨氐乇賷丞 -兀賷 丕賱夭賵丕噩- 賱鬲鬲丨賵賱 丕賱兀亘賵丞 賲賳 睾賱亘丞 丕賱馗賳 廿賱賶 丕賱賷賯賷賳. 賵鬲丨賵賱鬲 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賲賳 賲乇賰夭 丕賱賵丨丿丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵賲丨賵乇賴丕 廿賱賶 丕賱賲乇鬲亘丞 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞.
兀丿鬲 賲兀爻爻丞 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞 廿賱賶 鬲賰賵賳 廿賯胤丕毓賷丕鬲 賮賷 賷丿 賯賱丞 賲賳 丕賱廿賯胤丕毓賷賷賳貙 賵兀睾賱亘賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賲毓丿賲賷賳 賵兀氐亘丨 賴匕丕 丕賱丨賯 賲丨賲賷賸丕 亘丕賱賯丕賳賵賳. 賮兀氐亘丨鬲 賴賳丕賰 兀賯賱賷丞 鬲賲賱賰 賵賲賳 孬賲 鬲丨賰賲 賵鬲氐丿乇 丕賱賯乇丕乇丕鬲 賵 鬲鬲爻賷丿 賵兀睾賱亘賷丞 鬲鬲亘毓 賵 鬲賳賮匕 丕賱兀賵丕賲乇貙 賮賳卮兀鬲 賲賳馗賵賲丞 乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 兀亘賵賷丞. 賵賴賷 鬲爻賲賶 兀亘賵賷丞 賲賳 丨賷孬 賵噩賵丿 賮卅丞 鬲爻賵丿 賵賮卅丞 鬲禺囟毓 賵鬲鬲亘毓. 賮丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 賯乇賷賳丞 賯賷丕賲 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵丕賱毓賯丿 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷.
賵亘賳丕亍 毓賱賷賴貙 賮丕賱兀爻乇丞 丕賱兀亘賵賷丞 賲賵賱賵丿丞 賲賳 乇丨賲 丕賱賲丐爻爻丞 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 丕賱兀亘賵賷丞 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞貙 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷貙 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲爻賲丨 丕賱賲賳馗賵賲丞 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 亘兀賷 鬲睾賷賷乇 賱氐丕賱丨 丕賱賲乇兀丞 丿丕禺賱 丕賱兀爻乇丞. 賱兀賳 丕賱兀爻乇丞 亘卮賰賱賴丕 丕賱兀亘賵賷 鬲禺丿賲 丕賱賲賳馗賵賲丞 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞.
賳賯胤丞 賲賴賲丞 兀賷囟賸丕 賷噩亘 丕賱丕賱鬲賮丕鬲 賱賴丕 賵賴賷 兀賳 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 賱賷爻鬲 賮賷 賳賵毓 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 丕賱匕賷 賯丕賲鬲 亘賴 丕賱賳爻丕亍 鬲丕乇賷禺賷賸丕 賵賲丕夭丕賱鬲 鬲賯賵賲 亘賴貙 賵賱賰賳 賮賷 鬲丨賵賱賴 賲賳 毓賲賱 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賲賳鬲噩 賮賷 丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱毓丕賲 ( 囟賲賳 賳馗丕賲 丕賱賲卮丕毓賷丞) 賵丕賲鬲賱丕賰賴丕 賱賵爻丕卅賱 廿賳鬲丕噩 賴匕丕 丕賱毓賲賱 (賰丕賱賯丿賵乇 賵丕賱兀賯賲卮丞 賵睾賷乇賴丕)貙 廿賱賶 毓賲賱 睾賷乇 賲賳鬲噩 廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷賸丕 丿丕禺賱 丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱禺丕氐貙 賮賷 賲賯丕亘賱 毓賲賱 丕賱乇噩賱 丕賱鬲賯賱賷丿賷 賮賷 賰爻亘 丕賱毓賷卮 丕賱匕賷 鬲丨賵賱 賲毓 丕賱夭賲賳 賲賳 賵爻賷賱丞 賱賱亘賯丕亍 廿賱賶 賲氐丿乇 賱賱孬乇賵丞 賵鬲乇丕賰賲賴丕貙 賮賮賯丿 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱賲賳夭賱賷 兀賴賲賷鬲賴 賵賯丿乇賴 賵鬲丨賵賱 廿賱賶 賲爻丕賴賲丞 鬲丕賮賴丞.
賵丌禺乇 賳賯胤丞 賱賮賴賲 丕賱鬲睾賷乇 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲貙 賴賷 兀賳 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱賲卮丕毓賷丞 賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 賲毓賳賶 賱賱賮賯乇 兀賵 丕賱睾賳賶貙 賱毓丿賲 賵噩賵丿 卮賷亍 丕爻賲賴 丕賱鬲賲賱賰 兀氐賱賸丕貙 賵賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 賲毓賳賶 賱賱賯賴乇 賱兀賳賴 賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 卮賷亍 丕爻賲賴 爻賱胤丞 兀賵 賴乇賲賷丞. 賵賰丕賳鬲 賴匕賴 賵賮賯賸丕 賱廿賳噩賱夭 丕賱丨丕賱丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲睾賷乇鬲 賲毓 馗賴賵乇 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賵馗賴賵乇 丕賱丿賵賱丞 亘丕賱鬲亘毓賷丞.
鬲賱禺賷氐 丕賱賰鬲丕亘:
(賮賷 賲丿賵賳鬲賷 毓賱賶 鬲賲亘賱乇)丕賳胤賱丕賯賸丕 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱賲禺鬲氐乇丞 爻兀賱禺氐 賰鬲丕亘 廿賳噩賱夭 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱賲乇丕丨賱 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賱兀賳孬乇賵亘賵賱賵噩賷丞 賱賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 亘丕賱鬲賮氐賷賱.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 兀氐毓亘 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱鬲賷 賯乇兀鬲賴丕貙 賮賯丿 丕爻鬲賴賱賰賳賷 匕賴賳賷賸丕 亘爻亘亘 鬲賮丕氐賷賱賴 賵鬲毓賯賷丿丕鬲賴. 賵賲賲丕 夭丕丿 丕賱兀賲乇 氐毓賵亘丞 兀賳賳賷 賰賳鬲 兀賯賵賲 亘賰鬲丕亘丞 鬲賱禺賷氐丕鬲 賱賰賱 賮氐賱 丨鬲賶 兀鬲賲賰賳 賲賳 鬲匕賰乇 鬲賮丕氐賷賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘. 賵賴賷 胤乇賷賯丞 賱丕 兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賳賷 爻兀賯賵賲 亘賴丕 賲噩丿丿賸丕 賳馗乇賸丕 賱賱賵賯鬲 丕賱賲爻鬲賴賱賰 賮賷賴丕 賵丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 兀爻鬲睾賱賴 賮賷 賯乇丕亍丞 孬賱丕孬丞 兀賵 兀乇亘毓丞 賰鬲亘 廿囟丕賮賷丞. 賵賱賰賳賷 兀賳氐丨 丕賱賲鬲氐賮丨賷賳 亘賯乇丕亍丞 賳賴丕賷丞 賰賱 賮氐賱貙 賮賴賷 鬲丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賶 賲賱禺氐 丕賱賮氐賱 賮賷 賮賯乇丞 兀賵 丕孬賳鬲賷賳 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賰孬乇.亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 丕賱匕賷 賷毓鬲亘乇 鬲噩賲賷毓賸丕 賱賲毓馗賲 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賮賷 丕賱賮氐賵賱 丕賱孬賲丕賳賷丞 丕賱爻丕亘賯丞.
鬲鬲賲丨賵乇 丕賱乇丐賷丞 丕賱賳爻賵賷丞 丕賱賷爻丕乇賷丞 亘丕禺鬲氐丕乇 丨賵賱 賳馗乇賷丞 廿賳噩賱夭 丕賱賲賮爻乇丞 亘丿賯丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 丕賱賯丕卅賱丞 亘兀賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 賰丕賳鬲 兀賲賵賲賷丞貙 兀賷 兀賳 賳爻亘 丕賱兀亘賳丕亍 賷賰賵賳 賱賱兀賲貙 賱兀賳 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 鈥撡冑呚� 丕賱丨賷丕夭丕鬲- 賰丕賳鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賲卮丕毓貙 賵賱賲 鬲賵噩丿 "賲丐爻爻丞" 丕賱兀爻乇丞. 賮賰丕賳鬲 丕賱兀賲賵賲丞 賷賯賷賳賷丞 賵丕賱兀亘賵丞 馗賳賷丞貙 孬賲 丕賳鬲賯賱鬲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 賱賱賳爻亘 丕賱兀亘賵賷 賲毓 馗賴賵乇 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞.
賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賳爻丕亍 賮賷 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賵丨卮賷丞 賵 賮賷 賲乇丕丨賱 賲賳 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱亘乇亘乇賷丞貙 鬲賯賵賲 亘賰賱 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱賲賳鬲噩丞 匕丕鬲 丕賱賯賷賲丞 賮賷 丕賱賲賳夭賱 賰丕賱賳爻賷噩 賵丕賱鬲胤亘賷亘 賵丕賱胤賴賷貙 賲賲丕 兀丿賶 廿賱賶 廿爻賳丕丿 丕賱賯賷丕丿丞 賱賱賳爻丕亍 丿丕禺賱 兀爻乇賴賳 賵賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲賴賳. 賵賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 賲毓賳賶 賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞貙 賮賰丕賳 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 賱賱丨丕噩丞 賵丕賱兀丿賵丕鬲 賱賱賲卮丕毓.
賳賯胤丞 丕賱鬲丨賵賱 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賵囟毓 賰丕賳鬲 "賲兀爻爻丞 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞" 賵賴賷 賲丕 賷爻賲賷賴丕 廿賳噩賱夭 "賱丨馗丞 丕賱賴夭賷賲丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賱噩賳爻 丕賱賳爻丕亍". 賮賰丕賳 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賴賲 賲賳 丨乇賰賴賲 丨亘 丕賱鬲賲賱賰 賮賵賯 丕賱丨丕噩丞貙 賮賴賲 賯丕丿賲賵賳 賲賳 丕賱睾丕亘丞 亘丕賱鬲賳丕賮爻 賵賲賴丕乇丕鬲賴 賵兀禺賱丕賯賴貙 亘爻亘亘 鬲賲乇爻賴賲 賮賷 丕賱氐賷丿 賵丕賱氐乇丕毓 賲毓 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵 賲毓 亘毓囟賴賲 丕賱亘毓囟. 賵賲毓 禺賵賮 丕賱賲爻鬲丨賵匕賷賳 賲賳 賮賯丿丕賳 兀賲賱丕賰賴賲貙 鬲賲 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 賲賳 丨丕賱丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 廿賱賶 丨丕賱丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞. 賮丕賱丿賵賱丞 鬲丨賲賷 丕賱賲賲鬲賱賰丕鬲 賵丨賯 丕賱丨賷丕夭丞 賵匕賱賰 亘丕禺鬲乇丕毓 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 賵亘丌賱賷丞 丕賱鬲賳賮賷匕 賵賴賷 丕賱丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱賲爻賱丨丞.賯亘賱 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 鬲賳馗賷賲丕鬲 賯丕賳賵賳賷丞 兀賵 爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵丕禺鬲丕乇 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賴匕丕 丕賱卮賰賱 賱鬲賯賳賷賳 丨賯 "丕睾鬲氐丕亘 丕賱賲賲鬲賱賰丕鬲" 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 賲卮丕毓賸丕 賵 丨賯賸丕 賱賱噩賲賷毓貙 賵鬲丨賵賷賱 賴匕丕 丕賱丕睾鬲氐丕亘 廿賱賶 丨賯 賷丨賲賷賴 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳.
賵賲賳 賴賳丕貙 兀乇丕丿 丕賱乇噩丕賱 丕賳鬲賯丕賱 丨賯 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 賱賱賳爻賱 丕賱賲賳爻賵亘 賱賴賲貙 賮鬲賲兀爻爻鬲 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 丕賱丨氐乇賷丞 -兀賷 丕賱夭賵丕噩- 賱鬲鬲丨賵賱 丕賱兀亘賵丞 賲賳 睾賱亘丞 丕賱馗賳 廿賱賶 丕賱賷賯賷賳. 賵鬲丨賵賱鬲 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賲賳 賲乇賰夭 丕賱賵丨丿丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵賲丨賵乇賴丕 廿賱賶 丕賱賲乇鬲亘丞 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞.
兀丿鬲 賲兀爻爻丞 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞 廿賱賶 鬲賰賵賳 廿賯胤丕毓賷丕鬲 賮賷 賷丿 賯賱丞 賲賳 丕賱廿賯胤丕毓賷賷賳貙 賵兀睾賱亘賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賲毓丿賲賷賳 賵兀氐亘丨 賴匕丕 丕賱丨賯 賲丨賲賷賸丕 亘丕賱賯丕賳賵賳. 賮兀氐亘丨鬲 賴賳丕賰 兀賯賱賷丞 鬲賲賱賰 賵賲賳 孬賲 鬲丨賰賲 賵鬲氐丿乇 丕賱賯乇丕乇丕鬲 賵 鬲鬲爻賷丿 賵兀睾賱亘賷丞 鬲鬲亘毓 賵 鬲賳賮匕 丕賱兀賵丕賲乇貙 賮賳卮兀鬲 賲賳馗賵賲丞 乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 兀亘賵賷丞. 賵賴賷 鬲爻賲賶 兀亘賵賷丞 賲賳 丨賷孬 賵噩賵丿 賮卅丞 鬲爻賵丿 賵賮卅丞 鬲禺囟毓 賵鬲鬲亘毓. 賮丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 賯乇賷賳丞 賯賷丕賲 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵丕賱毓賯丿 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷.
賵亘賳丕亍 毓賱賷賴貙 賮丕賱兀爻乇丞 丕賱兀亘賵賷丞 賲賵賱賵丿丞 賲賳 乇丨賲 丕賱賲丐爻爻丞 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 丕賱兀亘賵賷丞 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞貙 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷貙 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲爻賲丨 丕賱賲賳馗賵賲丞 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 亘兀賷 鬲睾賷賷乇 賱氐丕賱丨 丕賱賲乇兀丞 丿丕禺賱 丕賱兀爻乇丞. 賱兀賳 丕賱兀爻乇丞 亘卮賰賱賴丕 丕賱兀亘賵賷 鬲禺丿賲 丕賱賲賳馗賵賲丞 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞.
賳賯胤丞 賲賴賲丞 兀賷囟賸丕 賷噩亘 丕賱丕賱鬲賮丕鬲 賱賴丕 賵賴賷 兀賳 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 賱賷爻鬲 賮賷 賳賵毓 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 丕賱匕賷 賯丕賲鬲 亘賴 丕賱賳爻丕亍 鬲丕乇賷禺賷賸丕 賵賲丕夭丕賱鬲 鬲賯賵賲 亘賴貙 賵賱賰賳 賮賷 鬲丨賵賱賴 賲賳 毓賲賱 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賲賳鬲噩 賮賷 丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱毓丕賲 ( 囟賲賳 賳馗丕賲 丕賱賲卮丕毓賷丞) 賵丕賲鬲賱丕賰賴丕 賱賵爻丕卅賱 廿賳鬲丕噩 賴匕丕 丕賱毓賲賱 (賰丕賱賯丿賵乇 賵丕賱兀賯賲卮丞 賵睾賷乇賴丕)貙 廿賱賶 毓賲賱 睾賷乇 賲賳鬲噩 廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷賸丕 丿丕禺賱 丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱禺丕氐貙 賮賷 賲賯丕亘賱 毓賲賱 丕賱乇噩賱 丕賱鬲賯賱賷丿賷 賮賷 賰爻亘 丕賱毓賷卮 丕賱匕賷 鬲丨賵賱 賲毓 丕賱夭賲賳 賲賳 賵爻賷賱丞 賱賱亘賯丕亍 廿賱賶 賲氐丿乇 賱賱孬乇賵丞 賵鬲乇丕賰賲賴丕貙 賮賮賯丿 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱賲賳夭賱賷 兀賴賲賷鬲賴 賵賯丿乇賴 賵鬲丨賵賱 廿賱賶 賲爻丕賴賲丞 鬲丕賮賴丞.
賵丌禺乇 賳賯胤丞 賱賮賴賲 丕賱鬲睾賷乇 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲貙 賴賷 兀賳 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱賲卮丕毓賷丞 賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 賲毓賳賶 賱賱賮賯乇 兀賵 丕賱睾賳賶貙 賱毓丿賲 賵噩賵丿 卮賷亍 丕爻賲賴 丕賱鬲賲賱賰 兀氐賱賸丕貙 賵賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 賲毓賳賶 賱賱賯賴乇 賱兀賳賴 賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 卮賷亍 丕爻賲賴 爻賱胤丞 兀賵 賴乇賲賷丞. 賵賰丕賳鬲 賴匕賴 賵賮賯賸丕 賱廿賳噩賱夭 丕賱丨丕賱丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲睾賷乇鬲 賲毓 馗賴賵乇 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賵馗賴賵乇 丕賱丿賵賱丞 亘丕賱鬲亘毓賷丞.
鬲賱禺賷氐 丕賱賰鬲丕亘:
(賮賷 賲丿賵賳鬲賷 毓賱賶 鬲賲亘賱乇)丕賳胤賱丕賯賸丕 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱賲禺鬲氐乇丞 爻兀賱禺氐 賰鬲丕亘 廿賳噩賱夭 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱賲乇丕丨賱 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賱兀賳孬乇賵亘賵賱賵噩賷丞 賱賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 亘丕賱鬲賮氐賷賱.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 兀氐毓亘 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱鬲賷 賯乇兀鬲賴丕貙 賮賯丿 丕爻鬲賴賱賰賳賷 匕賴賳賷賸丕 亘爻亘亘 鬲賮丕氐賷賱賴 賵鬲毓賯賷丿丕鬲賴. 賵賲賲丕 夭丕丿 丕賱兀賲乇 氐毓賵亘丞 兀賳賳賷 賰賳鬲 兀賯賵賲 亘賰鬲丕亘丞 鬲賱禺賷氐丕鬲 賱賰賱 賮氐賱 丨鬲賶 兀鬲賲賰賳 賲賳 鬲匕賰乇 鬲賮丕氐賷賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘. 賵賴賷 胤乇賷賯丞 賱丕 兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賳賷 爻兀賯賵賲 亘賴丕 賲噩丿丿賸丕 賳馗乇賸丕 賱賱賵賯鬲 丕賱賲爻鬲賴賱賰 賮賷賴丕 賵丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 兀爻鬲睾賱賴 賮賷 賯乇丕亍丞 孬賱丕孬丞 兀賵 兀乇亘毓丞 賰鬲亘 廿囟丕賮賷丞. 賵賱賰賳賷 兀賳氐丨 丕賱賲鬲氐賮丨賷賳 亘賯乇丕亍丞 賳賴丕賷丞 賰賱 賮氐賱貙 賮賴賷 鬲丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賶 賲賱禺氐 丕賱賮氐賱 賮賷 賮賯乇丞 兀賵 丕孬賳鬲賷賳 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賰孬乇.亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 丕賱匕賷 賷毓鬲亘乇 鬲噩賲賷毓賸丕 賱賲毓馗賲 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賮賷 丕賱賮氐賵賱 丕賱孬賲丕賳賷丞 丕賱爻丕亘賯丞.
July 17, 2021
Fairly good at some parts and fairly bad at others. In many cases I lack the knowledge to disprove his claims and many remarks of his in native american culture especially at that part where he speaks about skull sizes seems very racist. His attitude and analysis of ancient greek culture also follows that classical and totally ignorant german model of taking ancient greece as it was only athens. Engels completely ignores every other greek city state, not giving any attention to how direct conflicts with other greek and non greek cultures shaped the athenian state and reduces everything to inner conflict.
Another really bad point of Engels is how he labels the germanic people who invaded western Rome (Engels, as any other typical ignorant German, does not take eastern rome into consideration and doesnt even consider it as "real Rome"), as 'inherently democratic and equal' and how it was this 'equality and democracy' the germanic people possessed that made their society rich and flourishing on the dying empire of western rome, also completely ignoring that a major reason that western rome was dying was also the germanic invasions, and the main reason the Germanic and Frankish empire flourished was because of their horrific imperial policies in eastern rome sacking constantinople and pillaging it, and the crusades.
Apart from these fairly bad points, the historical materialism, the method used to analyse how history works and moves forward is excellent and as an actual application of historical materialism in use I definitely suggest it and consider it a great example!
3.5/5
Another really bad point of Engels is how he labels the germanic people who invaded western Rome (Engels, as any other typical ignorant German, does not take eastern rome into consideration and doesnt even consider it as "real Rome"), as 'inherently democratic and equal' and how it was this 'equality and democracy' the germanic people possessed that made their society rich and flourishing on the dying empire of western rome, also completely ignoring that a major reason that western rome was dying was also the germanic invasions, and the main reason the Germanic and Frankish empire flourished was because of their horrific imperial policies in eastern rome sacking constantinople and pillaging it, and the crusades.
Apart from these fairly bad points, the historical materialism, the method used to analyse how history works and moves forward is excellent and as an actual application of historical materialism in use I definitely suggest it and consider it a great example!
3.5/5
December 29, 2022
Okokok, mas vcs sabiam que a passagem do matriarcado ao patricardo se deu com a acumula莽茫o de riqueza ligada principalmente 脿 cria莽茫o de gado, e que essa passagem da linhagem materna para a paterna formou umas das primeiras sociedades de classes, determinando a opress茫o da mulher, e que a forma gent铆lica baseada na coopera莽茫o e na entreajuda numa sociedade sem estado teve que vir dar lugar 脿 fam铆lia monog芒mica aquando da passagem ao patriarcado (aka. propriedade privada e heran莽a) e que n茫o interessa teorizar sobre a forma a fam铆lia vai ter no comunismo, porque a forma da fam铆lia est谩 diretamente correlacionada com as condi莽玫es materiaise n茫o sabemos como vai ser porque o povo se vai organizar espontaneamente numa sociedade sem classes e depois s贸 tipo "ver as vibes" e se relacionar a partir da铆???
Este livro foi mesmo banger, melhor livro que li este ano em conjunto com o anti-茅dipo e o Pedro P谩ramo, e agora tenho argumentos chatos e concretos para fundamentar as minhas teses anti-fam铆lia!!!!!!
Este livro foi mesmo banger, melhor livro que li este ano em conjunto com o anti-茅dipo e o Pedro P谩ramo, e agora tenho argumentos chatos e concretos para fundamentar as minhas teses anti-fam铆lia!!!!!!
November 3, 2012
Although I was reading this book in opposition to it, I learned a lot. Problem is: Communists always diminish the importance of idealistic factors in history. Even the Russian communist revolution can be described primarily ideologically because in Russia, back then in 1917., there was no much of materialistic and historic (empiric) conditions for revolution. There was only an abstract idea (which was generated elsewhere, namely in Western Europe 50 years before). So, divergence between theory and practice, base and superstructure, led to the collapse of communist states 25 years ago. Things are far more complicated then they thought. I could talk for a month about idealistic / materialistic dialectics and other core problems of historicism, but I think this is enough for this review. If someone is interesting to argue more, then reply to this comment. :) Especially, if someone can analyze mistakes in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State".
December 3, 2015
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 睾丕賷丞 賮賷 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 賱賲丕 賷丨賵賷賴 賲賳 丿乇丕爻丞 卮丕賲賱丞 賱鬲胤賵乇 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賲賯爻賲丕 丕賷丕賴丕 廿賱賶 孬賱丕孬丞 賲乇丕丨賱 鬲亘丿兀 亘丕賱賲乇丨賱丞 丕賱賵丨卮賷丞 賵 丕賱亘乇亘乇賷丞 賵 丕賳鬲賴丕亍 亘丕賱賲丿賳賷丞 賵 丕賱鬲賷 賯爻賲鬲 賰賱 賲賳賴丕 丕賱賶 毓丿丞 賲乇丕丨賱 鬲亘毓丕 賱鬲胤賵乇 兀丿賵丕鬲 丕賱丕賳鬲丕噩 賵丕賱鬲丨賵賱 賲賳 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱毓丕賲丞 丕賱賶 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賵 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 賲賳 丕賱夭賵丕噩 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷 丕賱賶 丕賱夭賵丕噩 丕賱孬賳丕卅賷 賮丕賱夭賵丕噩 丕賱丨丿賷孬 丕賱匕賷 卮賰賱 丕賱毓丕卅賱丞 毓賱賶 賲丕 賳毓乇賮賴丕 丕賱賷賵賲 賵 丕賱鬲賷 賴賷 兀氐睾乇 賳賵丕丞 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱丨丿賷孬 丕賱賱匕賷 兀丿鬲 馗乇賵賮 鬲胤賵乇賴 丕賱賶 鬲卮賰賱 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賲賯鬲囟賷丕 亘兀賴賲 孬賱丕孬丞 兀賲孬賱丞 毓賳 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賵 賴賷 丕賱丕賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丞 丕賱乇賵賲丕賳賷丞 賵 丕賱丕睾乇賷賯賷丞 賵 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷丞
February 14, 2017
螘谓伪 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏维 未喂伪蠁蠅蟿喂蟽蟿喂魏蠈 尾喂尾位委慰 尾伪蟽喂味蠈渭蔚谓慰 蟽蟿慰谓 未喂伪位蔚魏蟿喂魏蠈 蠀位喂蟽渭蠈. 螝伪谓蔚喂 位慰纬慰 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 蔚尉蔚位喂魏蟿喂魏萎 蟺慰蟻蔚委伪 蟿畏蟼 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪蟼 渭蔚 魏伪蟿维位畏尉畏 蟿畏谓 纬苇谓蔚蟽畏 蟿慰蠀 魏蟻维蟿慰蠀蟼 蟿慰 慰蟺慰喂慰 胃蔚渭蔚位喂蠋谓蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蟿畏谓 未喂伪尾维胃渭喂蟽畏 蟿蠅谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺蠅谓 蟽蔚 魏慰喂谓蠅谓喂魏苇蟼 蟿维尉蔚喂蟼 渭蔚 伪谓蟿喂魏蟻慰蠀蠈渭蔚谓伪 蟽蠀渭蠁苇蟻慰谓蟿伪. 螒谓伪蠁蔚蟻蔚喂 蔚蟺委蟽畏蟼 蟿喂蟼 蔚谓未喂维渭蔚蟽蔚蟼 渭蔚蟿伪尾伪蟿喂魏苇蟼 尾伪胃渭委未蔚蟼 蟿畏蟼 蟺慰蟻蔚委伪蟼 伪蠀蟿萎蟼 慰喂 慰蟺慰委蔚蟼 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿畏蟻委味慰谓蟿伪喂 伪蟺慰 渭蔚纬维位蔚蟼 伪谓伪蟿蟻慰蟺苇蟼 慰蟺蠅蟼 纬喂伪 蟺伪蟻维未蔚喂纬渭伪 畏 伪谓伪蟿蟻慰蟺萎 蟿慰蠀 渭畏蟿蟻喂魏慰蠉 未喂魏伪委慰蠀 魏伪喂 畏 魏蠀蟻喂伪蟻蠂委伪 蟿慰蠀 蟺伪蟿蟻喂魏慰蠉 蟺慰蠀 蟽畏渭伪蟿慰未慰蟿蔚委 渭喂伪 谓蔚伪 蔚蟺慰蠂萎 魏伪喂 蔚尉蠀蟺畏蟻蔚蟿蔚委 蟿喂蟼 伪谓维纬魏蔚蟼 蟿畏蟼 伪蟿慰渭喂魏萎蟼 喂未喂慰魏蟿畏蟽委伪蟼.
May 31, 2007
This book added a whole lot to my perspective on the parallels between the development of gender roles and the concept of private property. It's from a historical materialist perspective, certainly, and at least at the time I read it, prompted me to more than one "A-ha" moment. If ideas of communism or socialism offend you, you may not feel the same way, but it's still a fascinating analysis in and of itself.
June 30, 2020
A complicated but thorough history of family and it鈥檚 relation to class and economic systems dating back to the more primitive cultures of our past. Examined through the lens of the eternal truth of Marxism, this is a very fun book to read and get a better understanding of how today鈥檚 society has reached this point. Not a necessary Marxist read but good supplemental and enjoyable material none the less
October 12, 2022
Necessary reading for any Marxist or anyone who鈥檚 interested in how patriarchy came to be and what it鈥檚 function is. Not much to say tht hasn鈥檛 already been said, there鈥檚 probably a better updated version of this somewhere out there but this is still super foundational for marxism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 562 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.