The development of technique, particularly of agriculture 10,000 years ago revolutionised social and sexual relationships. Childe calls it the 'Neolithic Revolution', which marks the step from savagery to barbarism.
The development of agriculture and the domestication of animals pushed forward new methods and implements, such as hoes, storehouses, grindstones, pottery. "All the foregoing inventions and discoveries", says Childe, "were, judged by ethnographic evidence, the work of the women. To that sex, too, may by the same token be credited the chemistry of pot-making, the physics of spinning, the mechanics of the loom, and the botany of flax and cotton." (What Happened In History, page 66)
However, the introduction of the plough "relieved women of the most exacting drudgery, but deprived them of their monopoly over the cereal crops and the social status that conferred. Among barbarians, whereas women normally hoe plots, it is men who plough fields." (Page 89) The new advances and the wealth created began to weaken the bonds of the gens. Although wealth remained with-in the gentes or clan, "it gave the man a more important status in the family than the woman, and on the other hand, created a stimulus to utilise this strengthened position in order 'to overthrow the traditional order of inheritance in favour of his children. But this was impossible as long as decent according to mother right prevailed. This had, therefore, to be overthrown, and it was over-thrown..." (Engels Origins, page 90)
The transition from 'primitive communist' society to civilisation and class society took place unevenly. The creation of a surplus over and above the needs of the clan or tribe marked a revolutionary advance, yet it also stimulated private property and the dissolution of the old gens.
This period coincided with intensive agriculture and the use of metals. For Childe, "the worst contradictions in the Neolithic economy were transcended when farmers were persuaded or compelled to wring from the soil a surplus above their own domestic requirements, and when this surplus was made available to support new economic classes not directly engaged in producing their own food. The possibility of producing the requisite surplus was inherent in the very nature of the Neolithic economy." Its realisation required a change in social and economic relations, or in other words, a break up of the old social order. The social surplus, derived primarily from agriculture, was gradually concentrated into the hands of a privileged caste of priests and officials which gradually separated itself from the rest of society.
Over a period of time, private property also became increasingly concentrated in the hands of family chiefs. This was a decisive step towards the creation of a ruling class. With the introduction of cattle rearing, metallurgy, and cultivation, the social surplus rose considerably. From this time onwards slavery became an economic viability.
In the past, when no surplus was produced above the needs of the population, conquered tribes were butchered or a source of cannibalism but not slavery. As soon as a surplus came into being, the capture of slaves became very profitable.
As Childe comments: "the vanquished need not have been exterminated. If some survived as guardians of the ritual tradition of a local god, others may have been left alive as serfs or slaves. Men would have been domesticated', like oxen and asses. Conquests would have produced stratified societies, divided into masters and slaves, embryos of the class division revealed in the oldest historical cities? (Page. 96)
The movement towards class society, reflected itself in the dissolution of the gens and the development of new social relations. The nascent ruling class concentrated greater economic and social power into its hands. Monogamy thus arose out of the concentration of wealth into the hands of one person and the need to pass this on to the man's children. It was the beginning of the oppression of women. "The overthrow of mother right was the world historic defeat of the female sex", says Engels.
The new patriarchal family went hand in hand with the development of classes, the state, and other attributes of class society. "In short, wealth is praised and respected as the highest treasure, and the old gentile institutions are perverted in order to justify forcible robbery of wealth", states Engels. "Only one thing was missing: an institution that would not only safeguard the newly-acquired property of private individuals against the communistic traditions of the gentile order, would not only sanctify private property, formerly held in such light esteem, and pronounce this satisfaction the highest purpose of human society, but would also stamp the gradually developing new forms of acquiring property, and consequently, of constantly accelerating increased wealth, with the seal of general public recognition; an institution that would perpetuate, not only the newly-rising class division of society, but also the right of the possessing class to exploit the non-possessing classes and the rule of the former over the latter. And this institution arrived. The state was invented." (Page 178)
The emergence of civilisation brought with it new products of class society, including the sub-ordination of women and the emergence of a new social power: money.
With the development of private property came the existence of commodities and private debt. The old gentile order crumbled and the new class societies, such as in the Greek city states, emerged based on slavery.
The development of slavery, feudalism, and then capitalism changed the forms of exploitation and the production of surplus value from the labour of the exploited mass. The role of women in society was confined to the household. In this subordinate position, cut off from social production, the female's role was largely reproduction.
This is continued in the present bourgeois family. In fact, as The Communist Manifesto explained, "The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production... Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives."
However, the fireworks of economic expansion under capitalism in the second half of the 20th century has opened the way for women to enter industry on a wide scale. In Britain women are roughly half the workforce. This is an enormously progressive fact. As Engels says: "The emancipation of women becomes possible only when women are enabled to take part in production on a large, social scale, and when domestic duties require their attention only to a minor degree."
However, this is impossible under capitalism. The disintegration of the welfare state, as well as the break up of the family, is a product of the crisis of capitalism. Rather than a move towards equality, there has developed the most glaring inequalities. Working class women are forced into soul destroying dead-end jobs, the bulk of which are part-time. The gap between rich and poor is greater than at any time since 1886.
The real emancipation of women is not linked to the largely middle class feminists who see the issue as a means of self-promotion. The plight of millions of ordinary working class women are a million miles removed from the petit bourgeois that infest the so-called women's movement. For them the position of women is con-fined to male attitudes and prejudices, rather than the manifestation of class society.
They see the issue as a problem of 'men' and seek to solve the subordination of women from the viewpoint of sexual domination and not class. They operate within the confines of capitalism, hoping to expand the number of professional jobs, such as lawyers, judges, MPs, company directors, for middle class women.
The position of working class women is fundamentally a class question, which requires the unity of the working class -men and women -, in the common struggle to overthrow the capitalist system, based upon exploitation and inequality. Only with the overthrow of class society can the liberation of men and women be achieved.
As Engels explains: "Monogamy arose out of the concentration of considerable wealth in the hands of one person - and that a man - and out of the desire to bequeath this wealth to this man's children and to no one else's. For this purpose monogamy was essential on the woman's part, but not on the man's; so that this monogamy of the woman in no way hindered the overt or covert polygamy of the man. The impending social revolution, however, by transforming at least the far greater part of permanent inheritable wealth - the means of production - into social property, will reduce all this anxiety about inheritance to a minimum." (Origins, p 123)
What will the character of the future socialist family be like? As monogamy arose out of definite economic causes, will it disappear when they too disappear? With the abolition of private property, the family ceases to be an economic unit. The care of children becomes the responsibility of society, as not only the material basis of society changes, but its whole social and moral outlook. The egalitarian foundation of socialism is enhanced as all the "old crap" of class society is eliminated. The development of an economy of super abundance and the democratic involvement of the population at all levels transforms the outlook of society.
The planned economy, with is use of the most scientifically advanced techniques, will reduce working hours to a minimum, fully allowing the participation of men and women in art and culture. "Monogamy, instead of declining, finally become a reality - for the men as well", concludes Engels.
Women's liberation is bound into the liberation of society from class domination. A pre-condition of this is the involvement of working class women in the Labour movement in the struggle to change society. This is a key question.
Only by campaigning on socialist policies that will transform the lives of ordinary working people will the movement attract women workers in large numbers. This must be linked to childcare provision, so domestic difficulties are minimised, and the opportunities for participation are enhanced.
In reality, we can only speculate on the form of family under socialism. For Engels, people under a new society "will not care a rap about what we today think they should do. They will establish their own practice and their own public opinion, con-formable therewith, on the practice of each individual - and that's the end of it."
The only thing that can be established with certainty is that relationships will embody respect and will be free from the harmful effects of class society. Humankind will be free to enjoy the full fruits of life.