Najsmješnije izjave protiv IK

Sora wrote:Prcko Da te uzmem malo 
Daj mi objasni ovo RUSI SE OBITELJ I SLOBODA S NJOM . 


To je recenica za genije . EPOHALNA. 
TO ISTO KO I OVI KLERIFASISTI KOJI B
BOGA VOLE A MRZE SVE DRUGEM drugscije i rszlicite ? Ljude ..

A? 
Kak je spojivo ha ?

prckov wrote:

hororskop wrote:

The Marxist Perspective on The Family

Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

Marxism is a ‘structural conflict’ perspective. They see society as structured along class lines with institutions generally working in the interests of the small elite class who have economic power (the ‘Bourgeoisie’) and the much larger working class (the ‘Proletariat’). The Bourgeoise gain their wealth from exploiting the proletariat. There is thus a conflict of interests between the Bourgeoise and the Proletariat.

However, this conflict of interests rarely boils over into revolution because institutions such as the family perform the function of ‘ideological control’, or convincing the masses that the present unequal system is inevitable, natural and good.

Something else Marxists suggest about the family (like the Functional Fit theory) is that the family type generally changes with society – more specifically, the nuclear family emerges not because of the needs of industrialisation, but because of the needs of the capitalist system.

According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism. Before Capitalism, traditional, tribal societies were classless and they practised a form of ‘primitive communism’ in which there was no private property. In such societies, property was collectively owned, and the family structure reflected this – there were no families as such, but tribal groups existed in a kind of ‘promiscuous horde’ in which there were no restrictions on sexual relationships.

However, with the emergence of Capitalism in the 18th Century, society and the family changed. Capitalism is based on a system of private ownership – The bourgeois use their own personal wealth to personally invest in businesses in order to make a profit, they don’t invest for the benefit of everyone else.

Eventually the Bourgeois started to look for ways to pass on their wealth to the next generation, rather than having it shared out amongst the masses, and this is where the monogamous nuclear family comes from. It is the best way of guaranteeing that you are passing on your property to your son, because in a monogamous relationship you have a clear idea of who your own children are.

Ultimately what this arrangement does is to reproduce inequality – The children of the rich grow up into wealth, while the children of the poor remain poor. Thus the nuclear family benefits the Bourgeois more than the proletariat.

https://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/marxist-perspective-family/

obitelj je temelj kapitalističkog sustava

ako zbog promiskuiteta svd djeca budu kopilad onda možemo imati primitivno plemensko društvo u kojem nema privatnog vlasništva

u tom smjeru ide i IK

i IK, i feminizam i ljevicari
rusi se obitelj, kultura, tradicija i sloboda
u biti temelji zapadne civilizacije
u EU imas plan izjednacit pay gap,
theresa may govori o pay gap-u izmedu spolova, a djeca se sa time vise sprdaju koliko veze s mozgom nema

Sora wrote:Prcko Da te uzmem malo 
Daj mi objasni ovo RUSI SE OBITELJ I SLOBODA S NJOM . 


To je recenica za genije . EPOHALNA. 
TO ISTO KO I OVI KLERIFASISTI KOJI B
BOGA VOLE A MRZE SVE DRUGEM drugscije i rszlicite ? Ljude ..

A? 
Kak je spojivo ha ?

kaja wrote:Ti dokumenti nemaju pravnu snagu ali napravili su veliku transformaciju društva jer su norma , normativni instrument koji stvara "obvezu" za države članice da ih ugrade u ustav i zakon pa tako indirektno djeluju. Tko ne ugradi crna ovca. Kao u ovom slučaju.
Dakle sve to što vi mislite da je nebitno jer nije formalno obvezno (Deklaracija UN o pravima, prije toga Virginijska deklaracija pa i prije toga postoje kodifikacije Habeas Corpus act itd) se ugrađivalo  u zakonodavstvo jer je vladavina prava osnovni princip EU zemalja. Što ti ne moraš ali daj sjedi u UN i imaj smrtnu kaznu paljenjem na lomači kao država. Ne možeš jel tako? Znači moraš ugraditi ako hoćeš biti dio toga  svijeta..

Sora wrote:

prckov wrote:

hororskop wrote:

The Marxist Perspective on The Family

Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

Marxism is a ‘structural conflict’ perspective. They see society as structured along class lines with institutions generally working in the interests of the small elite class who have economic power (the ‘Bourgeoisie’) and the much larger working class (the ‘Proletariat’). The Bourgeoise gain their wealth from exploiting the proletariat. There is thus a conflict of interests between the Bourgeoise and the Proletariat.

However, this conflict of interests rarely boils over into revolution because institutions such as the family perform the function of ‘ideological control’, or convincing the masses that the present unequal system is inevitable, natural and good.

Something else Marxists suggest about the family (like the Functional Fit theory) is that the family type generally changes with society – more specifically, the nuclear family emerges not because of the needs of industrialisation, but because of the needs of the capitalist system.

According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism. Before Capitalism, traditional, tribal societies were classless and they practised a form of ‘primitive communism’ in which there was no private property. In such societies, property was collectively owned, and the family structure reflected this – there were no families as such, but tribal groups existed in a kind of ‘promiscuous horde’ in which there were no restrictions on sexual relationships.

However, with the emergence of Capitalism in the 18th Century, society and the family changed. Capitalism is based on a system of private ownership – The bourgeois use their own personal wealth to personally invest in businesses in order to make a profit, they don’t invest for the benefit of everyone else.

Eventually the Bourgeois started to look for ways to pass on their wealth to the next generation, rather than having it shared out amongst the masses, and this is where the monogamous nuclear family comes from. It is the best way of guaranteeing that you are passing on your property to your son, because in a monogamous relationship you have a clear idea of who your own children are.

Ultimately what this arrangement does is to reproduce inequality – The children of the rich grow up into wealth, while the children of the poor remain poor. Thus the nuclear family benefits the Bourgeois more than the proletariat.

https://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/marxist-perspective-family/

obitelj je temelj kapitalističkog sustava

ako zbog promiskuiteta svd djeca budu kopilad onda možemo imati primitivno plemensko društvo u kojem nema privatnog vlasništva

u tom smjeru ide i IK

i IK, i feminizam i ljevicari
rusi se obitelj, kultura, tradicija i sloboda
u biti temelji zapadne civilizacije
u EU imas plan izjednacit pay gap,
theresa may govori o pay gap-u izmedu spolova, a djeca se sa time vise sprdaju koliko veze s mozgom nema

AKO SI U OBITELJI S OSJEĆAJEM OBVEZE A BEZ SLOBODE 
TO JE I BOLJE DA SE RUSI 
LJUBAV JE TEMELJ ZA SLOBODU . SVAKU PA I U OBITELJI. 

KULTURA I TRADICIJA SU DIJSLEKTICKI POVEZANE ..NEMA SAMO KULTURE ILI SAMO TRADICIJE . 
MORA SE MJENJATI TRADICIJU DA BI SE PODIGLA KULTURA . 
NO. 
Prcko 
Tebe muci sex priznaj 

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:ravnopravnost
drugotna

noor:   super, slin, slin

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:jadne zene
moraju bit prvotne kad je pozar ili slicno

noor: hehe , super, super

debotoijusto wrote:kolegica @noor je sparicala obid i sad bi jedan dobar cat fight a zatim bit kuco pri stolu

kaja wrote:

pismejker wrote:o Kayo,ynas ti dobro na sto ja mislim..svakodnevno mocanje,grintanje i prigovaranje u VEZI SITNICA I GLUPOSTI,

pa rastaneš se ako ne možeš s nekim živjeti

Noor wrote:

debotoijusto wrote:kolegica @noor je sparicala obid i sad bi jedan dobar cat fight a zatim bit kuco pri stolu

kod mene nema kuca za stolom...imaju svoje dvorište od 300 samo njihovih m2 i svoj raj, u kuću ni ne žele
a ako si mislio na dvonožne kuce, nema ni toga....ne sudi po sebi

debotoijusto wrote:

Noor wrote:

debotoijusto wrote:kolegica @noor je sparicala obid i sad bi jedan dobar cat fight a zatim bit kuco pri stolu

kod mene nema kuca za stolom...imaju svoje dvorište od 300 samo njihovih m2 i svoj raj, u kuću ni ne žele
a ako si mislio na dvonožne kuce, nema ni toga....ne sudi po sebi

kuco

debotoijusto wrote:kolegica @noor je sparicala obid i sad bi jedan dobar cat fight a zatim bit kuco pri stolu

Noor wrote:a zato mrziš muškarce? dobila si po piksi i zato sad arlaučeš o konvenciji..
ok, to mnogo toga objašnjava

marcellus wrote:kod sorinih ubosni puno drže do žene skoro ko do domaće životinje

kaja wrote:

Noor wrote:a zato mrziš muškarce? dobila si po piksi i zato sad arlaučeš o konvenciji..
ok, to mnogo toga objašnjava

uopće ih ne mrzim, baš ih volim i oni mene
opet akrobacija u stilu ona vas mrzi a ja branim
ne trebaš ih ti braniti od mene, probaj doći fokus nekim drugim načinom..