It is no surprise to me, coming from a LDS background wherein the family theme starts off all our of books of scripture, that the changes occurring within the structure of the family were crucial in the Industrial Revolution. Urbanization brought former farming families into the cities to work in factories and such. The family's livelihood no longer rested in their land and garden, but in the 12+ hour work day put in by the parents and older children. My own mother grew up on a ranch, where everyone pitched in and worked on everything that needed to be done. This "ranch" mentality disintegrates in the city when the work at home no longer binds family together in the same way. Furthermore, the feminine and masculine spheres became openly separated, as women went to redefine their roles as women. The rigidity of their position in society froeshadowed the later feminist revolution. Children soon became seen as apart from their parents- the family was responsible for how they turned out. To round out these trends, the idea of individualism spread, threatening to tear apart families.
To suggest socialism and communism before the urbanization and industrialization would have been ridiculous to families. They already worked together for everything they had. Even neighbors were a part of their close knit microeconomies. But the metamorphisis of the family within the cities provided the possibility of new systems. The different classes discussed in the Communist Manifesto were only in that arrangement after the rise of the middle class during the industrial revolution. Then, throught the new connections family members were making (in the workplace, neighborhood, etc) new thoughts and theories could be spread quickly and effectively.
Now, I know that many other events contributed to the formation of socialism and communism- particularly the events of the Russian Revolution and the political atmosphere in the years following. However, I argue that it wouldn't have become as wide-spread or as considered by so many people, if not for the new family structure of the 19th century. What do you think?
Families are funny things. They're societally necessary in order for a civilization to succeed. They become the basic unit for people to take care of each other. But as a society becomes larger and more stable, families may still be necessary for the root of the community, but it's no longer as necessary for every person to be part of one for support. Once you have that preexisting stability, individuals can make radical decisions. Perhaps even that of forming socialism and communism, although I'm not as familiar with that growth as I might be.
ReplyDeleteI think I agree with you... but at the same time, what would the city of Enoch be considered? Or the United Order? And hasn't the "increase of rights" in America naturally lead towards socialism and communism rather than capitalism. If everyone has the right to "not want" (FDR) then doesn't that mean that capitalists will loose the right to amass wealth for just themselves? (sorry, Obamacare just knocked on the door... I'll be right back...)
ReplyDeleteMy dear sweet wife (whom I wont allow to wear shoes, make-up, leave the house, or not be pregnant) once said something that I think (even in the church) would stir up a lot of controversy... She said - If families would communicate and be good to each other, if the man would do his job and properly represent the interests of his family, then women would never need the right to vote.
What do you think about that (politics and economics going hand in hand)? (oh, BTW - I realize that not every woman has a husband or brother or father or uncle or grandpa or great uncle or.... but that aside... what do you think?)
Politics and economics definitely go hand in hand, as each affects the other. And families are the driving factor behind both in my opinion. And Shaun, can you ever be serious about these things? Your comments have so much unnecessary material, it's frustrating to read and respond.
ReplyDelete