What does Holla Forums think about the 'family unit'?

Holla Forumstards always champion the idea of the 'nuclear family' and stigmatize single parents, particularly single mothers. What do you think about this? Is the nuclear family really deserving of being sought after and revered and single parenthood to be discouraged? Or is it just a spook? Is there any [reliable] science or studies behind this?

Other urls found in this thread:

tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love
dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data/
census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf
nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/u-s--women-control-the-purse-strings.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Family is a socioeconomic unit and is not inherently good or bad. Nowadays it's a nuisance.

Holla Forums hates their families, don't you know?

anyone working with children can tell you that two parents are better than one

telling

Family or family size?

Utter failure.

It's a spook. While it's probably better for a family to stick together to ensure the survival of their child, there's nothing stopping a single parent from performing the same job. I mean hell, I'm betting practically everyone here is distanced from their parents so what's the fuss? Robots hate normies and only see their parents as a food/shelter provider, Holla Forumslacks have to put up with the stigmatization of socialism/communism/anarchism so they probably have less to do with their parents if at all but at least they'll make attempts at establishing contact, and Holla Forumstards blame everyone but themselves for their own shortcomings which is bound to drive people away, to say nothing of their shitty nazi ideology. Then there's the Holla Forumsirgins who would rather play videogames all day than step outside their room. For most people here, Holla Forums is basically their entire life.

I can bet you not a day goes by they don't log onto Holla Forums at least once in their day and spend over 3 hours on and off browsing it.

So again, who gives a fuck if you live with a single parent, Holla Forumsfags? You never see or talk to them anyway. And if you did, you'd have nothing in common anyway. Maybe at one point your parents were your best friends and you did everything together, but now your days are limited to your OTHER family…that's right, other Holla Forumsfags, like you.

...

Single parenthood should be discouraged, but shit happens.
I do believe religion and a good stable family are positive things.

Family dynamics and the importance of having both a father and a mother in the formation of idenity kinda do.

Irrelevant in capitalism, but single parenthood should not be encouraged/supported in socialism since that would be detrimental for the development of next generation.

Personally I grew up in a "nuclear family" and I like it. We're working class but we get along and have enough. I'm a quiet, shy person so it suits me nicely.

I wouldn't mind living in an extended family home, with grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins, but I'm really not a fan of the whole communal living idea a lot of communists have. As a guy who values his privacy and quiet it sounds like utter hell having to live in a massive communal home with strangers.

As for single parents, I don't think it's good for anyone. Economically draining and clearly linked to poverty, sadly.

Finally, a bunkerbro who isn't fedora-tier.

There is nothing inherently wrong with it, tbh.
Only thing better than having both mother and father is having multiple poeple raise one child to maximize it's potential. Community of babysitters must become a thing in communism.

I love my parents. I owe a lot to them. I don't think that the positive influence or the love they showed me is a "spook."

I also think that raising a child is very difficult and that two heads are (on average) much, much better than one at providing a child with a proper upbringing.

that sounds fucking shit

its good. single parents are bad, especially single mothers but if you want normal functioning kids regular family is for the best.

obviously your parents failed to bring you up properly because you're a retarded nazi that doesn't know what a spook is

I dont particularly care, although growing up with 2 parents is better imo.

The idea of the nuclear family as the idea family unit has only been around for about 100 years, and since most of human history we've had a wide variety of family structure and other structures of social support, supposing that this particular way is the best possible way to have a family has no basis in fact of any kind, that being said theirs nothing inherently wrong about this type of family structure or many others since its all just a variation of human organization. The nuclear family, along with all other family structures has to potential to be very harmful for some, if not all involved since it is based of a system of blind obedience, but it also has the potential to be mutually beneficial.

Their is no idea family unit, their is no idea way to raise children and anyone who thinks other wise is ignorant or a liar, their can be very wrong ways to raise children but their is certainly no ideal.

Garbage. Pop out a few ankle-biters for the State to raise and keep some spooky heritage bullshit going and then live your life.

...

In my country nuclear family is considered a progressive/leftist idea.
Traditionalists encourage the idea of joint family where everyone in the family tree lives in the same house.

Economic advantage yeah that's what I said
Spooky.

I said the family structure is a spook, not your actual parents being there.

family unit should be destroyed
not even kindding

state should take children from their parents at birth
not even kidding again

Assume a 16-hour day. Children spend nine hours a day in school, under the supervision of teachers. That leaves seven hours under parents' supervision. This figure assumes that children don't engage in after-school activities or spend time with friends. If we take that into account, we're left with perhaps four or five hours each day, which is about half the time they spend with their teachers.

I think that people who champion the mother and father as the most important forces in raising a child are drastically overestimating themselves.

It can be good or bad. It is often both. It is clear however that a child is healthiest with many extra familial relationships

well that doesn't sound sinister or anything…

Would you sell her?

Identity is impossible without the existence of other people, and our parents are central to it's formation.

yes.. it doesn't…
if all children will be treated equally, will all have equal opportunities to reveal their talents, then there's nothing sinister about it

Yeah, that's not psychologically damaging at all. It's not like children need genuine affection.

The family unit is a way of making making more moneyed portions of the population better consumers. It's better for porky if 10 families own 10 tool sheds that they maybe use a few times a month each than those 10 families sharing one tool shed.

why can't we do that while keeping families together, rather than turning the state into a giant daycare?

I see your point there but that can be done on a local community level without communal living. Just have a community hub where people can use tools, libraries, medical facilities etc.

No, I meant the income they use on their children.
Wew lad, more spooks here than a haunted house

I agree with you, but I'm not proposing a new form of organization. Families used to be much larger, and still are in poorer places in the world.

Fair enough. I have no problem with extended families.

it's not like the only source of genuine affection are the parents.

bcs then principle of equal oppurtunities will be violated
child of the high state bureaucrat will be in advantageous position from the get go

lol, where else does it come from then? strangers don't give a shit

child of the high state bureaucrat will be in advantageous position from the get go
But this is under communism so we'd have equal opportunity anyway?

have you ever been in love?

between capitalism and communism there will be some transitional period

I'm mainly concerned with this transitional phase

no, actually. bit rude

So you want to take children from their parents and give them over to designated state caregivers who are all literally equal in their skill at parenting and ration the amount of affection they receive?

We need to abolish public schools and childcare to cut down on labor costs and taxes
bring back child labor
abolish weekends and overtime pay so men and women can work longer hours
this is the only way to fix the family

that's what we'd actually advocate tho

oh, the stoic type…

not literally, but statistically average
as in average productivity of labor with given means of production

lol no

I'm just assuming that female caregiver whose child had been taken from her will have her mother instinct directed at children in her care

So why not just give each mother some kind of testing or instruction before she has a child and let her be a parent? That's just pointless bureaucracy.

How is identity a spook? This is in the context of what one is in relation to someone else, "I am a son of my parents, I am a husband of my wife, etc".

Everyone has an identity, just like everyone has an ideology. Don't be such a stupid stirnertard.

Dropping in to say that indeed a child needs at least two people, even if they are not of opposing sexes, to fulfill the roles of father and mother (in some cases ideology and religion may stand for the father), for him to become a subject. Otherwise the results are not very pretty

>

if she wants to be with children, she could work in a state childcare industry as a caregiver

nah, just lonely and shy

Anyone who is neutral or supports the family unit is a far right faggot. Put away your fee fees and remember Communism is about the whole and not the individual. When you have family you will favor them over the others and that leads to selfishness and greed.

Families should be abolished and children raised by the state if we are to succeed.

well, here we are
having a conversation on the internet and you don't look all that shy to me, mate

as for lonely
well, people die in loneliness
even the most cheerful faggot on earth is dying inside, metaphorically speaking

If you were a leftist, you'd know we aren't trying to abolish selfishness
but you're a false-flagging shit, the most common right-wing tactic now

Communal property is the worst, I happen to have PLENTY of first hand experience on it. Nobody ever takes care of anything they use and when something breaks or is stolen or is loaned to someone outside of the community -and never seen again- nobody wants to take responsibility for it, not even in a collective manner; they don't even return stuff in time, plus you might also happen to need one particular tool while there's a waiting list and you might not have much time available for when it's ready.

You're fucking retarded.

Do you really think you can be fair to all when you're attached to mommy and daddy? An extra ration of food or maybe cloth for clothing?

Cut your ties and focus you little bitch.

Abolish friendship while you're at it too why don't you.

My friends are Communist too. I don't associate with anyone who isn't.

The reason why family is so dangerous to Communism is because people are willing to do anything for blood. Some kill for family, some slave away for porky and so forth. Instead of focusing on themselves, they should focus on the whole of their community.

This is why I support the concept of the state raising children or even the community getting together to raise them. The Native Americans used to do that. The children would call all the adults father or mother.

...

Hmmm. Can you go into more detail? Perhaps with examples?

I don't support any aspect of it. I'd rather parents had very little contact with their children as they grow up. In my mind, the nuclear family is harmful to men and women and naturally creates hierarchy.

If Holla Forums had their way children would probably be some sort of public good "raised" by the entire community like pic related because dude biological relations are a spook rofl xD.

And you wouldn't favor some friends who you know are good for the advancement of communism over some proletarian strangers, what the fuck are you even talking about in general; no-one's sense of duty and altruism will be greater for absolute strangers than for those close to them, be them family, friends or neighbors.

Every stupid thing you ultra rad assoles try to justify, you do so using either ancient communities or Indians who lived in almost stone-age like societies, far away from industrialization and fucking everything.

The extended family is the real traditional family. Nuclear families are against human nature.

also:

Spooky.

wew lad

but yeah I know what you mean, I've seen that attitude on the left before I came here

If you read Tacitus's Germania or Caesar's Bello Gallico you'll see that outside the Roman Empire, marriage and property are handled very differently. In Britain, wives are held in common between brothers that live together in single large households. What makes the Germans barbaric to the Romans is that they almost completely disregard things like inheritance because there's very little to actually own. Because the Germans are constantly at war with each other or the Romans, there's space enough that once you get married you can go off and start your own household wherever there's space. If there isn't space, you and your extended family go and murder people until you have it.

This is completely different from the Roman, and eventually the feudal, system of political marriages and inheritorship. Lineage mattered because your rights were tied to your social status which was passed down from parent to child. In theory at least. Roman law let you adopt just about anyone at just about any time and imbue them with the rights to succeed you and inherit your estate and political station. This was also important for keeping track of who owned what, especially among patricians and eventually the equites as they began to accumulate land and property. When Rome falls, this is the form that marriage takes as the key to both political and economic power becomes how much land you own and the people tied to that land.

But even more recently, until post WWII in the West, the most common living arrangement was extended families of a mother and a father, their children, and more likely than not their parents, as lots of manpower was needed for agricultural labor. Even cousins, aunts, and uncles tended to live close by, if not right on the same piece of property. Even in the cities among the working class you had people crammed into tiny apartments, sometimes even different families, all living together.

But then the massive shift in wealth distribution changed all that. The nuclear family rises to prominence because people can afford to live on their own even well into old age, where material convenience eliminated the need for extended families for agricultural work. Children were expected to leave home as soon as they got work and start their own families. This changes a little as education becomes increasingly necessary to achieving this situation.

And now the material forces at work are shaping relations among people again as children are forced to live with their parents, sometimes well into their thirties, as they're priced out of even renting a home.

So expecting the modern construct of marriage strictly between a man and a woman that fosters 2.5 children raised by the same to continue as the material realities necessary to support such an arrangement collapse, much less that marriage itself is some sort of sacrosanct, unchanging institution, is beyond ridiculous.

They are, though. It's the most fee fees based shit imaginable.

God post. The family unit is doomed because of porky. The question is how do we take the children and make them ours?

The only thing wrong with this is the means not the end. Instead of bathing in semen, all females can have sex with any male and any male can have sex with any female.

stop trying to act tough on the internet please, it's pathetic

The women would end up having a soft harem with a small group of men. It can only work with sex bots and virtual reality to fill the gap.

I forgot to add no one can refuse the other. We see sexual Darwinism today with Chads getting all the girls and the rest of us with nothing. We need to make sex equal for all.

See

On that note Chads should be sent to the gulags. Every single fucking one of those arrogant, narcissist bastards. They're worse than porky.

I heard about a Roman play made by some proto-feminists about society like that. You could fuck who ever you wanted as long as you fucked someone uglier first. I'm not sure what the name was.

Fine by me and the other 80% of the guys around the world who can't get sex because porky profiting off social media and creating a false beauty standard.

We need a revolution now.

I don't think you really get it.

take your sexual anxiety back to pol or r9k or whatever pathetic den you brought them from

If you don't think that I'll happen you're just naive.

tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/

I'm in support of the children of the trough idea

I know you're severely mentally impaired from posting on Holla Forums, but try to use your brain for this: was the reason for those sorts of breeding results due strictly to women choosing "chads," or was it a result of the slave/pillage economy that predominated for thousands of years throughout the ancient world?

You even see this pattern within tribal socities.

And chimpanzees who are our closest ancestors.

at least you've shown you're so brain damaged you aren't worth responding to any more

Lets see. I've never made a single post on Holla Forums and I've never used the term Chad before. I have no idea why you think I would. It's not like I expressed any kind of resentment towards women in any of my posts. I never advocated for any form of traditionalism or forcing women into any kind arrangements to fill the gap. Also It sounds like you didn't bother reading the article I linked. Which goes into the reasons why.

Not the same poster, dipshit.

Triggered over a word. Would it help babby and your widdle safe space if I said charismatic, handsome and rich douchebags who can have any female they wanted instead of Chad?

In Native American societies, the bravest and strongest warriors were awarded the chieftain's daughter. They also raped and pillaged other tribes. So a combination of both with emphasis on the former because in order to rape and pillage another tribe you had to be a badass killer.

Child brain development is a spook, you heard it here first.

That's a different poster asshole. The only one with brain damage is you. Stop trying to strawman everyone that disagrees with you .Here there's a whole book on the reasons for the breding gap.

can someone get these fags some ice for their anguished anuses lmao

Not an argument.

it sounds like your talking out of your ass. There wasn't one set "Native American Culture". I don't know why your so upset about this.

Not an argument.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen

Sounds good to me tbh, given I'm a virgin

It really does sound pleasant.

Holla Forums's hatred of family is yet another reason it'll never be anything besides as unwelcome fringe of society.

There were similarities were there not. They used horses, spears, bows and arrows. They all never wasted a single piece of buffalo and respected the earth.

Don't be mad you can't form an argument. Go to Holla Forums. You'd fit right in with the retards.

It's not hatred. It's just obsolete and in the way of a perfect society. It sounds line madness to some but it makes perfect sense if you think about it and don't use your fee fees.

Families = attachment
Attachment = favoritism
Favoritism = inequality

Remove the family and you have no attachments to nothing but your community. Therefore favoring your community means you'll treat everyone who lives there fairly.

communist wizard uprising when

Either way your desire to get rid of family means the vast majority of humanity wants nothing to do with you.

I don't think every group of native Americans were hunter and gathers you moron. It sound like you're just spouting off shit you remembered from elementary school.

Nah. It seems like it would be something you'd be into buddy. They also love straw-manning anyone that doesn't agree with them. Either that or r/socialism.

Likewise, the desire to assume yourself in the role as family means the vast majority of humanity wants nothing to do with you either.

you'll get a much wider array of opinions on Holla Forums than Holla Forums

How can something be a spook that is physically manifested in one's DNA? The whole village raised the child because to a relatively high degree the whole village was related in at least someway, pure kinship.

But in a vast modern society these ties don't exist in the same way.

The Cinderella Effect speaks for itself.

No, the vast majority of humanity likes having a family and wants nothing to do with your hateful madness.

Yeah nothing could go wrong with depriving entire communities of children of love and affection could it?

LOL! Love is a spook. Try again.

If you contribute to family you are not immediately going to pretend you are like the rest of humanity, and will probably separate yourself into happy and unhappy families, as you are doing now.

Material things aren't spooks. Sharing genetic material with your forebears is an objective, material relation.

But your attachment to the immaterial, bourgeois "family unit" and the supposed relation itself is spooky as fucking shit.

Read Stirner.

Where did I mention hunter gatherers? I listed similarities in tools, transport and philosophy. Some tribes stayed in one area because it was a good place to grow the Three Sisters which were beans, corn and squash.

Educate yourself and learn how to argue.

This. Communism and the family unit are incompatible. That's like calling yourself a Communist but buying the newest phones and computers. LOL because I know some of you wannabe bitches do that.

I prefer the older extended family model to the nuclear one, I think that single mothers and fathers are harmful to children, but I don't hate single parents, just the material reality that produces them.

t. totally a real commie my fellow leftists :^)

How long did you wait outside the Apple store for that iphone comrade? Mommy and daddy must've been pleased to give you their credit card.

...

I'm not going to take advice from someone that couldn't even be bothered to read sources that challenge his world view. I'm done talking to you dumb ass. It's like talking to a brick wall.

I would tell you to educate yourself but it would be a waste. Enjoy your pitiful life larping as a revolutionary while me and the club are actually activists by guerrilla gardening, protesting and passing fliers.

Well this thread is full of trolls.

Not surprised.

Thanks

Too bad none of this autists will read it.

...

I buy my clothes 2nd hand. The only thing I bought new in 3 years was a pair of Tom's and that's because the soles of my Vans came apart. At least a poor African child got a pair of new shoes.

Always buy 2nd hand. My phone was bought off Craigslist and I use a prepaid plan and wifi from wherever I can find it.

You can't be a leftist and still feed porky money.

same to you buddy.

A lot of people are posers. They support Communism but can't live the life or even be bothered to read intelligent posts.

I think that a communist society would follow the doctrine of free love

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love

The institution of marriage is inherently exploitative

As much as I would love to be a father one day, the fact is, humans are biologically meant to have the same family structure as deer.

Females raise their children alone while males stay together in packs and only fuck women periodically.

The importance of having a father at home also does not help boys become alpha males. Older brothers and friends do. What matters is the age of the mother and father at birth.

The more economically independent women get, the more they move towards being a single mother. It's what they want, they hate husbands and dads.

Child rearing is a pragmatic endeavor and should be treated as one. Many people (of either sex) end up being single parents purely out of circumstance despite being personally responsible; it is reasonable to expect society to help fill in the gaps. After all it's not like extended families don't act as role models for kids, some people simply don't have one to lean back on.

If you want to live in a capitalist society without single parents, you're shit outta luck fam.

Extended family>>>nuclear family>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>shit>>>>>>>>single parent family

spooky

Single motherhood is women's choice. Why they do it I don't know, but it's somehow in their biology that if they are economically independent, they will want to raise kids alone.

Do they not want to be with a man, or do they not want to be with you?

I'm a kissless virgin so I can assure you no girls want to be with me.
Not the point though, since I'm not talking about women from my own life.

Complete bullshit. While more advanced cultures have varied family structures all hunter-gatherer societies across all cultures uniformly follow a nuclear family to extended family structure. We can infer from that that if anything this is what humans are "meant" to have.

that is depressing

Women have always been dependent on men though, that's the thing.

It is only recently that women have been able to be 100% independent in society, and even then it's hard. I would imagine if we had socialism, marriage would just fade away completely.

Extremely doubtful. Free love doesn't exist, even in pre-modern societies without marriage. There are always cultural taboos and expected norms regarding sexuality.

If you were economically independent, why would you want help financially? It makes sense.

B'awwwww :^(

except this creates autistic fuckwits who will end up shitposting on leftypol

It's a co-dependence. Among hunter-gatherers females bring back more calories through foraging than males through hunting.

Yeah it was the economic independence that did it.
Why aren't women private property? Because fucking commie ideology cucked America.

Well I don't know if that's true or not, but the point is, if a female tried to be independent from all others back then, it would just not work one way or another.

All I care about is if it is functional or not not what form it takes.

Not an argument.

It's spooky

Even without grand jewish reptilian conspiracy. Economically speaking heading into the future there is less than 0% of having a succecful family unless you're a porky, rendering it moot. It is suicide.

i agree, its far too likely that women will fuck you in divorce (~50%), or just leech off of you (women account for ~85% of household spending) while also getting to spend more time around your kids so they will be more loyal to your wife than you.

If you are rich than you can at least have a comfortable life as a divorcee and dont have to work your ass off to provide for your wife.

It's actually more likey you'll fuck someone without a condom and end up with both gonhorea from the women at your level and a baby that's somehow dumber than you that you have to pay college for

You need to stop politically fusing your motherly issues with your politics. But I'm not going to ask you to stop because you sound autistic as hell and it's funny.

ad hominem?

Is this a question or an instinctual growl of internet distress

This faggot is from Holla Forums

Same. I'm American but moved to a country(India) that thinks this way, too. From someone who had parents that gave up on me at age 12, there's something nice about being in a country that values the community. Not even just blood families, but strangers call you "brother, sister, uncle, aunt". I really like that.

In the US, it's too individualist, and selfish. Even your parents disown you or kick you out at age 18 or before. I like the community-based feel I get in this country, personally. I'm at a weird spot where I like traditionalism in this way(valuing community), but also value progressive values. For instance, if my SO was traditional, I would've never been able to date him.

Is there a good case study or example of this happening before? I'm genuinely interested in how this would work, realistically. Because with "everyone mating with everyone" it seems that jealousy would get in the way. But if it were the norm already, I wonder how that would be.

you started a debate then got offended when I answered (and actually agreed with you)

dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data/

census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf

nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/u-s--women-control-the-purse-strings.html

welfare (a thing endemic to capitalism) has made it so that women can extract resources from men through state power, even after divorcing him (or never even being married – through state-funded child support)

according to my intuition in a socialist / anarchist commune there would be no unfounded welfare, but would that get rid of this problem completely?

I pretty much agree.

...

actually chimps live in such a community and very few males actually get to mate. humans were somewhat similar in that the historical male to female reproductive ratio was around 1:2 (or sometimes under 1:10)

what is the material reality that produces single parents?

t. Not an argument guy

Holla Forums i see is predisposed to eliminating the family unit and replacing the communist state in its place.

Do you think a cabal of women all decided in a reading group for 50 shades of grey eating our sacred rite of ben n jerry's that we would work over the government to fuck everyone over

No it's because divorce is messy and men simply were the bread makers when said law was made. Which is honestly pretty sexist.

But I don't know how you plan to transition current culture away from the right to split up.

I honestly think all relationships are more about ownership and economy than they are about love, so I wouldn't ever be in one. Simply because the economic factors of having children today don't exist. There is literally nothing in the future but bullshit so even on a moral level, making a child struggle to exist in an uncertain dim future seems unnecessarily cruel.

Capitalism created the 50's nuclear family and now it will rip it apart for everyone but the rich in their gated McMansions

Capitalism sure helps. People value money more than physical relationships. Capital has become more useful for living than family. The main reason for divorce is money.

and the closer the parity of partnership with men and women approached to 1:1, the more advanced and culturally significant the society became. Whether that fact is a product or a precipitating event, I don't know.

...

No, the family is a hold over from capitalism and property ownership during the Baby Boom, where everyone wanted a white picket fence and a fiancé who would shut up, take little Jimmy to soccer, and say grace to the meal she made up, with plastic covers on the furniture to make sure they're clean.

It's interesting that baby boomers created this false pretense of natural existence, and now wonder under different circumstances in Capitalism why nobody would ever want that

The commodification of relationships turns people into ornaments and/or products to be consumed and discarded. Instead of viewing people as other individuals, people are conditioned to see others only as objects meant to fulfill their desires. This same sort of thing happens with retail workers. Often times they're dehumanized and mentally transformed into mere mechanisms for satisfying the customer.

This is only a single facet of the problem however.

Crock of shit. Western values don't account for Eastern, or Hispanic. What have you. There's no nature to this. The family was just a device of Capitalism to ensure real estate and consumerism.

But we see large family structures from centuries ago, even, predating capitalism. Maybe you mean the nuclear family? It's more of an isolation so it benefits capitalism more.

But I do see many arranged marriages in this country which are primarily business deals. The status is very important. It's a very interesting thing to see up close.

I'm talking when you think family Americana. Some ideal.

It's just as bullshit as the American Dream, and it's tied to the myth like a Siamese twin. The future is just going to continue to dissolve this version, there's no economic need.

But frankly, this is my own opinion. The future is fucked. On ten hundred different levels. Having children to grow up even more depressed than we currently are is such a cruel thing to do. I think the most devoted thing you can do for family, is to simply not participate anymore.

This appeal to a natural analogy serves no benefit other than to support your own pre-existing assertions on "human nature;" it is not a reliable foundation for your argument.

Correlation =/= Causation

Your scientific illiteracy is showing.

and "helps" in this case isn't a good thing. Maybe I should have reworded that.

I've gone back & forth on the idea of reproducing. After seeing how shit things can be, how hard it is to survive in a capitalist system if you're born into poverty, made me decide against it thus far. Not to mention overpopulation, already.

I think people naturally dont value relationships as much but in times of economic hardship (ie the whole of written and unwritten history) they had more motivation to stick together. now material conditions are better and they are free to leave.

the family is a "holdover" of the agricultural revolution, when farmers needed children to make sure that their farms were safe and taken care of and that they too were taken care for when their bodies eventually failed due to the labor and places like germany, france and britain after they banned slaves.
as well as religious institutions banning or looking down on polygamy.

yes because by and large eastern and hispanic (I assume you mean indigenous Americans, because spain was heavily christian and was pretty strict about it all for all except the super-elite, but that's true for any culture) and middle eastern countries didn't progress beyond that of middle eastern ideals. Yes the Chinese invented gunpowder and block printing but by the time they had any military interaction with western forces, they were incredibly technologically backwards because they had largely stalled after their 12th century inventions, same with the middle east and Indus people. There was no cultural Renaissance of the far east despite maybe the mongols finally collapsing, but that was outside pressure and not any form of internal development.

Defending colonialism as success is amusing because it ensures the opposite of success in the future. Its disasterous short sightedness and I don't really understand why it's a point of argument when it comes to the what have you about the American family.

And no, the nuclear family as we know it from the baby boom has little resemblance to past versions, vapid in their own way. The American Family as we like to idealize it is little more than the consumer faithful sentimentality we come to associate it with.

Now that we've been through that, and conditions are far different, what makes successive generations even responsible for upholding such an illogically costly ideal?

College is never going to be the same as it was, it costs a fortune, there is no college fund big enough. You are having children for the purpose of blessing them minimum wage in a ballooning population, extreme heat, and ever increasing booms and busts.

The family as we know it was just a trend.

they have not, the same as oil particles in a mixture of oil and water have not collectively decided to ascend, or the sugar you put in your tea to diffuse. There are physical (or societal if you will) reasons for the decline of families, just as Archimedes' law or diffusion accounts for the analogous phenomena.

Men being the bread winners is just as sexist against men, since they have to do the harder work. It kinda made sense before automation because taking care of the household without machines was not trivial, but in the 70s (i guess) from where no fault divorce originates it was massively disanvantageous for men to have to provide for their family and miss out on time with their children.

I agree that capitalism created the nuclear family through alienation from the community and wider family.

I honestly think it may be 50/50. Some are more independent & some are more communal. Some value being alone & some are clingy. I do think upbringing has a lot to do with this, too.

But yeah, family/community structure benefits us in survival.

Correlation CAN be causation though, and my logic is sound

There should be a word filter for "nuclear family" to The American Family™

You've got a lot to learn, young one.

You're starting to understand where I'm coming from, but you're assuming I'm calling men bad in this case. I'm not.

I'm saying it's unfair to both of us. It's unfair for mothers to literally give up life to be a single mom, something most women resisted but gave up to under overwhelming pressure from their parents to take advantage of the conditions; but just because it's not a job doesn't mean there is no labor involved. In the past, hell in the present, motherhood is a thankless job forced upon someone with no pay. Labor provided at home is free, as it should be, because breaking would tug at the emotions of both men and women of the era brainwashed into thinking this some sort of natural dance.

The baby boomer's were stuck in a place of economic growth and certainty however.

Mostly everything after Reagan has been taken from the American working class, which began in the 70's.

Supposing we all just act like our parents or grandparents at the cost of ourselves is becoming more and more obviously unfair, and there's no built in protection for its existence. So the white picket fence ideal drifts away like a ghost town. Both parties don't want it.

I think 70 years from now the family will be a much more communal thing, something where births aren't as common but when they are the community comes together around new blood. The isolation of families in urban sprawl by property is becoming as thin as the family itself.

Or I could be wrong. And this just drives us further apart into bitter individuality.

...

you know how I can tell you aren't a leftist

stirner pls

dohoho good one op

lmao, have a couple more from me

No thank YOU. Have them back

Nobody on Holla Forums is having a family.

Well, they might be stupid enough to try but they're digging their own finnancial and psychiatric graves so I wish them all the baby showers in the world.

I wonder what percentage will call their children cucks

your latter assertations are correct, but the family shouldn't be forced to suffer for the misgivings of a world on the edge of disaster. You don't blame a seed for trying to sprout under a volcano that's rumbling, it's doing what it needs to do.
whatever notion you have about the family being some kind of social construct doesn't matter because the alternatives just aren't as good. We see that with the black population in the US, the constant warring Bedouin tribes that have been and always will be warring in the middle east under pretenses of religion or what say you and the untenable racism and classism of the far east.
I don't think that the Nuclear family is a realistic, sustainable entity either, I'm much more inclined to believe that a single household for most of the extended family together is a much more realistic and economical solution. But now our elders, wives and children are given a subsidy to live an independent, antisocial life and it's only been a strain on our social cohesion. This antisocial behavior being cultured by these subsidies are being inundated further by the children of those people who receive these subsidies and as such are more antisocial, and engage in destructive behavior much more than those who have a full household.

I, in fact, blame the ideal of the nuclear family for leading us down the path of what we're currently on. No more Grandma or Grandpa, no you can't stay at home despite the fact you're not economically prepared to provide for yourself (Despite the fact that those who were reaching adulthood in the 50's and 60's had a much easier time achieving economic self sustainability) you've got welfare and housing aid!

I'll let my wife know that, infertile whore.

...

Well, aren't you just a catch?

Shouldn't you be spending time with her rather than insulting people/shitposting online?

We make jocular at posts like these together. My wife is sitting by my side right now.

hownu.ru

Cohesive traditional families, wether nuclear or extended, are quite possibly the single most important qualifier to a functional society.

Unfortunately leftypol, and a great deal of the politically active left, have daddy and mommy issues that make it's destruction a personally attractive prospect for them even if it means in the long term it would prevent the existence of a utopian worker's society.

ponyshit is still furryshit, if not a sub-genre

I think you're missing the point that the family itself as we've all come to describe it is a capitalist phenomenon. It has basis in traditionalism, but that wasn't that great either. This is just a warped consumerist dream of what maternity is, with all responsibility shouldered unequally and unfairly, from different conditions. And really the baby boomers could have just done what we're currently doing and realizing the irrationality, but the economic success they had lead them to falling for the trap of white picket real estate hook line and sinker.

We don't look to the past for what conditions we currently have in the present and future. How we adapt will be up to us, and we are currently seeing just how we're adapting.

We're dropping pretense for the past because what was possible then is simply fucking impossible now.

There is no Family Americana or anything near it because nobody has the money to raise a child to college and beyond that pay for their college. It's depressing, but reproduction right now means nothing more than promising your son or daughter will inherit a minimum wage job.

We simply have to adapt beyond what baby boomers did

You forgot the part where I wished you all the baby showers in the world.

By all means have six kids. You will soon realize you've made a big mistake.

……..

Having a static model of family in an economy is an oxymoron. You can't have both, you'll end up with a population that adapts to economic circumstances

It is all fecal, yes. Women is just a sub-genre of Man.

The mistake is yours, "comrade".

I mean biologically speaking it's vice versa. Women have a complete chromosome and men have a break. X and Y. So technically speaking if we were to argue human beings as sub genres it would be men.

But nobody wants to argue about that I think.

You just want to argue that because you are a progressive femme-fascist lesbian . . . 😸

You're not wrong about the shit situation, but it was the banks that pushed the "everyone should own their own house, come have a mortgage" meme. It wasn't a baseless appeal to tradition: it was an explosive (economic rebirth) that was given a catalyst (social engineering by the porkiest of porkies), resulting in the current expectation that everyone should have their own property. When really, traditional families were more like… well, tiny communes with 3 or more generations living in one building or a small enclave of closely related structures.

They pushed the perception of reality into unfounded idealism and reality is snapping back as our economic reality has been over-tightened.

Also because taking the dollar off the gold standard meant that our money became completely pretend, allowing money-handlers to effectively make up self-benefiting rules as they went. I don't actually know the common opinion of material-standardized currency around here.

How is it a mistake

How do you plan on funding your child's college as your value decreases every single second. By the time they're 20 and ready for college do you think it will be any better than it currently is?

It won't. This is how it stays. And it'll just get worse.

And what about their elderly life at the end of the 21st century? Shit will be right fucked.

I just don't understand it. Why do you think having kids is a good idea. I'm not being a mother out of cynicism, I'm not being a mother because it would be the right thing to do as a mother. I couldn't lie to my own child about everything being ok forever. Sooner or later they'll realize their existence was selfish, and I'd feel horrible frankly.

I'm not insulting you, I'm just asking your perspective on the matter. Why create a life if that life will spend most of it neurotic and depressed as an adult, in an ever fast paced world?

Without it you get modern China's older generation.

My my, what a clumsy little cretin art thou? Do you really think so little of me? As to be unable to then care for others? Provide for them? Protect them from this world?

Poo poo, your parents should have raised you better young missy.

Is it just me or are all the purple blacks just stereotypical political bull-lesbians?

This isn't the fault of individuals and there's no way to changed the economy to make it so it's consequences are simply erased. Capitalism has a choke hold on everything, it's unreasonable to suggest people don't adapt to a changing environment as best they can, and beyond that assume potential mothers will just go into sex work in America. Conditions in China and America are vastly different now and in the past.

I think what we're seeing is something new to Capitalism, and it's Capitalism informing population and how it grows, at least at this level where tradition warped isn't even a pretense. And Reaganite baby boomers are confused as hell as to why this is happening is ironic. The past is the past, just as always in Capitalism.

What happens in the future, I don't think we can look elsewhere to say. I think this phenomenon is new and may share traits, but it is nonetheless new.

Yes. Thinking anarchism meshes well with feminism is a special level of retarded that I'm surprised is tolerated here.

Don't bait me like this when I want to talk. It's rude

but the government subsidies are culturing a community that is increasingly antisocial, instead of a more social community like what you describe in the first place. In fact, Later generation baby boomers and the first of the gen X actually did see the same thing we saw, and instead of doing anything about it they increasing social spending MASSIVELY under pretty much every president after Lyndon Johnson. The adaptation that many took resulted in an unprecedented rate of divorce, single household children and further crusades of sexual liberation. The government didn't encourage the collusion of people in similar situations to help what could have been a community where responsibility shifted itself on all to help for all. It shifted it to have the government help them. Women were now sexually liberated, could extract wealth from their formerly married husband, while retaining the child in 80% of the cases to further extract resources both from the same man, but also the government. Housing programs for her, special housing and other resources because she had a child, tax writeoff because of her child, food allowances because of her low wage, an additional, separate food allowance because she had a kid, the social support of being a burdened individual and the instant gratification of a now sexually liberated, untied woman.
This is the case with how government programs have worked in every scenario, it just gets worse, not better. Only when the conditions get SO bad that the government can no longer provide them the same allowance that they were promised do these individuals (I said women because I was using a specific example, but there are of course broader fields to this and their situations are slightly different, but remain a similar trend) do they form communities to provide for themselves, oftentimes against the government's wishes when it does get to this point.
Subsidies, in a general rule, infantilize those who they're trying to help and promote a level of society antisocialism that cannot be matched even by the most cynical model of capitalism.

Don't bait me like this when I want to talk. It's rude

The "nuclear family" is a fairly recent concept, only becoming financially viable for most people in the 20th century. It's relative newness should tip you off that it's probably bullshit and does not fit with the natural order. It's also strongly pushed by the religious, which should be another hint. Before, children were raised not only by their parents but by the entire community. Hence the old proverb, "it takes a whole village to raise a child." All the way back to tribal society until the industrial revolution, this is how it was. If this were still the case today, there would be no such thing as "single parents."

The "nuclear family" is quite literally, a spook.

I just put it on because there's no strict feminist flag. And don't get your ass fucked by the idea of any feminist among leftists.

Im not so much an anarcha feminist as a leftist who really doesn't have much of a plan for the future. I think it's pointless to plan because everything is pretty fucked anyways.

I'm just discussing things from my perspective to hopefully make the subject less touchy. Not everything related to the topic is end goal permenant identity politics, rather, insight and critique of the present as it stands.

And which jewish-globalist university institution sent you here?

You clicked on the wrong board again, Hans.

Not him, but

I'm not even from around here, but I know this doesn't fly.

The Frankfurt School of course

You are correct. But framing it as "Jewish-globalist intelligentsia subversion" doesn't work either.

I never get how for a community so rooted in taking out the mass-market manipulating predatory vultures at the highest points of economy, Holla Forums as a whole refuses to acknowledge that almost all of them have big noses and racial victim complexes.

yeah we can tell you're new

And what does that achieve, exactly?

[citation needed]

Understanding a problem is the first step to solving it. That's all. I thought you guys would be more interested in finding out that there's an ethnocentric religion that denies basic humanity to anyone outside of it and explicitly condones porky activity of the worst sort towards them. It seem like everything up your alley. And yet… nothing. Or worse, backlash for pointing it out. You say you're anti-idpol, but then shout down anyone who targets a group that manages to be more idpol than Imperial Japan.

I'm not new. I'm just an occasional crossposter that shows up to talk with people I disagree with. I'm also several glasses of wine in, so forgive any grammatical clusterfucks. Also, I'm not xenophobic. I believe that countries would be better off with ethnically homogenous populations, but I don't wish ill on anyone. I want everyone to be happy, healthy, productive, and fulfilled. Diversity just isn't accomplishing that.

I'm not saying KYS but really KYS.

It's mostly a shitposting flag, but some have started to use it genuinely, recently. But I don't mind it because it offers a different viewpoint.

There was one who abused the hell out of it recently & they were finally banned for being insufferable & derailing every thread they were in. Discourse just wasn't possible, so I approve them banning that one.

This one is much better though, is coherent, offers an actual point of view & reasoning.

No, it's because you are knee deep in idpol. When you see a cockroach, you don't contemplate what type of cockroach it is you squish it. Also two of the biggest porkies in the U.S. the Koch's are both gentiles.

No you are xenophobic. You can try and frame it as something different than it is, or defend it - but you let it slip quite easily. You're drunk, at least be honest with yourself now.

no one ever said that faggot.

So, fight idpol with more idpol?

Also, what good does it do to acknowledge that if it's "almost" all of them? Unless it is in fact, all of them, what good does it do?

We already have a clear target, it's called the bourgeoisie. And it includes Jews, Christians, atheists, etc.

What?

The Code of Hammurabi, if that's what you're saying, isn't even from a time of real lasting Near East civilization, and it entirely differs upon region going eastward.

But that's besides the point you actually believe that marriage is the same now as it was in Babylonia.

You are also conveniently forgetting their contemporaries, Egypt. Who did not care. Or Europe for that matter, which also, did not care.

Please elaborate. We have much more in common with each other than differences.

Monogamy was the standard in Ancient Egypt.
And in the vast majority of Europe.

Not quoted but I haven't seen much from 'diversity' in my lifetime beyond seeing the prisons become 50% non-western, the welfare state tearing at the seams, the Left joining hands with the Neoliberal Right and the young completely turning against the unions and increasingly the left as a whole all over the issue of third-world immigration and the pseudo-moralizing surrounding it.
We're probably going to see the first Nationalist Conservative government in power since my grandparents generation as a result.

mfw I've accidentally derailed the thread

So noticing identifiable groups, even predatory groups with internally-recognized and thoroughly cognizant acceptance of predatory ideology whose stated and explicit goal is to milk you for everything you're worth, makes you guilty of "idpol"? Do you feel guilty for avoiding a hungry lion, too? This seems to be a kneejerk down-shouting, not a reasoned position.

Oh shit. I think I just made a case that the spontaneous reaction of "everything that detects a pattern in people is idpol" is a spook. I don't have enough wine for this.

And, no, really. I'm not xenophobic. Hell, I'm a race realist, even. But I have a zero-tolerance policy on trying to finangle the definition of human to exclude those unlike me. And as I said, I don't have ill will towards anyone for their race, even if it does slightly color some expectations of them.

True, the problem is everywhere. Jews are something of a unique situation, though. They're the only entity on the world stage that has managed to roll up their culture, religion, and ethnicity into a single meta-entity that can't really be separated from any other aspect of it. This is a kind of political circling of the wagons, because you can't attack one without them leaping on you for attacking all of it. They even got a special definition and set of laws setting Anti-Semitism as apart and doublebadwrong from regular racism in the UN. Saying "there's some fucked up stuff in the Talmud" immediately earns backlash on racial grounds. This is the real nuance of the term Anti-Semitism as a social and political weapon: it doesn't refer to anything in specific beyond "vaguely Jewish". Therefore you cannot criticize them at all without immediately being Literally Hitler, because one narrow critique immediately expands into accusations of wanting shoah another 6 million.

It's actually pretty clever. I'll give them that. Really top-tier social engineering. But it leads to the problem you described, where there's really only two answers: Them or Us. Because there may be conspiracies at the highest levels, but one of the greatest delivery mechanisms of this social engineering is the common man. Jewish religion and culture is intensely insular. I would go as far as describing it as tribalism. Jews only hiring other Jews and a Jewish dean accepting a wildly disproportionate amount of Jewish students is one comparatively mild problem, but the real, biggest problem is that good fucking luck finding a Jew that will say so. It's almost like mafia culture: you never tattle on the family. Add on a lifetime of "we barely survived!" propaganda from yet more of their own, and you breed a culture of indiscriminate internal support that rewards a lack of self-reflection as a society and pats you on the back for doing things that other cultures rightly turn their noses up at, as long as your target was outside the "family".

tl;dr It's a racial mafia with world-class PR and internal indoctrination.

No one cares faggot. I can do mental gymnastics and make assertion after assertion. Please go back to Holla Forums, post quality is already poor. If you don't understand why leftypol considers your Jew meme to be idpol you need to lurk moar.

It's also fucking hilarious that you're claiming to not be knee deep in idpol, and then turn around and sperg out about how "we will all function better if we're all one identity!". Just because you are on the other end of the spectrum, doesn't mean you're entire philosophy isn't right wing idpol.

Wait.. if that's the case then it's not an "identity". It's just the norm.

No, it's still an identity. You're talking about in the abstract to make it seem like it's not what it is (a characteristic of most right wing philosophy - abstractions to direct attention away from the particular). Non idpol is going, "we need to change the underlying mechanics of the system" and THEN worrying about superstructure.

What are you talking about?
I'm not right wing, I'm just posting in this thread, too. It was just a random question.

would you rather a child be raise by a single mother or nobody?

No, I gotcha. You want to change the system. I disagree with the change you want to make, therefore the problem I'm interested in solving is the corruption of the current one rather than a new one.

Okay. For the record, if I had it my way we'd be selectively breeding for sociability and intelligence in all races. I don't see races as permanently locked into what they are currently, just the current situation with supporting historical context. We have an exceptional ability in that we are self-improving machines, if we let ourselves be.

Okay? The economic spectrum is massive. They don't have to occupy every billionaire slot to not be a wildly disproportionate percentage of multi-millionaires, and with a particular focus in media. What difference does it make between 500 million and a billion? Where do you draw the line on acceptable vs unacceptable?

Ignoring that there's no way to verify this, I tend to see a lot here of what I witness when working for world-class programmers. There's a sort of savant thing going on, with a ton of book knowledge and basically no acknowledgment of practical application. No amount of theory or "lol read a book" will change that Communism has failed in just about every country it's ever been tried in. This is really my primary problem with instating it or any related system in the United States: by all means, have experimental colonies elsewhere or even cities within it, but don't go using an economic cornerstone of the planet to test something that is already known to be temperamental. Dabbling in centralized economic systems is a bit like rocketry of yestercentury: "A good rule for rocket experimenters to follow is this: always assume that it will explode." - Astronautics, issue 38, October 1937.

So even though I'm willing to lend ear to the idea that your concepts may, eventually, work, I'm still against applying them to the United States on principle. All the planet needs is one more "destabilized region".

And you're the perfect model of this, right?

Fuck no. I'm riddled with genetic defects. Being a 6'2" blonde-haired blue-eyed ubermench doesn't mean much in the face of peripheral neuropathy, a laundry list of allergies, and familial spinal deformation. I feel about eugenics largely the same way and for the same reasons as Hotwheels does.

I would be first to the plate for gene therapy, though. Imagine, an upgrade to yourself that you can literally pass on to your kids and therefore society as a whole. Now that's a long-term investment.

Many people just don't reproduce if they have these genetic predispositions.

Genetics is a good field, and improvements are welcome, but denying others freedom is where I draw the line.

I waa raised by a single mother. She never married, rarely had a boyfriend and worked her ass off so I'd have a good education.
I didn't need a father, and I'm sure there are fathers who make having a mother unnecessary.

I agree, but trying to find a middle ground of incentivisation without crossing into coercion is a really hazy place full of a lot of ideas and practically no data.

What's gene therapy worth to you? Probably too much for the government to be willing to subsidize it for anything but exceptional cases. I don't actually know what all it entails, but I suspect it'll be lengthy and uncomfortable.

And let's say you got the therapy and were a walking monument to mankind. What happens if you're given overwhelming incentive to have kids with somebody who has their own list of defects and hasn't had the therapy? It takes two to tango, so to speak. If you were government subsidized, do you have a genetic NDA that requires you to "breed true" with people of an acceptable genetic quality?

The problems of dystopian sci-fi are practically on our doorstep after a hundred years of hemming and hawing over what-ifs.

Also, sorry about this. it didn't sink in before i wrote back Is it bad/severe?

I honestly don't know much about gene therapy or what it entails. I didn't know it was possible to have a certain therapy that affects your genes. That would be awesome, though.

That's a big reason I'm against capitalism, the fact that only the rich have access to these treatments, etc. My father has hepatitis C & has needed treatment for years, but couldn't afford it. Whether you live or die should not be a business decision.

Personally, I think one should keep in mind the well being of their offpsring, before having them. If I do decide to have kids, I'm going to get genetic testing done first. I think it's wise to use the tools we have.

Yes. This is why you are knee deep in idpol. It's a problem of identity for you - "us verse them". You refuse to identity which aspects of our systems structure make abuse possible. You believe if the "right" identity is in power everything will all be okay. Try as you might to frame it as something else, you will fail every-time.

Here, have some graphs!

I draw the line when the person starts hiring workers to sell the product of their labour on the market, my point is that you're intellectually dishonest.

Lurk moar faggot, there are plenty of advocates of free market socialism and decentralized planning systems. There is a huge schism in Marxism between ML's and… everyone else. Grouping all of them into one homogenous blob called "communism" won't win you any arguments. Then again, you are a right winger and I'm beginning to think this is an inherent aspect of your thought process.

You wouldn't be able to tell something's wrong at a glance with me, but you might notice I walk slightly hunched. It's always painful, and I've taken to using a cane lately in spite of not being out of my 20s. It helps take the pressure off it while walking. I appreciate you asking. Thanks. My younger brother is much worse; scoliosis and kyphosis so bad the doc who worked on him wrote a paper about him. He got all done up with titanium rods a few years ago; got a nice 3' scar for it.

Gene therapy is an emerging technology. There's a lot of red tape, legal and social, but that's not stopping China. They're gonna bypass us in genetic research imminently if they haven't already. And yeah, health being a business decision is bullshit. I mean, I understand the reason. But it's a brutish enough unpleasantry that I can't help but think we can do better, as a society. I know I'm a filthy capitalist pig, but I do believe in a strong infrastructual safety net for health. Executing such a system is a feat, as we're learning, but it does need to be done. I was the target demographic of Obamacare. I can tell you first hand it was garbage.

The only identity I believe not having power is predators. Whatever group places themselves in that position, that's on them. We as a civilization have fought ethnic mafias before. There's nothing special about there being a Jewish one outside of the exceptional scale of it.

You would outlaw having employees?

All the schisms don't matter: none of them have been proven to work, and that makes them unsafe experiments to have in a major world power. Go do it on some island nation or in South African failed state. You don't seem to get that having America functioning, corrupt as it is, is a safety net for projects like yours. Not having it would be dangerous. Cutting it up as the experiment is unthinkable.

I'm starting to think rage is one of yours.

It's been lovely, Holla Forums, but it's almost 3am on the Eastern Seaboard, and I need to de-fuck my sleep schedule in time for my filthy capitalist conditional employment for fiat currency compensation agreement come Monday. Goodnight, one and all.

Nice anecdote faggot, way to disregard my whole post. I was referring to your "I want an ethnically homogenous population - no I'm not knee deep in idpol" hypocrisy. This manifest in your opinions on economics, but is certainly not exclusive to it.

Are you dense? What do you think "collectivize the means of production". I don't want to have X ethnic group in charge of me, I want to structurally change the system so NO ethnic group can have a monopoly on the means of production.

How many do you think have been tried? ML is the only one that was tried wide scale, making assertions about something not working when it hasn't been tried is nonsense. There are a plethora of reasons 20th century socialism went the way it did, you can't all boil it down to some fatal flaw common to widely divergent theories when you can't even point out what that is.

not an argument

yes

there you have it folks

You already do. It's called public brainwashing schooling system.

Like people have a choice in this

That literally is anti-science

...

I literally do not see one person in support of the family unit ITT

Actually, there is one, and it's the fucking nazi

I know how alt-right loves to talk about family, but do they actually have a family?

see

also everyone arguing with that guy who wants children raised by a beaureaucrat.
and me.

Bullshit nigger, any attempt to define someone being forced upon themselves by outside factors is an intrusive spook and attempt to control them. The individual is a unique nothing not to be defined by outside factors, but to create and dissolve themselves.

Stirner himself wrote his father created him, but has no relationship to him, "Their flesh is not my flesh, their mind is not my mind

This Stirner meme is bullshit. You can pick and choose what you want to argue then ignore the rest with your fingers in your ear screaming LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

Stirner was shit. He was an impractical mental masturbator who got cucked.

Identity is the biggest spook of all you

It sounds like you're just a mental cuck that let's other people define and do the thinking for him.

Stay mad, my property.

Not an argument

Back to >>>Holla Forums with you!

Your reply is a spook.

Things that objectively exist aren't spooks dummy.

Read Stirner.

By defining me as a mental cuck, that is a spook. Mental cucks do not objectively exist but it is subjective since that is your opinion. Therefore your reply is a spook.

Objective things aren't spooks dummy.

You should really just stop embarrassing yourself and read Stirner.

Reread it again. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. That statement is not a spook because anyone who sees my previous comment will agree you're wrong.

Congrats on being a retard.

...

That statement is a spook.

Objective things can't be spooks dummy.

It's hilarious how you can't grasp such a simple concept.

Has no one here actually read "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" or "Women and Economics" or "The Dialectic of Sex" or essays from Eleanor Marx and Dora Montefiore or… like, any Marxist feminist literature at all? The superexploitation of women under capitalism's nuclear family must be abolished, because women hold up half the sky.

Insults are not objective. Both your insults were subjective. Go back to my comment and reread it. The fact you still haven't is proof your reading comprehension is terrible. Which is objective. Which is not a spook but truth from me.

Thanks for playing :^)

Wow so romantic

Who honestly cares? It's women's problem

/thread

Is there a single major figure in socialist/anarchist/marxist thought/practice that had a healthy relationship with both their parents?

It's kinda funny how almost every backstory boils down to "[person] had a distant, abusive father and an overbearing mother with possible undiagnosed mental issues"

Mao declared that "women hold up half the sky" because he knew that having the support of women could only help the revolution. At the time, women had little materialist cause to engage in socialist revolution - revolutions were fought by men and only addressed men's problems. After all, owning the means of production does little to help women who are being exploited for unpaid domestic labor and the reproduction of labor. Engels described the situation very well in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"

Simply ignoring half of the population cut your potential mass movement in half. By ignoring things that are just women's problems, we will always fail to make the case for a socialist revolution to women.

Therefore, women's problems are everyone's problems. If the revolution doesn't destroy the nuclear family, women have little to gain from it.

You said the reply was a spook, dummy. Even beyond that, immaterial observations that describe objective facts aren't spooks.

What a complete and utter embarrassment of a person you are.

Someone get these Holla Forumstards some books.

And you're calling me a poltard. Like I said thanks for playing! :^)

Seems like a fun time. Not soul crushing or anything

Pretty much everything Holla Forums says can be dismantled by asking "Yeah, but why?" a couple of times.
They inevitably point to the authority figure they worship at the time or an asinine infographic/unreliable source.
And that is when they don't directly project you into whatever boogieman their surrogate daddies told them about last night.

Family organization is very much dependent on material conditions, the left seeks to drastically alter the material conditions of most human beings. Sure ,you might be able to find studies that point to the benefits or detriments of different family organizations in particular environments a-plenty, but bear in mind they are largely a measure of how well they do *within* variations of capitalism.

Besides all that… What the fuck do I care about how others decide to organize their families?
It seems to me that "the family issue" is , to the Holla Forumsacks ,just another political bullet point to herd them around, defining enemies and allies for the benefit of whatever politico herds them today.

Children almost always do better than 2 parents but it doesn't necessarily mean they can't do okay with alternate arrangements. I support all sorts of pro-fertility policies in so far as they help maintain a replacement level TFR, but I don't really see the need to put so much stress on nuclear families since the vast majority of people are already inclined to form them. The intended fertility rate is enough above replacement currently, it's just that people don't have the material means necessary to raise families. The only solution is improving conditions for the working class through changing the structure of economic relations a la leftism

People could have up to 70 spouses. The Pharoh? Who wasn't on that dick south of the nile or north of the nile or east or west of the nile

At the same time Gauls were fucking goats and biting each other. South in the mediteranian it's not like monogamy was law either. it's safe to say you have a very Disney-sequel view of ancient history

I cant be a dad in communism?

You can't be a dad today fam. Or, I mean you could, but you'd be right fucked by a bunch of your kid's nightmare future college debt and having your wallet perpetually fucked by a house payment.

The white picket fence was worth it though.

I don't need a fence, i just have to maintain reasonable expectations and not spend on frivolous shit. Only want one kid though, probably adopted.

What future are you promising this child going on into adulthood

Even the upper middle class will be poor as shit in 2074

Well, whether or not I'm alive by 2074, there will certainly be children today who are adults then. May as well adopt a qt, ensure happy childhood memories and instill a hatred for the bourgeois.

I'd just rather not propagate any more late capitalist half lives of constantly having to tell yourself that in the end everything works out because the people in charge know what they're doing. I mean it shows

Most importantly of all though, unless I'm getting paid good, poop cleaning will never be on my resume