|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 请教：为什么“共妻”是诬蔑？（特别请教老舅，胖先生，老金和小孙） |
 |
消极
[个人文集]
加入时间: 2004/02/15
文章: 9097
经验值: 14803
|
|
|
作者：消极 在 驴鸣镇 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
从小受的哼哼教导：国民党反动派诬蔑伟大，光荣，正确的中国共产党共产共妻，共产我们要消灭剥削，我们没有共妻，搞破鞋是违背共产主义道德的可耻行为。这里有必要交待一下我的受教育年表，因为过去30年中国变化太快，有的时候相邻两届学的课程就不一样。我是文革后3年上小学，一路下来，80年代末90年代初读大学，然后研究生，理工科干面包。
说来惭愧，虽然生在红旗下，长在红旗下，读“共产党宣言”是在国内读研究生时，第一次看到“公妻”时的骇然可想而知，记得很清楚当时和一个哥们在政治课上白无聊奈，看其它书，打游戏怕有人打小报告（靠，这就是研究生教育），所以就看指定读物，我们两看到这的面部表情都是一样的。理工科干面包有个优点，绝对不和文科的较真，也绝对鄙视政治老师，所以看过就看过了，谁也不会像马列老太太提问。前两天看老金的帖，把这个记忆又勾起来了，招来“共产党宣言”读读，恩，中文翻译没错，是那个意思，所以德请教胖先生，是否其他语言版本不是这个意思。请教小孙是因为我想知道我后面的学生受的教育是否和我不一样。
我这次看的是1888的英文版，连接在此http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm，我在后面附上其中关于家庭部分的原文。
这次读确实读出新感受了：马列原来这么反社会，完全是anti-establishment的腔调。
我对宣言家庭部分的理解是这样的，首先，资产阶级的婚姻是其财产分配制度的一部分（当然，这个制度马列认为是不合理的）。资产阶级把娶妻作为扩充财产的一个手段，这点应该是事实，那段时间欧洲贵族之间的婚姻财产考量是第一位的，这风气在美洲殖民地也很盛行，就我所知，华盛顿是marry up，模糊记忆Hamilton也是，绝对不是个别现象。其次，资产阶级对婚姻忠诚是口是心非，资产阶级就是四处搞破鞋的伪君子，你们现在的制度就是“共妻“制。这事好象也是事实，Franklin就是四处播种的典型，他的爱好还特别，专搞maid一级的下层女性。其实这想象也好理解，当时婚姻的基点是财产，不是感情，不是生理吸引，婚外乱搞是释放荷尔蒙最合理的途径。
基于以上几点，无产阶级就是应该废除资产阶级的婚姻制度：“Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.”
就我这点可怜的西学知识，女权主义有些分支背后的哲学就是马列。其实不论西方东方，在20世纪前，女性都是处在第2性地位，和私人财产的地位相若。而与民权运动相随的女权运动正是摆脱女性低下地位的尝试。
The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.
Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
作者：消极 在 驴鸣镇 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您可以在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
