4 ms·

The family is a fundamentally undemocratic institution. The demos does not get to decide how spouses interact or how parents raise their children anywhere but a

The family is a fundamentally undemocratic institution. The demos does not get to decide how spouses interact or how parents raise their children anywhere but at the extremities. Nobody wants to live in a totalizing democracy.

mandmandam 3y ago
> The demos does not get to decide how spouses interact or how parents raise their children anywhere but at the extremities. For 99% of human history, they did actually. But that whole argument is a red herring. OP is dead right: If your megacorp aids genocide, there should be consequences. Firing employees who dare to make noise about it is just peak dystopia shit and we'd be mugs to accept it.
- runarberg 3y ago
  [flagged]
- skissane 3y ago
  > For 99% of human history, they did actually. No. Do you think, in mediaeval France, the King cared about the internal relations of the family of some random townsperson or peasant? Do you think any of the aristocracy cared? Do you think the Church cared? No. And that is the norm of human history – unless it gets to the point they have to pay attention to it, what ruler wants to be bothered with the details of the private family lives of their millions of subjects?
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    I'm talking about 2m years of humanity. Responding with "mediaeval" France is missing the point by a very wide mark.
    - skissane 3y ago
      Mediaeval France was just an example. What I said was true of them was true of just about everywhere and everywhen else too. Rarely in human history have rulers displayed any great care for what goes on in a family behind closed doors; to the extent they ever have, it is predominantly a feature of modernity, not pre-modernity.
      - mandmandam 3y ago
        The word 'demos' does not mean ruler, if that helps clear up this confusion.
        skissane 3y ago
        The demos didn't either. Do you think people ever cared what their neighbours did behind closed doors? I didn't see it, so it didn't happen.
        mandmandam 3y ago
        For 99% of human history, most children have been raised in communal environments. This whole 'keeping kids behind closed doors all their childhood' thing is a WEIRDness, and very much not the norm. It's ok to be wrong sometimes you know, as long as you learned something...
        skissane 3y ago
        People have had doors that could be closed for thousands of years, and raised their children behind them. Not just in the West either. It isn’t a WEIRD thing. Of course, neither then nor now do children spend 100% of the time behind them. “Communal environments”? In many societies, the primary unit has been the extended/multigenerational family not the nuclear family, yes. But your grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins are not the demos any more than your parents and siblings are. The point I made stands, since I said “family” not “nuclear family”. Most of human history has been hunter-gatherer societies-many of which are composed of small units federated into larger ones. The members of the smallest units were usually closely related to each other by blood or partnering (but again, an extended/multigenerational family rather than a nuclear one). And my point stands there too - do you care what goes on in the friendly group that lives a couple of hills over? It's ok to be wrong sometimes you know…
rakoo 3y ago
The atomic family of 2 adults and children is a very recent invention. The historical family is a bunch of people living under the same roof, working and doing for the whole family, from each according to their ability, for each according to their needs. The democracy is not simply everyone in a country deciding on everything down to the minutiae of individual lives. Some political lessons are missing here. Democracy is about the people who are subject of a situation being also actors of the decisions on this specific matter. Nobody is saying how you should behave in your bedroom.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > The atomic family of 2 adults and children is a very recent invention. The historical family is a bunch of people living under the same roof, working and doing for the whole family, from each according to their ability, for each according to their needs. Somewhat true, but not relevant to the point at hand. The historical family was typically run in an autocratic fashion by the elders, without even a vague trace of democracy. For that matter, there are still plenty of places in the world where families are run that way.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
    >The historical family Is this a serious comment or flame bait? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_family https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_family
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      I'm using the OP's term. If you don't like the term, take it up with that person. It's not "flamebait" in any case. Instead, perhaps you're disagreeing with my assertion that most families in the past were autocratic, and that in many cultures they still are. A link to a lengthy Wikipedia article does nothing to refute the claim. You're going to have to be more specific. Most historical families in Europe, India, and China were run by the elders on autocratic lines, and those constitute, and pretty much always have constituted, the majority of families on Earth (at least since the population boom brought on by the invention of agriculture). Indeed, in classical Roman civilization, the paterfamilias could kill any junior member of the family at any time, for any reason he chose. Your own article even mentions that. Sounds pretty autocratic to me.
kurikuri 3y ago
Using families as a counter example is quite a strawman, no?

mandmandam 3y ago

> The demos does not get to decide how spouses interact or how parents raise their children anywhere but at the extremities. For 99% of human history, they did actually. But that whole argument is a red herring. OP is dead right: If your megacorp aids genocide, there should be consequences. Firing employees who dare to make noise about it is just peak dystopia shit and we'd be mugs to accept it.

runarberg 3y ago
[flagged]
skissane 3y ago
> For 99% of human history, they did actually. No. Do you think, in mediaeval France, the King cared about the internal relations of the family of some random townsperson or peasant? Do you think any of the aristocracy cared? Do you think the Church cared? No. And that is the norm of human history – unless it gets to the point they have to pay attention to it, what ruler wants to be bothered with the details of the private family lives of their millions of subjects?
- mandmandam 3y ago
  I'm talking about 2m years of humanity. Responding with "mediaeval" France is missing the point by a very wide mark.
  - skissane 3y ago
    Mediaeval France was just an example. What I said was true of them was true of just about everywhere and everywhen else too. Rarely in human history have rulers displayed any great care for what goes on in a family behind closed doors; to the extent they ever have, it is predominantly a feature of modernity, not pre-modernity.
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      The word 'demos' does not mean ruler, if that helps clear up this confusion.
      - skissane 3y ago
        The demos didn't either. Do you think people ever cared what their neighbours did behind closed doors? I didn't see it, so it didn't happen.
        mandmandam 3y ago
        For 99% of human history, most children have been raised in communal environments. This whole 'keeping kids behind closed doors all their childhood' thing is a WEIRDness, and very much not the norm. It's ok to be wrong sometimes you know, as long as you learned something...
        skissane 3y ago
        People have had doors that could be closed for thousands of years, and raised their children behind them. Not just in the West either. It isn’t a WEIRD thing. Of course, neither then nor now do children spend 100% of the time behind them. “Communal environments”? In many societies, the primary unit has been the extended/multigenerational family not the nuclear family, yes. But your grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins are not the demos any more than your parents and siblings are. The point I made stands, since I said “family” not “nuclear family”. Most of human history has been hunter-gatherer societies-many of which are composed of small units federated into larger ones. The members of the smallest units were usually closely related to each other by blood or partnering (but again, an extended/multigenerational family rather than a nuclear one). And my point stands there too - do you care what goes on in the friendly group that lives a couple of hills over? It's ok to be wrong sometimes you know…

rakoo 3y ago

The atomic family of 2 adults and children is a very recent invention. The historical family is a bunch of people living under the same roof, working and doing for the whole family, from each according to their ability, for each according to their needs. The democracy is not simply everyone in a country deciding on everything down to the minutiae of individual lives. Some political lessons are missing here. Democracy is about the people who are subject of a situation being also actors of the decisions on this specific matter. Nobody is saying how you should behave in your bedroom.

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> The atomic family of 2 adults and children is a very recent invention. The historical family is a bunch of people living under the same roof, working and doing for the whole family, from each according to their ability, for each according to their needs. Somewhat true, but not relevant to the point at hand. The historical family was typically run in an autocratic fashion by the elders, without even a vague trace of democracy. For that matter, there are still plenty of places in the world where families are run that way.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
  >The historical family Is this a serious comment or flame bait? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_family https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_family
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    I'm using the OP's term. If you don't like the term, take it up with that person. It's not "flamebait" in any case. Instead, perhaps you're disagreeing with my assertion that most families in the past were autocratic, and that in many cultures they still are. A link to a lengthy Wikipedia article does nothing to refute the claim. You're going to have to be more specific. Most historical families in Europe, India, and China were run by the elders on autocratic lines, and those constitute, and pretty much always have constituted, the majority of families on Earth (at least since the population boom brought on by the invention of agriculture). Indeed, in classical Roman civilization, the paterfamilias could kill any junior member of the family at any time, for any reason he chose. Your own article even mentions that. Sounds pretty autocratic to me.

kurikuri 3y ago

Using families as a counter example is quite a strawman, no?