the RIGHT VIEW of CIVILISATION
the RIGHT VIEW of CIVILISATION
Is humanity CIVILISED through and through YET ?
Who do you view as civilised and who uncivilised ? Do you think humanity in this space age deserves to be recognised as civilised through and through ? If not, to what degree has humanity turned civilised so far ? Is it half-civilised or less than half-civilised yet ? What's your criteria for measuring the degree of humanity's advancement down the road of civilisation ? Are all civilisation equally civilised ? If not, which civilisation happens to be the most civilised, and which one the least civilised. Does the superpower deserve to be reckoned civilised wholly, really ? Which America— the Republican or the Democrat— is in your view more civilised than the other ? Who do you think are more civilised in India— Hindutvaites or Secularists ? What's your view of the Indian President who loves to sport the holy string that symbolises barnashram ( by barnashram, humans are born superior or inferior ; thus your achievements and attainments after birth, which happen to be the outcome of your effort, hardwork, and calibre, have nothing to do, by barnashram , with your superiority or inferiority as well as your social standing ) ? Does humanity in the Dark Ages deserve to be reckoned civilised at all ? Was humanity in the 19th century as much civilised as humanity in the 21st century happens to be ? What truly determines how much civilised a civilisation is ? What happens to form the basic distinction between the civilised and the uncivilised ? What happens to differentiate the civilised culture from the uncivilised culture ? Does the Gandhian principle of plain living and high thinking become the civilised humanity ? Does the exploitation of man by man deserve to be reckoned a civilised culture ? Does the social division into classes— the rich and the super-rich vis-à-vis the poor and the penniless, the exploiters and the exploited, the rulers and the ruled, et cetera, deserve to become the civilised ? Does indulgence in the luxury of matrimony or a travesty of it become the civilised ? What's the civilised position on prostitution ? Does visiting brothels become the civilised ? What happens to be the right outlook that becomes the truly civilised ? What's the right attitude to gayness, gamarriage ( i.e. gay marriage ), and transvestism ? Which one would you choose if you're civilised through and through, and if you're to make a choice between capitalism and communism ? And which one would you stand for if you must stand for either democratic socialism or scientific socialism, and if you truly care that your stand on such issues happens to harmonise with your stand on civilisation ? Are you for or against capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, religion, or human cloning ? What's your stance, if you belong to those few that truly care what the truly civilised stance on these issues ought to be, on theism, racism, casteism, sexism, fascism, pacifism, and terrorism ? And what's the truly civilised position on democracy, dictatorship, disarmament, freedom of expression, human rights, et cetera, et cetera ? In order to find answers to all these questions, you have to have a clear concept of what the term ' civilisation ' means first ? Next, you have to find the right criteria for differentiating between the civilised and the uncivilised. What follows is an attempt on my part to throw light on what the term ' civilisation ' truly means, what becomes the civilised, and what is unbecoming to them.
Civilisation began its journey through history with slavery, the first form of the exploitation of man by man, which originated during the lowest stage of barbarism and thus happens to be, by origin, a hundred per-cent barbarian institution that changed to the wage slavery of the capitalist era. Does the wage slavery become civilised humanity ?
[ the meaning of civilisation ]
the lexicographical sense & the periodisation of humanity's past
Civilisation is the first historical epoch that followed ... By the lexicographical definition, the term ' civilisation ' refers to ' an advanced stage or system of human social development ' ( COED*, 11th ed., revised ). It also refers to the ' process of achieving civilisation ' ( ibid. ). Do these definitions really clarify what ' civilisation ' truly means ? An ' advanced stage ' of development with respect to what ? Lexicographers don't seem to be able to enlighten you about this point. The three-age system of periodisation by which man's prehistory and history were divided into three ages, viz. ( 1 ) the stone age, ( 2 ) the bronze age, and ( 3 ) the iron age, does not at all seem to be helpful in distinguishing between the more civilised and the less civilised. If we accept that civilisation began with the beginning of the iron age, not only do we have to accept that America, the only superpower in today's world, and Nigeria in Africa are equally civilised, we also have to accept that a rapist is as much civilised as a Nobelist is. The reason is obvious. They all belong to the same age. Lewis H. Morgan, an American anthropologist who penned Ancient Society, seem to have outright rejected the three-age system and introduced instead an entirely new system of periodisation of humanity's past, by which system civilisation refers to the first historical epoch that was immediately preceded by barbarism, the last prehistoric epoch, the end of which marked the close of man's prehistory and ushered in the history of humankind. Morgan's periodisation of humanity's past which he based on the technological ' progress [ humanity ] made in the production of the means of subsistence ' ( I PREHISTORIC STAGES OF CULTURE, OFPPS**, p 204 ) found favour with Frederick Engels who wrote THE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE STATE in the light of Morgan's work. By ' the means of subsistence ' Engels meant ' food' clothing and shelter and the tools requisite therefore ' ( PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION 1884, ibid, p 191). Morgan divided humanity's prehistory into two ages which are savagery and barbarism, each of which he again subdivided into three stages : ( 1 ) the lower stage, ( 2 ) the middle stage, and ( 3 ) the upper stage.
* Concise Oxford English Dictionary
** THE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE STATE ( KARL MARX and FREDERICK ENGELS, SELECTED WORKS in three volumes, Volume Three, PROGRESS PUBLISHERS, MOSCOW )
the first great social division of labour followed by the production and exchange of commodities & the origin of slavery
It is during the lower stage of barbarism, according to the portrayal sketched by Engels of the evolution of civilisation, that ' the most advanced tribes— Aryans, Semites, perhaps also Turanians— made the domestication, and later the raising and tending of cattle, their principal occupation. ' ( IX BARBARISM AND CIVILISATION, ibid, p 317 ) The ' most advanced tribes ' thus turned ' Pastoral ' and ' separated themselves from the general mass barbarians '. ( op. cit ) The savage discovered fire and invented techniques of making fire and using it usefully, used polished stone implements and weapons, hunted wild animals with clubs, spears, and bows and arrows, caught fish, shellfish, crabs, etc, used canoes, and built houses with timber and planks, but they knew ' nothing of pottery '.( I PREHISTORIC STAGES OF CULTURE, 1. SAVAGERY, Upper Stage, ibid, p 205 ) It is the invention of pottery that differentiated barbarians from the savage.( I PREHISTORIC STAGES OF CULTURE, 2. BARBARISM, Lower Stage, ibid, p 206 ) Engels described the event in which ' [p]astoral tribes separated themselves from the general mass of barbarians ' as ' the first great social division of labour '.( IX BARBARISM AND CIVILISATION, ibid, p 317 ) ' These pastoral tribes not only produced more articles of food, but also a greater variety than the rest of the barbarians. They not only had milk, milk products and meat in greater abundance than the others, but also skins, wool, goat's hair, and the spun and woven fabrics which the increasing quantities of the new materials brought into common use. This, for the first time, made regular exchange possible, ' observes Engels. ( op. cit., pp 317-318 ) Earlier, the exchange of commodities took place only ' occasionally ' when ' exceptional ability in the making of weapons and tools ' gave rise to ' a transient division of labour. ' ( op. cit., p 318 ) After the crystallisation of pastoral tribes, however, ' further says Engels, ' we find here all the conditions favourable for exchange between members of different tribes, and for its further development and consolidation as a regular institution. ' ( op. cit. ) But, in order to facilitate the exchange of commodities of different kinds, we need a certain, special commodity to measure the value ( i.e. exchange value ) of all other commodities in it and to use it as the medium of exchange. It was cattle, the ' principal article ' offered by the pastoral tribes for exchange, which ' became the commodity by which all other commodities were appraised, and was everywhere readily taken in exchange for other commodities ', and thus ' cattle assumed the function of money and served as money ' ( op. cit. ). Thus, during the lower stage of barbarism, the production and exchange of commodities became regular events, and it was cattle that functioned as money in the exchange of commodities.
the first great social division of labour also led to substantial growth in the productivity of labour, which meant human labour power grew in capacity to such an extent that it produced a surplus over what it needed ' for its maintenance. ' ( op. cit., p 319 ) Labour is needed to produce commodities, and more commodities mean more articles of consumption and thus more ease and enjoyment in life. Barbarians' desire for more ease and affluence in life led to huge demand for additional labour. Increase in demand for labour accompanied by increase in labour productivity prepared the ground for the exploitation of man by man. In order to meet their huge demand for labour, advanced barbarians waged war on other barbarians that were weaker militarily. The vanquished were taken captive and made slaves by the victors. Thus, ' [o]ut of the first great social division of labour arose the first great division of society, into two classes: masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited. ' ( op. cit. )
the revolutionary change in the position of women vis-à-vis men : the rule of men over women
The first great social division of labour also brought about a revolutionary change in the position of men and women in society. By the natural division of labour that had existed between men and women since the day when human society came into being, men engaged mainly in the outdoor activities such as fighting, hunting, fishing, et cetera, i.e. activities meant to ensure security and safety against wild animals or enemy tribes and to supply food and stuff needed to prepare food as well as tools and weapons needed for these pursuits while their women busied themselves with all the indoor work like cooking. weaving, sewing, et cetera. Men owned the tools and weapons they made for their own use while women the household goods and utensils made by themselves. The domestication of animals and the job of raising and tending herds and flocks were wholly men's work. The organisation of and victory in war aimed at taking people ( the vanquished ) captive with a view to making them slaves later were also men's acts. Women, because they were busy caring for the house and doing all the domestic chores, practically made no contribution to these activities. On these grounds, it was men alone that owned all the herds and flocks and slaves as well as all the stuff ( milk, meat, milk products, animal hide, wool, et cetera ) obtained from the herds and flocks or produced by slaves. Women were allowed to consume parts of all such stuff ( men's wealth ), but they had no share in the ownership of it. Obviously, women's housework and possessions ( utensils and tools for weaving, sewing, et cetera ) appeared insignificant beside men's huge work and wealth. Consequent on this fact, the barbarian man, ' the " gentler " shepherd, presuming upon his wealth, pushed forward to [ the ] first place and forced the woman into second place. ' ( IX BARBARISM AND CIVILISATION, ibid, p 319 ) Thus, the ground for the masculine rule and autocracy over women was prepared.This happened most probably not later than the middle stage of barbarism.
She's well educated and a very successful woman. But, is she civilised through and through, I wonder. I must call your attention to the silly, ignominious fact that in the recent past ( December 2016 ), she was pronounced guilty, by the Cour de Justice de la République, a French court, of criminal charges linked to the misuse of public funds when she was France’s finance minister nearly a decade ago.
[ the meaning of civilisation ] ( continued )
the second great division of labour & the transition to private property & the individual family based on the private property
The upper stage of barbarism was, according to Engels, not only ' the period of the iron sword, but also [ the period ] of the iron ploughshare and axe. ' ( IX BARBARISM AND CIVILISATION, ibid., p 320 ) ' Iron became the servant of men, ... Iron made possible field agriculture on a larger scale and the clearing of extensive forest tracts for cultivation; it gave the the craftsman a tool of such hardness and sharpness that no stone, no other known metal, could withstand it. ' ( op. cit. ) In actual fact the iron age began, as Engels viewed it, with the barbarians' invention of techniques aimed at making iron serve humanity during the upper stage of barbarism. With the invention of diverse iron tools and implements and techniques of using those tools and implements, men's productive activities increased manifold. Large-scale agriculture with slave labour to produce cereals, leguminous plants, and fruit, oil and wine industry, animal husbandry, smelting of copper, tin, gold, silver, and iron ores, metalworking industry for the production of diverse tools, weapons, and implements, sewing, weaving, and a variety of other crafts, et cetera are examples of diverse productive activities barbarians busied themselves with during the last stage of the last prehistoric period of humanity. ' Such diverse activities ',writes Engels, ' could no longer be conducted by any single individual ' ( op. cit. ) Thus, barbarians had to separate handicrafts from agriculture. Engels described the separation of handicrafts from agriculture as ' the second great division of labour ' ( op. cit., pp 320-321 ).
During the last stage of barbarism, following the second great division of labour , slavery ' became an essential part of the social system. ' ( op. cit., p 321 ) ' The slaves ceased to be simply assistants, ... they were now driven in scores to work in the fields and workshops. ' ( op. cit. ) The production of commodities increased many times, and with this trading in commodities began ' not only in the interior and on the tribal boundaries, but also overseas. ... the precious metals gained preference as the universal money commodity '.( op. cit. ) The production of and trading in commodities inevitably led to the amassing of wealth by some people, consequent on which fact ' [t]he distinction between rich and poor was added to that between freemen and slaves— [ thus ] with the new division of labour came a new division of society into classes. ' ( op. cit. )
In parallel with all the phenomena and changes described above, two other most-important phenomena also took place during the upper stage of barbarism. They were ( 1 ) transition from collective, common ownership of property to private ownership and ( 2 ) the prehistoric communistic household system giving way to the system of private-property-based individual family that formed an economic unit of the new society. Originally, all tribes were communistic. All the members of a tribe led a communistic life. Whatever they ' produced and used in common was [ their ] common property. ' ( op. cit., p 317 ) Thus, their houses, gardens, boats, et cetera were their common property. Nevertheless, women, because they were busy attending to their domestic duties, practically made no contribution to the domestication of wild animals as well as the tending and raising of domesticated animals, the preparation of land for cultivation, large-scale field agriculture, the smelting of metal ores, the working-up of metals, the organisation of war, et cetera, and so the entire womenfolk were deprived of any share in the ownership of herds and flocks, slaves, meat, milk, animal hide, wool, etc, i.e. products obtained from the domestic animals, products of slaves' labour, foodgrain and other agricultural products, all agro-industrial products, all products of metalwork industry, et cetera, et cetera. Later, according to the sketch of the evolution of civilisation presented by Engels, most probably during the middle stage of barbarism, herds and flocks and slaves ' were converted from the common property of the tribe ... into the property of the individual heads of families ' ( op. cit., p 319 ), and most probably during the upper stage of barbarism, the farmland ceased to be the common property. By ' the common property of the tribe ', I think Engels meant the common possession by all the men of the tribe because women never had any share in the ownership of herds, flocks, slaves, or farmland. Following the second great division of labour , trading in commodities, which led to the accumulation of wealth in a few hands, divided the barbarian freemen ( i.e. slave masters ) on the basis of their possessions. ' The differences in the wealth of the various heads of families caused the old communistic household communities to break up ... ; and this put an end to the common cultivation of the soil for the account of the community. The cultivated land was assigned for use to the several families, first for a limited time and later in perpetuity; the transition to complete private ownership was accomplished gradually and simultaneously with the transition from the pairing family to monogamy. the individual family began to be the economic unit of society. ' ( op. cit., p 321 )
Once a chai-wallah, He's now the Prime Minister of India. He's also a Hindutvaite and believes, like the President of India, in barnashram , the nasty Hinduvta-doctrine that states that humans are born superior or inferior. Thus, as I see it, by barnashram , your education, achievements, and all other attainments throughout your life count as nil in regard to what sort of man, in terms of quality, you are, and what your social standing is or ought to be. Furthermore, Mr Prime Minister is also accused, on the basis of the fact that his name appears among the recipients of payoffs in Sahara* 's diary and Birlas' ** computer file, of receiving bribes when he was the Gujarat Chief Minister. Very recently, the Supreme Court of India rejected a petition seeking the Court's order for initiating investigation into the graft charges against the PM on the grounds that mere reference in someone's diary or file to a name is not strong-enough evidence for indicting the person known by that name who's holding as high and important a position as the premiership of a country is and initiating investigation into the charges against him. ( See Breather for Modi : SC dismisses Prashant Bhushan's plea seeking probe into Sahara, Birla diaries . ) I appreciate the rationale behind the Supreme Court's pronouncement. Nevertheless, I do fail to appreciate why the learned judges that pronounced the ruling dismissing the petition in question refused to see a most important point, namely that if the accusation against the PM of India were baseless, the pieces of info found in the Sahara's diary and the Birlas' computer file, because they formed the basis of the accusation, would add up to a grave criminal conspiracy aimed at tarnishing the honourable PM's image and thus damaging his reputation. The learned judges also failed, to my dismay and indignation, to consider the most important point, namely the fact that the Indian Premier's intriguing, enigmatic silence on the charges against him and far more intriguing and enigmatic inaction in this matter while he was expected to have sued the Sahara & Co. and the Birlas for defamation and conspiracy can have NO other meaning than the fact that the corruption charges against the honourable PM of India on the basis of the pieces of info at issue are NOT AT ALL BASELESS. Do you think the PM and the President of India and the learned judges as well as the Sahara & Co. and the Birlas deserve to be reckoned civilised through and through ?
* Sahara is an Indian business concern. ** Birlas belong to a successful industrialist-cum-business family of India.
[ the meaning of civilisation ] ( continued )
the ' pairing family ' & the ' monogamy ' : factors behind transition to the ' monogamy '
The expression ' pairing family ' appears quite puzzling because by our concept of the family, it happens to be something inseparable from personal finances and possessions. But Engels used this expression to mean a sort of relationship between a man and a woman which might be, not must be, based on personal preference or passion called love, and which not only had social sanction but was aimed at both the enjoyment of sex and the procreation as well. A basic distinction between the ' pairing family ' and the family we're familiar with, the family that is the present-day version of what Engels referred to as ' monogamy ', happens to be the fact that the former did not form an economic unit based on personal finances and possessions ( i.e. private earnings or property ) of either or both of the partners forming it.
Another most important aspect of such a ' pairing ' is the fact that it could easily be dissolved by either partner if they wished so, ' the children remaining with the mother and each party being free to marry again. ' ( II THE FAMILY, The Pairing Family, ibid, p225 ) By ' free to marry again ' , Engels seems to have meant that they each were free to engage again in a re-pairing with anyone consenting to such things. ' The pairing family, itself too weak and unstable to make an independent household necessary, or even desirable, did not by any means dissolve the communistic household transmitted from earlier times ', says Engels. ( op. cit., p 226 ) The ' pairing family ', as it did not form an economic unit ( ' independent household ' ) , did not break ' the communistic household ' ( i.e. a classless organisation of men, women, and children ) based on the collective labour of all the able-bodied members of working age belonging to it and collective ownership of all products of their collective labour, and so neither the mother nor her children were dependent, before or after the ' pairing ', on any guy, either her father or the pairing partner, and for that reason, none of the mother and children had to suffer, as the mother and children in this space age have to do and have got used to doing so without questioning, for any faults or failings of any individual other than themselves.
Now, the question that ought to cross your mind if you're a sensible human is, what made those barbarians, and what for did they, switch over to something like ' monogamy ' ? And what was wrong with the ' pairing family ' ? Let's listen to what Engels says in this regard :
' Monogamy arose out of the concentration of considerable wealth in the hands of one person— and that [was ] a man— and out of the desire to bequeath this wealth to this man's children and to no one else's. ' ( II THE FAMILY, The Monogamian Family, ibid., p 248 )
[ NB Precisely, the term ' children ' in the above quote means male children as girls in those days were not in general entitled to inherit any property in herds, flocks, slaves, or land. ]
The fact is the appropriation of fruits of slaves' labour and trading in commodities resulted in ' the concentration of considerable wealth ' in some slave masters' hands, and those wealthy barbarians wanted their sons, and their sons alone, to inherit their wealth. They found the life in the old communistic household, in which they had to live not only with their own parents and siblings, none of whom were wealthy, but with their non-wealthy collateral and other relations too, outright unacceptable just as a well-paid engineer or a successful professional of the present times is not prepared to live in the same family with his poor parents and brothers, one of whom is a job seeker while the other one is an unskilled worker in the unorganised sector, and share his earnings and affluence with all of them. The pairing was ' too weak and unstable to make an independent household ' based on their private wealth. Besides, the pairing did not assure them the paternity of their kids.
In order to be sure of the paternity of their kids, they must make sure that the mother of the kids was inaccessible to any males other than the guy desired and entitled to father her kids. In order to achieve that goal, the barbarians had no other option than to cut off the kids' mother from all contact with any men other than the one authorised to impregnate her. With this end in view, the property-owner barbarians, all of whom were, without exception, males, had to create a new institution that was ' monogamy '. Obviously, ' monogamy ' was meant to institutionalise the imprisonment of women, and it accomplished its mission. Because it was meant to ensure the paternity of a kid, the ' monogamy was essential on the woman's part, but not on the man's '. ( op. cit. ) It's not to be missed in this regard that an intelligent woman indulging in multiple liaisons can know for sure who the actual father of a kid of hers is. Nevertheless, she can't prove it. On the other hand, there's no reason for a sensible guy to feel dubious of who actually fathered the kids borne by two women that did not have access to any other man than him.
[ the meaning of civilisation ] ( continued )
Just to satisfy your intellectual inquisitiveness, what follows is meant to give you a clear concept of the right communist attitude towards sex & ...
Of great significance is the following observation by Engels:
' With the passage o the means of production into common property, the individual family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public matter. Society takes care of all children equally, irrespective of whether they are born in wedlock or not. Thus, the anxiety about the " consequences, " which is today the most important social factor— both moral and economic— that hinders a girl from giving herself freely to the man she loves, disappears. Will this not be the cause enough for a gradual rise of more unrestrained sexual intercourse, and along with it, a more lenient public opinion regarding virginal honour and feminine shame ? And finally, have we not seen that monogamy and prostitution in the modern world, although opposites, are nevertheless inseparable opposites, poles of the same social conditions ? Can prostitution disappear without dragging monogamy with it into the abyss ? ' ( op. cit., p 249 )
Frederick Engels and Karl Marx were two great thinkers of the 19th century, who jointly originated the theory of communism that aims at the classless society, a social order free of the exploitation of man by man, the fabulous affluence and luxury of a few at the cost of the poverty and privation of billions, the persecution of the weak by the strong, the grave, great social injustice, namely the fact that in an unequal society, billions of the poor and underprivileged were born poor and underprivileged for NO faults and failings of theirs while the fact is the fact that the rich and privileged few were born rich and privileged is NOT attributable to any creditable acts or achievements of theirs, et cetera, et cetera. The foregoing citation shows the communist attitude towards private property, sex, and matrimony. Communism must do away with the private ownership of the means of production ( machinery, raw materials, capital needed to run an industrial unit, etc ) by transforming it into social ownership ( ' common property ' ), and with this act, all families forming economic units of society will disappear. Private housekeeping will no longer remain private under communism. Communism will transform private house keeping into ' a social industry '. The communistic social order will take care of all children, their education, entertainment, health care, etc, regardless of whether they were born in lawful wedlock or out of wedlock and ensure that every child receives equal treatment because a just society cannot treat someone as more equal or less equal than another. Communism doesn't regard matrimony ( ' monogamy ' ) as a licence for sex and procreation, and it recognises and respects relationships based on love or sheer desire ( ' unrestrained sexual intercourse ' ). From the communistic viewpoint, matrimony ( ' monogamy ' ) and prostitution happen to be ' inseparable opposites ', just as the rich and the non-rich or the capitalists ( masters ) and workers ( wage slaves ) are, and so as long as there's matrimony, there is and will be, prostitution.
[ the meaning of civilisation ] ( continued )
The division of society into classes led to plunder warfare aimed at ...
The division of society into slaves and masters gave rise to the notion that working for a living was slavish, outright inglorious, but exploitation and plundering were heroic. And the division of society into the poor and the rich, which must have included the division of the poor and the rich into the poorer, the poorest, the richer, and the richest as well, gave birth to a hankering after wealth, which in no time degenerated into insatiable naked greed for wealth and more wealth, barbarians that were advanced and powerful, militarily, engaged in plunder warfare aimed at plundering their neighbours' wealth. Thus, the organisation of war aimed at plundering and self-defence became a regular event that called for the creation and maintenance of a regular army.
& the evolution of the state
' Commercial expansion, money, usury, landed property and mortgage were thus accompanied by the rapid concentration and centralisation of wealth in the hands of a small class, on the one hand, and by the increasing impoverishment of the masses and a growing mass of paupers, on the other. ( IX BARBARISM AND CIVILISATION, ibid., p 324 ) The old, prehistoric, classless, communistic society ' knew no internal antagonisms ' ( op. cit., p 325 ) ' But now a society had come into being that by the force of all its economic conditions of existence had to split up into freemen and slaves, into exploiting rich and exploited poor; a society that was not only incapable of reconciling these antagonisms, but had to drive them more and more to a head. Such a society could only exist in a state of continuous, open struggle of these classes against one another or under the rule of a third power which, while ostensibly standing above the classes struggling with each other, suppressed their open conflict and permitted a class struggle at most in the economic field, in a so called legal form. ' ( op. cit., pp 325-326 ) This ' third power ' is, according to Engels, the state.
' The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without ; ... it is a product of society at a certain stage of development ; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power seemingly standing above society that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of " order " ; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state. ' ( op. cit., pp 326-327 )
The social division into antagonistic classes ( masters and slaves, rich and poor, etc ) also gave birth to the gang of antisocial elements ( thieves, robbers, etc ). The conflict of interests between antagonistic classes ( i.e. the class struggle ) as well as danger from the external enemies posed a serious threat to the survival of the tribe. In order to save the society from both the class struggle and the external enemies, the society created an outright new power that happens to be called the state.
' The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. ' ( op. cit., p 330 )
[ the meaning of civilisation ] ( continued )
There was a time when societies were truly stateless &' producers were masters of their process of production and of their product. '
There was a time in the prehistory of humanity when societies did not need anything like the state, when societies were truly and wholly stateless. The savage and the barbarian in the lowest stage, before the first great social division of labour followed by the first great division of society into two antagonistic classes ( masters and slaves, the exploiting class and the exploited ), before human labour power reached the level of development when it produced a significant surplus over what it needed for the maintenance of itself, and before they learnt the domestication of animals, had no idea of what the stuff called class antagonism was because theirs was a classless society. Nor did they have any idea of private property, of the exploitation of man by man, of being born poor and underprivileged in order to be exploited and thus being born victims of a grave great social injustice, of the monogamy symbolising the imprisonment of women by men,of prostitution, of plunder warfare, of the poor billions leading an existence full of poverty and privation alongside of a handful of people, the rich and the super-rich few, that lead a fabulous lifestyle, a life full of fabulous luxury and riches, et cetera, et cetera.
Civilisation means the rule of the mode of production and the product over the producers. There was a time when production was ' essentially collective and, likewise, consumption took place by the direct distribution of the products within larger or smaller communistic communities ', and ' producers were masters of their process of production and of their product. ' ( IX BARBARISM AND CIVILISATION, ibid., p 330 ) They didn't build awesome high-rises, nor were they acquainted with the space-age technology. They didn't watch movies on colour TVs, talk over smartphones, surf the Internet, use rooms illuminated with LED lights, et cetera, et cetera. But they were ' masters of their process of production and of their product. ' They were a light-year away from the space age and of course uncivilised outright. Still, unlike the silly wage slaves of today, they did not overwork and thus were not to blame for the enforced idleness ( i.e. joblessness ) of anyone or for any overproduction leading to industrial sickness, bankruptcy, and periodic slumps and crises; unlike the silly wage slaves of today who sillily witness the silly fact that the economic downturns and periodic crises that hit them as well as their friends and relations most are consequences of their own overwork, and who are aware of the silly fact that its the plethora, not the scarcity, that happens to lie behind all the economic downturns and periodic crises in a capitalist economy as well as the ridiculous fact that this plethora happens to be the product of their overwork they have to perform in the interest of the capitalists, not themselves, never ever had the prehistoric, uncivilised men to do anything so silly. They used to produce for themselves, for their own consumption, not for exchange or sale. For this reason, products of their labour did not assume the commodity form, and so the distribution of wealth in their times was not uneven, unlike what we witness in a capitalist economy that is essentially a commodity economy, by the very basic law of which, wealth accumulates in a few hands at one pole to create the pauperism of the multitude at the other and thus to effect and perpetuate the great cleavage of society into the rich and privileged few of idlers, the capitalists, and swarms of the poor and underprivileged, i.e. millions of wage slaves, who sweat blood to produce all wealth and to be exploited by the few idlers that lead a fabulous lifestyle before their silly eyes while they themselves lead a hard and humble existence throughout their life. By the assertion that ' producers were masters of their process of production and of their product ', Engels meant that in prehistoric times, before products of their labour took on the commodity form, producers did not have such silly experiences as the ridiculous realities described above, the ridiculous realities existing in every capitalist economy, which you've got used to, and which millions of wage slaves worldwide experience every day. Producers, before they started the production of commodities, were not ruled by, rather on the contrary, they actually ruled, the process of production and products of their labour. They worked only when they needed to work and produced as much as they needed. They didn't overwork; nor did they ever overproduce; and their mode of production was not meant to benefit any idlers in exchange for the impoverishment of themselves. On the contrary, the way the wage slaves ( i.e. producers of our times ) produce wealth is the capitalist mode of production that happens to be an exploitative mode of production, which is aimed at the exploitation, hence the impoverishment, of the producers themselves to the highest degree to the benefit of some idlers, the rich and the super-rich few, who, although they do not produce any wealth, are fabulously wealthier than millions of the producers together are. The more wealth they produce, the more impoverished they turn, and thus the wage slaves, producers of the capitalist era, are ruled by their mode of production and products of their labour. Has anyone ever heard of anything sillier than such things, I wonder. The fact that they have to overwork not in their interest but to serve interests of a few non-workers, the capitalists, and the fact that not only does their overwork lie behind the joblessness of the huge army of jobseekers, but it creates a plethora that brings slumps and crises as well, which hit the working class most also corroborate the view that under capitalism, the producers themselves are ruled by both the mode of production and the product of their labour.
Civilisation began with private property, monogamy, commodity economy, money, interest, usury, prostitution, the exploitation of man by man, and the state. The foregoing sketch is meant to give you an idea of the evolution of civilisation and the main factors that had contributed to this process according to the work THE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE STATE by Frederick Engels who claims to have presented in this work a portrayal of this phenomenon in the light of Ancient Society by Lewis H. Morgan. By this work, civilisation refers to the first historical epoch that followed barbarism, the last prehistoric period in humanity's past, and began with private property ( private property in land, herds and flocks, slaves, et cetera ), monogamy ( i.e. the monogamian institution of marriage & family ), the production and exchange of commodities, money, interest, usury, prostitution, the exploitation of man by man ( slavery ), the imprisonment of women by men ( monogamy ), the individual family as the economic unit of society, the state as the cohesive power meant to hold class antagonisms in check and thus save society, et cetera, et cetera. All these institutions and other things relating to them must be, as civilisation began with them, older than civilisation. In fact, all of them are by origin barbarian culture. The foregoing sketch is meant to focus the humanity's attention on this very point.
She's an astronaut. But is she enlightened enough to be aware and care that it's outright unbecoming of a space-age woman to turn a blind eye to the naked fact that matrimony is essentially antifeminine and the naked fact that matrimony has got nothing truly meaningful for women and indulge in the silly, nasty luxury of matrimony or a travesty in its name, I wonder.
CRITERIA for the LEVEL of CIVILISATION
WHO do you view as CIVILISED and WHO UNCIVILISED ?
Civilisation began with private property, matrimony, slavery, et cetera, et cetera. Therefore, all these institutions must have been older than civilisation. Factually, they have their origin in, as the foregoing sketch shows, the last prehistoric epoch called barbarism. Nevertheless, on these grounds, i.e. because they happen to be barbarian by origin, I don't think it's right to consider a propertied man, e.g. an ancient slave master, a feudal lord ( a feudal serf master or master of medieval slaves ), or a capitalist ( a wage-slave master ) of our times barbarian. The new originates in the womb of the old like a new baby in the womb of its mother. It's the law of Nature. There's no good reason, if you're a sensible human, for confusing the new with the old or the old with the new. Perpetual change is the law of Nature, as well. All the institutions with which civilisation began its journey through history have undergone significant change since when they appeared first. The ancient slavery had to give way to the medieval serfdom, and the latter was supplanted by the wage slavery of modern times. All the three modes of production have one thing in common, namely the exploitation of man by man ( precisely, the exploitation of working millions by a few non-workers ). Nevertheless, from slavery to wage slavery via serfdom is a long journey and a big change. An ancient slave was like a beast of burden that had no freedom. The medieval serf had some freedom. But the wage slave is a free man. In actual fact, a wage slave is, if viewed from the legal perspective, as much free as a capitalist is today in a democratic republic. Not only does a wage slave enjoy the right to education, the right to work, and the right to vote, they're also entitled to contest an election, and become the Premier or the President of their state after winning it. Nevertheless, the freedom is the effect, not the cause for the change at issue. It's the effect of the development of the social productive forces to such a level that the existing mode of production outright fails to match them when the new productive forces force the old mode of production ( i.e. the feudal serfdom ) to give way to the new one ( i.e. the capitalist mode of production that replaced serfdom ) which requires the free working class for its survival and progress. ( See NB 1 below ..)
If freedom of the working class is accepted as the criterion for the level of the advancement of civilisation, we're to regard India and the USA as equally civilised. But the sensible find it difficult to accept that India, still a developing country with per-capita GNI $ 1 730. 506 ( in 2015; ' $ ' stands for constant 2010 US$ ) and the HDI ranking 130 ( HDI value= 0.609 in 2014 )  as against the USA's per-capita GNI $ 52 061.823 ( in 2015 ; ' $ ' standing for constant 2010 US$ ) and the HDI ranking 8 ( HDI value = 0.915 in 2014 , deserves to be reckoned as much civilised as the USA is. The gulf between the average Indian standard of living and the average Yank standard of living is too large to escape your notice if you're a sensible human. India housing, as you know, around 1.33 billion-strong crowd ( in 2016 ) of vulgarians ( I view them as vulgarians as they show no sign of feeling ashamed of so large a population that happens to be unbecoming of so poor a country as theirs is ) has earned the dubious reputation for being the second largest populous country of the world while the USA, the most advanced civilisation, as I view it, houses only around 0.324 billion people.  Evidently, India houses well over 4 times the total US population. Thus, taking cognisance of the population and the per-capita GNI figures of the two countries, we see that in order to be a match of the USA, the total Indian GNI ought to be over four times the total US GNI, but in reality, it happens to be near to one thirtieth of that ( i.e. the total value of the GNI of India approximately equals the total US GNI x 4/30 ; how pathetic ! ). Again, if we take cognisance of the fact that the Indian GNI-per-capita figure is less than one thirtieth of the corresponding US figure, we see India's total population oughtn't to have crossed 0.0 432 billion ( = total US population x 4/30 ) while it is in reality over 30 times this figure. ( See NB 2 below. )
Further, the USA happens to be the only super power, both in economic and military terms, in today's world. Humanity is superior to canines and felines because it's humans that can encage those animals and make them obey humans. The super-power USA can make, with all ease, countries like India turn into the US colonies. It's ridiculous to claim India to be an equal of the USA, isn't it ? The limitation of taking the freedom of the working population or the political freedom of a nation as the criterion for the level of civilisation is obvious now. Is the HDI ranking a better criterion for the stuff at issue ? By the HDI ranking, Norway ( HDI value : 0.944 in 2014 ) is ahead of all other states . But Norway is not a super power, and so it cannot be a match for the USA on grounds similar to that that makes India fail to deserve to be reckoned an equal of the USA. Being the only super power, the USA outmatches any other country, as I see it.
Mr President believes only ' 2% Americans ' belong to the category of the wealthiest, and he looks on the rest ( i.e. 98 per cent of Americans ) as so poor as to be unable to afford the full cost of the well-being of their beloved ones and the upbringing of their kids. In order to help them spend a little more for the well-being and better care of their beloved ones , Mr President made the wealthiest 2% pay a little more in taxes and gave the revenue thus collected to the 98 per cent in the guise of ' tax relief ' and ' tax credits ' ( Congress Passes Cliff Deal ). Mr President also made the Affordable Care Act in 2010 which was meant to provide some millions of Americans that are unable to afford the cost of their health care with some health care. These bits of info show how pathetic the plight of the 98 per cent of Americans, i.e. humans that belong to the country that happens to be not only the most advanced civilisation but the only superpower, both economically and militarily, as well, is. And what about the rest of humanity ? The Oxfam's study reports acquaint us with the global situation, namely the ridiculous fact that there exist as few as 85 or 80 guys at most that make up the global super-rich that possess as much wealth as half the total global population ( i.e. 3.5 billion-strong crowd of the poor and the penniless ) together do ( see Oxfam : 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world & ' Guess what critics ? Oxfam is right about the top 1% ' ) or the brute fact that we're not far off the day when merely 1 per cent would possess more wealth that 99 per cent would together do ( see ' Oxfam Says, " IT PAYS TO BE RICH"-- BBC " ' ). All these facts evidently show, as the sensible view it, that humanity still happens to be way too uncivilised.
CRITERIA for the LEVEL of CIVILISATION ( continued )
To my way of thinking, the USA happens to be the most advanced civilisation of the world. Nevertheless, to be the most advanced of all civilisations or more advanced than another is one thing, to be civilised through and through is quite a different thing. Does the USA really deserve to be recognised as wholly civilised as yet ? Before finding an answer to this question, we have to find out a criterion for differentiating the full-level civilisation from the non-full-level one. This is not at all an easy task, as I see it. Any suggestions in this matter are welcome. Nevertheless, I should like to advance one, and it's as follows.
By my criteria, In order to deserve to be reckoned civilised through and through, humanity must make the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living their life principle, and they must practise what they preach. They must act according to the dictates of the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living. They must do what the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living dictates to them and mustn't do what the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living forbids. Those that are scared of the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living, those that are lacking in the backbone they need have in order to stand with their heads erect before the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living, ought to feel moved to question the rationale behind these criteria. I'd like to tell them the rationale for my criteria seems self-evident and self-explanatory. Refusal to stand for the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living adds up to standing for the principle that advocates leading an unhealthy and meaningless existence, OK ?
NB1 By the materialistic conception of history, it's the mode of production that ' conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. '* As I see it, our ' social, political and intellectual life ' process includes the freedom we have in our society in a definite historical era. And the mode of production is conditioned by the level of development of productive forces ( an example of a productive force is a human with some knowledge of production techniques and capability to perform some productive work ). Productive forces keep on developing with progress in science and technology. At a certain level of development, the mode of production fails to match them. The contradiction between the productive forces and the mode of production has to be resolved if production is to be kept unaffected. The resolution of this contradiction calls for throwing off the existing, old mode of production and the introduction of a new mode of production which harmonises with the new productive forces. The transition to a new mode of production from an old one is a revolutionary mission accomplished usually through a violent revolution involving huge bloodbath. The ancient mode of production ( slavery ) did not require literate slaves. Nor did the medieval mode of production ( feudal serfdom ) require literate serfs. But he capitalist mode of production cannot operate without literate wage slaves. The capitalism of the space age requires, for survival as well as progress, workers that must have not only good knowledge of science and technology but computer literacy as well. This explains why capitalism and capitalists are all for universal education and why developed and developing welfare states worldwide not only provide but are so eager to provide the working-class kids with free primary, elementary, and secondary education and highly subsidised higher education ( engineering, medicine, and management included ). Further, there exists an irreconcilable contradiction between the freedom of slaves and the ancient mode of production. But, on the contrary, not only it's a fact that there exists no conflict of interest between the capitalist mode of production and workers' freedom, Capitalism essentially requires, for its survival and progress, the free working class. It's an undeniable fact that were it not for the former serfs that freed themselves of the bondage of serfdom, capitalism could not survive and develop to enter the space age. Because they happen to be free, skilled workers can leave one capitalist for working under another that offers higher wages for the similar work and the same workload. This fact forces capitalists to raise wages of the skilled workers in their factories. Higher wages for skilled workers act act as an incentive that motivates unskilled and less-skilled workers to achieve skill. Moreover, higher wages mean higher purchasing power which means higher demand for commodities, with which the market expands, and thus higher wages contribute to the growth of trade and industry, hence the development of capitalism, the way I view it. Furthermore, genius, talent, calibre, and skill truly have got nothing to do with your caste, class, colour, or birth, as I see it. Therefore, were it not for the fact that they were free to choose subjects of study, their profession, and the workplace, geniuses and the talented could not develop their extraordinary skill, and so capitalism could not benefit by their brilliant achievements. It ought to be clear as day now why capitalism requires the freedom of the working class for its survival and progress. It also ought to be clear from the above that freedom is not the cause but the effect of the development of the social productive forces to such a level that the existing mode of production outright failed to match them when the new productive forces forced the old mode of production ( i.e. the feudal serfdom ) to give way to the new one ( i.e. the capitalist mode of production that replaced serfdom ) which required the free working class for its survival and progress.
* ' The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. ' ( See the PREFACE to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy by Marx. )
NB2 Let's suppose the Indian GNI per-capita figure exactly matches the US GNI per-capita figure of $ 52 061.8 when total Indian population equals TIP( N ). Then, total Indian GNI, TIGNI = $ 52 061.8 x TIP( N ). From this, we have TIP( N ) = TIGNI÷ $ 52 061.8 = ( actual Indian GNI per-capita x actual Indian population ) ÷ US GNI per-capita = the US population x 4/30. [ Supposing that the US GNI per-capita = actual Indian GNI per-capita x 30, and that actual Indian population = the US population x 4 ]
 Total Indian population in 2016 was around 1.327 billion as against the USA's 0.324 billion. Visit List of countries by population ( United Nations ) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
Such sights of kind acts might appear to be heart-warming to many, but I don't think they are signs of good health of your society and fit in with the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living. Such sights are incontestable evidence, as I view them, of the fact that humanity has yet to awake to the brute and naked fact that the economic inequality that happens to be the consequence of the concentration of huge wealth in a few hands at one pole accompanied by the pauperisation of millions at the other does NOT owe its origin to the qualitative distinctions between humans, between a Nobelist and an unlettered stupid, or between the work done by a skilled worker and that by an unskilled one but to the very basic law of the commodity economy, the division of society into classes on the basis of private property, the exploitation of man by man, and the greatest and gravest social injustice, namely the fact that the fact that in an unequal society, millions are born poor and underprivileged to be exploited by the born rich and privileged few and to lead a hard and humble existence themselves throughout their life and sillily watch the born rich and privileged lead a life full of fabulous wealth and luxury all of which was produced by them by the sweat of their brow is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs while the fact that the rich and privileged few are born rich and privileged to exploit the born poor and underprivileged millions is NOT attributable to any creditable acts or achievements of theirs, and thus they show that humanity has yet to attain the level of enlightenment it must attain in order to deserve to be reckoned civilised through and through.
Is humanity CIVILISED through & through YET ?
The way I view it, humanity still happens to be way too uncivilised. As evidence corroborating this view, I must point to private property, matrimony, the exploitation of man by man, the commodity economy, the economic inequality, the social division into classes, and the grave social injustice that owes its origin to the institution of private property, matrimony, et cetera. All these are, by their origin, as shown in the brief sketch of the evolution of civilisation, barbarian culture. Nevertheless, from the fact that they're all barbarian culture by origin, of course it doesn't follow that they're barbarian in essence too and so unbecoming to the civilised humanity. I don't want to say that everything barbarian is bad or detestable. But if we care about logic and view them from the logical viewpoint, I'm afraid it'll become clear as day to the sensible that they all are really and truly bad and barbarian in essence too and so outright obnoxious. The institution of private property brought about and perpetuated the social division into the propertied few and the non-propertied millions. The exploitation of man by man brought about and perpetuated the social division into the exploiting class and the exploited. And the commodity economy is meant to contribute to and perpetuate the social division into the rich, the super-rich, and swarms of the poor and the penniless. By the very fundamental law of the commodity economy, wealth accumulates in a few hands at one pole to create the poor and deprived millions at the other who sweat blood to produce all wealth but lead a hard and humble existence themselves throughout their life alongside of some idlers, the rich and the super-rich few, who lead a fabulous lifestyle, a life full of fabulous riches and luxuries before their silly eyes. And by perpetuating the division of society into classes with conflicting interests, the institution of private property, the exploitation of man by man, and the commodity economy have also perpetuated a grave, great social injustice, namely the fact that in a class-ridden society, the poor and underprivileged millions came into the world as poor and underprivileged, which means that the fact that they were born poor and underprivileged in order to be exploited by the born rich and privileged and produce wealth by the sweat of their brow for the affluence and luxury of the born rich and privileged that lead a life full of fabulous riches and luxuries before their silly eyes while they themselves lead a hard and humble existence throughout their life is not attributable to any faults and failings of theirs while the fact that the rich and privileged were born rich and privileged in order to exploit the born poor and underprivileged and thus amass more and more riches to grow richer and richer is not attributable to any creditable acts or achievements of theirs. And the fact that the born poor and underprivileged were born poor and underprivileged while the rich and privileged were all born rich and privileged as well as the fact that the concentration of wealth at one pole accompanied by the impoverishment and destitution of the multitude at the other reflects the very fundamental law of the commodity economy ( and capitalism is essentially a commodity economy ) happens to incontestably prove the fact that economic inequality doesn't owe its origin to the qualitative distinctions between humans, between a Nobelist and a receptionist, or between the work done by a skilled worker and that by an unskilled worker. Another incontestable argument for this view is the thesis that money cannot measure the worth of a commodity. By the definition of money, it's meant to measure the value ( i.e. exchange-value ) of a commodity and act as the medium of exchange of commodities. Money has got nothing to do with the use-value or usefulness ( by the worth of a commodity, its usefulness or use-value is meant ) of a commodity. The price of a commodity is its value ( i.e. exchange-value ) measured in money. The price of a commodity is governed, as the sensible know, by laws of supply and demand ( i.e. market forces ), and so it undergoes frequent changes with change in the the supply-demand figures while the use-value ( or worth ) of a commodity, as long as the consumer doesn't begin consuming or using it, happens to remain unchanged. The use-value ( or worth ) of a commodity is not affected by the laws of supply and demand. As money cannot measure the worth of a commodity, the higher price of a better-quality commodity is not justified by the fact that it's better qualitatively. On these grounds, as we cannot appraise the quality of a commodity by how much cash it fetches, thus we cannot appraise a human by how much they're worth or by how much they earn. I really am not aware of any sensible argument or logic that justifies the ridiculous realities described above, realities we're used to witnessing in every part of the capitalist world, to make them agreeable to the civilised humanity. I think it ought to be clear as day now to the sensible why private property, the exploitation of man by man, the commodity economy, the economic inequality, and the division of society into classes deserve to be viewed as barbarian in essence too.
Such ugly sights don't fit in with the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living, and they show that humanity still happens to be a long way off the level of enlightenment humanity must attain in order to be reckoned civilised through and through.
She's pretty. She's educated. But I feel dubious about whether she's aware that she belongs to the space age and whether she cares that it's unbecoming of a space-age woman and a disgrace to the entire womanhood to turn a blind eye to the brute fact that matrimony happens to be fundamentally antifeminine and the brute fact that half the sky really and truly have got nothing meaningful to derive either from matrimony or a travesty of it. I wonder how she justifies a space-age woman's indulgence in the silly, obnoxious luxury of matrimony that symbolises not only the imprisonment of women by men but a great, grave INJUSTICE, i.e. the fact that in marriage and family, an innocent lot ( a guy's spouse and kids ) suffer for no faults or failings of theirs but for all the faults and failings of a guy ( the father of the kids and husband of the woman that bore the kids ) that indulges in the luxury of matrimony.
Is humanity CIVILISED through & through YET ? ( continued )
And what about the institution of matrimony, the time-honoured holy matrimony, as the silly love to call it, which not only appeared, according to Engels, hand in hand with private property during the ' transition period from the middle to the upper stage of barbarism ' but was meant to ensure the paternity of a propertied man's kids as well and thus serve not only a masculine interest but also an exclusively propertied-class interest ? It's obvious that matrimony too is, like the private property, et cetera, a barbarian institution by origin. But is it really and truly so in essence too? As I see it, the following attributes of matrimony expose its true nature.
1. Matrimony is fundamentally an anti-feminine institution.
2. Half the sky have got nothing truly meaningful to derive from matrimony or a travesty of matrimony.
3. A man is not a lion of a man.
4. Matrimony performs no meaningful role in an individual's life.
5. Matrimony performs no meaningful role in society or the state.
6. Neither matrimony nor a travesty of it fits in with the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living.
By ' half the sky ' all the womanhood who together with all the manhood constitute the whole sky is meant. And by ' a lion of a man ', I mean a guy that possesses the capacity he need possess in order to make a worthy hubby, and by ' a worthy hubby ', I mean a guy capable of ensuring the social and financial security of his spouse and children as well as a decent lifestyle befitting the time they belong to for each of them along with the decent upbringing of his kids and the decent livelihood of each grown-up kid. By this definition of a lion of a man, I think Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, a cricket legend, and a Bharat Ratna, who once earned, I've heard, $ 3.07 million ( Rs 200 million ; $ 1 = Rs 65 ) per annum per TV ad, and men with such calibre each deserve to be reckoned a true lion of a man. I'm not sure of whether 1 per cent of the Indian menfolk deserve to belong to this category. My discourse A search for a true LION of a MAN will acquaint you with a search conducted by me for true lions of men in the USA and the outcome of that search.
The brute and naked truth is men are not lions of men. Men have never discharged their matrimonial and familial duties and obligations properly and fully because they're lamentably lacking in the capacity they need be possessed of in order to match up to their matrimonial and familial duties and obligations that are too huge and heavy for an individual that happens to be an insignificant entity vis-à-vis the society like a mouse against a mountain. The social and financial security of a human, be they an adult or a child, can be ensured only by the society, not by any individual. Thus, matrimony, either a true one or a travesty, symbolises a great injustice, i.e. the fact that in marriage and family, an innocent lot ( a guy's children and their mother ) suffer for no faults or failings of theirs but for all faults and failings of a guy ( the father of the kids and husband of the woman that bore the kids ). For this reason, I view matrimony as well as a travesty of matrimony as far more obnoxious than your addiction to alcohol that makes only you, i.e. the drinker alone, suffer for your own acts, not for anyone else's commission or omission, OK ? The antifeminine character of matrimony is too obvious to be missed by the sensible. Barbarian propertied men wanted sons of assured paternity intended to inherit their fathers' property. In order to achieve this goal, they had no other option than to rob their womenfolk of all freedom, and with this end in view, they created matrimony. Obviously, matrimony was meant to institutionalise the imprisonment, hence the enslavement, of women by men. Thus, it follows that feminine freedom is incompatible with true matrimony. Women truly have got nothing truly meaningful to derive from matrimony or a travesty in the name of matrimony, as I see it. Such things are in direct conflict with the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living, aren't they ? For these reasons, I think it's outright unbecoming to the civilised humanity to indulge in the luxury of the stuff like matrimony or travesties of matrimony, right ?
What strikes me as the most odd and astonishing is the silly fact that even Americans, humans of the most advanced civilisation of the world, find nothing wrong with not only recognising marriages of guys with below-the-poverty-threshold income as true marriages but placing such marriages as well as marriages of the penniless in the dole queue and the homeless and marriages of billionaires in the same category as well. They still seem to be devoid outright of the sense and wisdom that differentiates the sensible from the silly, the sense and wisdom such as that you need in order to appreciate that recognising marriages of guys below the poverty level adds up to recognising such a guy as having the capacity he need have in order to make a worthy husband or that placing marriages of such guys and marriages of those belonging to the billionaires' club in the category adds up to recognising a guy spending chilly nights on pavements or a guy spending his life in the dole queue as as much eligible as a billionaire living in a palace of a house and riding a super-deluxe car is. Another instance of American silliness is the legalisation of what they call same-sex marriages by the federal Supreme Court in 2015, which I view as the climax of gross irrationality and stupidity. Such silliness reminds me of a former Chief Justice of India who reportedly observed that in India, prostitution is ' not legal nor illegal ' and appeared outright oblivious of the fact that claiming something to be ' not legal nor illegal ' adds up to claiming ' not legal ' is synonymous with ' not illegal '. Nobody claims that India, still a developing country, is as much civilised as the USA, the super power, in both economic and military terms. At the same time, nobody seems to care, either, what level the American civilisation has attained so far. Do Americans deserve to be reckoned civilised through and yet ?
Is humanity CIVILISED through & through YET ? ( continued )
As I see it, humans, if they want to be civilised, must be sensible first. They must know a lot and attain enlightenment. Fools and ignoramuses are outright unlikely to be ever civilised truly. The more humanity has seen, heard, and known, the more civilised it has turned. A civilised human must be able to see the simple arithmetic logic that two and two makes four, and they mustn't miss the truth that is glaring before their eyes. They mustn't miss the wood for trees. They must have the enlightenment that the truth is invincible, inescapable, and irresistible and must always stand for the truth with the exception of certain special circumstances that demand that you should resort to some white lies, ( e.g. before a critically sick person, it is wise to utter utter lies, as a doctor does, about their true condition ). Still, I think a human that is sensible, enlightened, not afraid of the truth, and doesn't miss the wood for trees shouldn't deserve to be reckoned civilised through and through yet. In order to deserve to be reckoned civilised through and through, humanity must make the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living its life principle and practise what it preaches. Thus, in order to become civilised through and through, humanity must get rid of all things that do not fit in with the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living.
Humanity still happens to be way too uncivilised to match up to the space age, to my way of thinking. Even Americans, when it comes to clarifying their stance on the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living, behave as if they're unaware that theirs happens to be the most advanced civilisation, and that the States happen to be the only super power of the world of today. The mere thought of facing up to the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living makes an American feel a chill running down their spine, they're so afraid of the stuff that is the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living, something as innocent as the full moon in the night sky, something so powerless as to be incapable of hurting even a breastfeeding baby. So powerless, yet not in the least powerless ! In fact, the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living really and truly happens to be so powerful and so weighty that even the USA, the only super power as yet, is lacking in the backbone it needs in order to face up to it, and that humanity, if it wants to be civilised through and through, just cannot afford to ignore it, in my humble opinion.
 THE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE STATE ( PROGRESS PUBLISHERS, MOSCOW ), by Engels; p 237 .
The brute and naked truth is wage slavery is in essence the EXPLOITATION of man by man, and the undeniable fact is the wage slavery along with private property, matrimony, and the commodity economy contributes to and perpetuates the economic inequality, hence the social division into the rich, the super-rich, and millions of the poor and the penniless in the dole queue, and thus it also contributes to and perpetuates the greatest and gravest social injustice I'm aware of so far, i.e. the shocking and disgusting fact that the fact that in an unequal society millions come into the world as poor and penniless to be wage slaves is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs while the fact that the rich and the super-rich few are born rich and super-rich to be masters of the wage slaves is NOT attributable to any creditable acts or achievements by them ( i.e. the rich and the super-rich ).
[ concluding remarks ]
Civilisation began with slavery. Slavery or the undisguised exploitation of man by man was the ancient mode of production that, by origin, happened to be outright barbarian culture just as private property, matrimony, the commodity economy, the economic inequality, and the great cleavage of society into the exploiting class and the exploited as well as the greatest and gravest social injustice I know of so far, namely the brute fact that the fact that in a class-ridden society, millions come into the world as born poor and underprivileged in order to be exploited and lead a hard and humble existence, as beasts of burden do, throughout their life is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs while the fact that the wealthy and privileged few are born wealthy and privileged to exploit the former and thus grow wealthier and wealthier is NOT attributable to any creditable acts or achievements of theirs, are all barbarian by origin.
Then, in keeping with the eternal LAW of Nature*, civilisation along with all its barbarian institutions has undergone a lot of change. The ancient slavery gave way to the feudal serfdom of medieval times and the latter gave way to the wage slavery of modern times. The three modes of production have one thing in common, and it's the fact that they each are based on the exploitation of man by man. They each are also aimed at the perpetuation of the exploitation of man by man and thus the perpetuation of the social division into the exploiting class and the exploited, the economic inequality, and what in my view happens to be the greatest and gravest social injustice as described above. The institution of private property, matrimony, and the commodity economy have always been hand in hand with the institution of the exploitation of man by man throughout history to contribute to and perpetuate both the economic inequality and the social division into classes, and thus they've contributed to and perpetuated the greatest and gravest social injustice to my knowledge as well. Thus, I think it's clear as day now why none of them, i.e. slavery, serfdom, wage slavery, private property, matrimony, the commodity economy, the economic inequality, and the social division into classes, are in harmony with the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living. Humanity, if it wants to be civilised through and through, must make the Principle of healthy and meaningful living its LIFE PRINCIPLE and get rid of all institutions and culture that fail to harmonise with the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living.
The civilised must be sensible and mighty, both internally and externally. By this, I mean you must be endowed, in order to be reckoned civilised through and through, with the backbone that you need be possessed of in order to stand with your head erect in front of the truth, the whole truth, and the brute, naked truth, and you must also be endowed with the talent and wisdom and the strength needed in order to deal with and resist attempts by any other beings, be they animals or humans ( such as a state mightier, militarily, than yours ). Just as dogs' obsequious faithfulness doesn't become humans, so it's unbecoming of civilised humans to allow themselves to be taken prisoner and to be exploited by, and thus be forced to serve, any beasts or humans as slaves used to do once upon a time and wage slaves are used to doing in present times.
As I see it, it becomes the civilised to stand for a free world, a world free of all sorts of exploitation, deprivation, domination, discrimination, persecution, injustice, and all other evils as well as all not-evil but silly stuff that fails to fit in with the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living.
Not all civilisations are equally civilised, and the most advanced civilisation of the world still happens to be a long way off the level it must attain in order to deserve to be recognised as civilised completely. From my viewpoint, civilisation is the historical epoch on entering which humanity began undergoing transformation from a hundred per cent barbarian state into the civilised state, and this process has yet to be complete. Thus, as humanity in the Dark Ages was not outright civilised, so humanity in the space age still has a long way to go before it deserves to be reckoned civilised through and through. Humanity must choose between democracy and dictatorship, freedom of expression and no freedom of expression, the silly principle of plain living and the principle of decent and sensible living, matrimony and prostitution, et cetera, et cetera as well as communism and capitalism or democratic socialism.
* By this LAW , everything in Nature undergoes perpetual change.