"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations."

I know it means as much as "everything" to you, being more like a Big Other than any actually existing state.

My point still stands though.

Precisely. He was not refering to the World Wide Mad Deadly Communist Gangster Computer Patriarchy that intersectional feminist blame for everything that is wrong with the world.

Bitch you trippin

Tell me again about the great socialist state of Pakistan.

the wealthiest states are monarchies - see the gulf states

And according to Holla Forums muh material condisions theory they should be teeming with pink-haired-SJW's because of their hyper-capitalism.

Feminism isn't just muh ebel mans. And you should read further into the manifesto where he says that petty-bourgeois "socialism" is really just corporate guilds in manufacture, and patriarchal relations in agriculture. I think this also might be a translation thing, where it's often said as destroyed or ended, but it could also mean "vandalised." Moreover, while he is in fact criticising "feminists" as saying patriarchy is the family's first form (Cf: notes that would lead to the Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State) he is also able to separate out the historically specific elements of patriarchy from a more general form of women's issues: infant mortality reached horrific levels, due to mothers working long hours away from home; children were left with slightly older children, or minders who often neglected them; et c et c.
This is why Marx isn't just advocating to remove the family unit, but to have completely re-imagined its form.
Also, much of what comes out of Marxist Feminism has been influenced by his daughter's interpretations and their works themselves.

Are you seriously trying to say that Pakistan is socialist?
Educate yourself

No, I'm suggesting that capitalist Muslim nations do not suffer from the effects which are claimed to be intrinsic to capitalism, therefor disproving the notion that capitalism is cause.

I think Marx uses the term "patriarchy" in a very specific context, that of production relations.

Quoting Marx from Chapter 10 of Capital Vol.1:

We can see from the excerpt above that he describes the corvee/serfdom-style modes of production as patriarchal. Now, how that relates to the patriarchy semantics of the feminist theory, i do not know as I am not very proficient in those fields of study.

Pakistan is a third world country, with over 60% of the population living off less than a dollar a day, with a state religion believed by 96 percent of the population
No shit they still have archaic gender relations

Fine, now explain the gulf states, which are more capitalistic than European nations and have a higher average income.

Economic determinism is a philosophical dead horse.

I never said they were "purely capitalism", that was some other user.
All of those countries have enshrined state religions believed by over 90% of the population, and if anyone in this thread tried to make the argument that a country automatically removes conservative gender relations when it is capitalistic is wrong. They do break down over time however. Europe did it, America is doing it, everybody else will in time

I mean shit, 18th century Britain was patriarchal as fuck. Not anymore though

You are correct in identifying how Marx uses the word patriarchy. For him, and Engels, patriarchy would be what comes during the neolithic revolution, division of labor by sex: men are more likely to be herders, hunters, and so on, while the lady is placed into the reproductive force behind living labour, rearing children, the more hands one has to cultivate the land with while father is away.

In the 60's, Egyptian girls walked around in mini-skirts, Afghanistan was rapidly modernizing and the Muslim republics in the soviet union provided the same education to women as they did to men.

Now look at where those places are.

History isn't linear.

Actually yes?
Dude, the difference in values and social kinshp between countries that has experienced real subsumption (Syria, Libanon, Iraq etc) and those regions that has until only recently maintained patriarch pastoralism is huge.

He's talking about a mode of production, family-centred pastoralism or agriculture. Read the Bible m8.

True that, but look at the demand for equal rights among women in those places now. Things are changing.

In my limited understanding no, but in this sense patriarchy is the division of labor by sex and power relations in a family favoring the male role (breadwinner), not an invisible empire imagined by libfems. Capitalism just opens up the opportunity for women to become breadwinners and men to be homemakers, which does not abolish the relation but rather strengthens it by making it more flexible. Of course these days it seems both parents are breadwinners and there is no longer a home maker, which is destroying the nuclear family by splitting it up.

Fuck man, I know it isnt. I'm just saying, that, ignoring the randomness and uncertainty of history, a capitalist nation will break down traditions, cultures, etc over time. It's the name of the game

No, that is not what Marx is claiming in Capital. As "patriarchal character of labour" he defines the compulsory labour imposed by patriarchal figures in a close society, such as landlords. It has absolutely nothing to do with men working and women cooking kind of thing. Both women and men were slaves and were working their asses off for the profit of the landlord.

I am mostly drawing from his notes that would become Origin of the Family. And yet even in the specific context of slavery he is referring to there was sexual division of labour: more physically demanding tasks assigned to male gangs, for instance, chopping the wood for a fence, while women were put in charge of its construction, men plowing the fields, women hoing. No where do I deny that men and women were slaves together, but to say that they were of equal comport is a lie.

What?

Times aren't changing, it's only getting worse, even in the historically liberal Islamic places of south-east Asia.

It's not the name of game, historical materialism is a flawed theory. The entire islamic world isn't just randomness and uncertainty.

Superficially. Can't tamp down on societal change forever.

The entire reason I am saying that the patriarchal relations of productions means sexual division of labour is because precisely when the bourgeoisie have the upper hand to abolish it the sexual division disappears almost completely and women are added to the industria/factory force alongside men.

Okay dude, what does capitalism do to culture and tradition then in your eyes? Fucking nothing?

The question is wrong. "Capitalism" as in the map, is not the territory.

by patriarchal relations he meant pre-capitalist formations of families/clans/tribes doing substitution farming / producing with a patriarchal figure as head of the family/clan.

Marx's use of Patriachy =/= today's use.

I'm certain you don't know what historical materialism is

You are massively retarded

...

Is what he's trying to say.

Because then I'd know it to be correct, of course.

Yes.

...

Think about it from an economic point of view, If you segregate half of the population using woman hateric drivel, thqt means you just stopped half of the population from becoming your capitalist competitors

Social struggle is just a matter of solving class struggle

Another notch on the bedpost of Anarchism

Stagnating wages forcing father and mother to both be out working 9 hours a day are what have an effect on the family unit.

Which doesn't lead to a shift away from conservatism, as the victorian age showed.