Is Marxism the destruction of the traditional family unit? (Honest question)

The traditional family is different from region to region and time period.

It's meaningless if it doesn't conform to material circumstances.

For all your attempts, most people just don't like being polyqueerfryinpangenderkin forming a family with their two meth addicted uncles.

Where the fuck did I even suggest anything you just said. Jesus Christ lmfao

It's kiddos who spent a summer in a hippy commune doing drugs and swapping girlfriends in orgies thinking it's a sustainable form for organization of society as a whole.

Nothing more, nothing else.

Marx was against Upper class arranged marriages for economic gains, he himself has a traditional family

Butthurt virgin detected

No, it's actually suggesting that property value will both create and destroy family based upon economy. If both correlate, both are equally unstable.

It's just common sense.

Fucking straw men that aren't even related to the topic at hand is why nobody here ever takes you seriously

You'll learn to like it or you'll learn to like your new husbands in gulag

It doesn't go without saying in these parts.

Oh well, at least there will be plenty of food in your gulag to prevent me from acquiring thin muh privilege.

So long as he's a /cuteboy/

Possibly, but anything that doesn't explicitly espouse family values can used to be.
Treat it as a valid if quite flawed economic theory then no.
Treat it as a religious way of life then maybe.

It actually does because it is going away because of the market itself, which in turn created it during the baby boom as real estate marketing.

What comes up must come down etc

You'll see, ironically, the "traditional family" go up in flames for what was more, something that happened in more often in the past

Besides, values that are "traditional" in family contradict how people act in reality in economy. It's why divorce rates are up, and not "women" as a whole.

Economic rule and family you want go together just as much as community does, that is to say, nada

It's been around for how long, more than a 1000 years now?

I don't see that invisible hand ripping it apart anytime soon.

I don't understand this sentence.

Pttttffffff. Shit has changed drastically in order to make it the way it fucking is.

It's like comparing a sandwich of the time to a burger in the present. Not that there is inherent quality in either, that people want to consume today.

The traditional family is cursed with baby boomer sentimentality to reality that isn't there, not actual "tradition".

The west arguing tradition based on capitalism is laughable

Oh boy, another know nothing talking shit

You'll see more people avoid having children in economic conditions not viable for it. In every sense of the word, we are seeing a reversal of baby boomer trends.

traditional famalam is spook but if you insist, it is capitalism that has forced women to enter the workplace at numbers before unseen, undercut men's labor,forcing many men to be underemployed and thus not breadwinners

No, but a significant number of marxists have mommy & daddy issues and project those onto their politics.

Two people marry, they have children, they form a household.. not exactly a boomer invention, it's been around before capitalism.

Neither was this any different in the socialist eastern block.

People in dire economic conditions tend to have more children, there is a steady correlation between increasing wealth and declining fertility.

That's not the problem ripping it apart.

Real Estate is. Family based upon owning a house in a suburb is not and never will be a good idea, but you will see it continue up until its gone.

You're ignoring the middle man, the man who sells you the house. If you eliminate that, sure.

But taking it into consideration is when you begin to realize how much of a scam the idea of a household even is under Capital.

My god how do you get this stupid to think economic trends don't effect "the family"

...

If you boil it down, every single man here is so separated from women that one wonders how Man A could insult Man B on what unreasonable and unrealistic idea they have about women is unrealistic

This could go on forever, we're deep in the internet at this point.

You are thinking of capitalism.

When both parents have to work to keep the children alive the family for all intents and purposes ceases to exist.

Why do people discuss anything without at least skim-reading fucking Wikipedia or some shit?

It does not require owning a house, unless you're referring to a generalization of particularities of the traditional family as it existed in the 60's, but I never referred to that in the first place.

No, I really don't.

I just don't see capitalism as the ghost in the machine of everything, never have I see any convincing evidence for it, only statements declaring it brute fact, it's nearly always backed up by ad hoc shoehorning and can only explain it's exception through contortions.>>1095380

Enough femshit posting this day.

Congratulations, you're getting warmer in this game of hot and cold. Or blind sentiment to economic reality.

It's simply what most people have in regards to the family, what you believe is largely irrelevant to the greater picture here..

I know you don't understand how economic interest and community interest are not compatible.

Economic conditions are not vast conspiracies, they're economic conditions that shape pattern.

What most people have doesn't make it a necessity for a traditional family. My point is that traditional families exist(ed) regardless of home ownership rates, citing it as usual doesn't prove it as necessity.

I like how you frame your generalized statements as if you were citing brute facts and then put "I know you don't understand how" in front of them.

Economy does stuff with things without requiring a secret cabal that sets out every move, I know. How does this gives credence to any particular claim of "it's capitalism/capitalism will do such", I don't.

But what most people have is what most people want, and what most people, their parents, in the past had, has a notion of sentiment to it. That sentiment is what you believe the traditional family is.

I never suggested it straight up went away, just that more people will be single then the baby boom.

Which is honestly just as much death of the family unit as world war II was, as the great depression was.

Or any long economic and stressful down time. It doesn't so much suggest that the "traditional family" stopped existing as, if it stops existing at certain points of time you can find out what it actually is, and how capitalism effects it.

It turns out, as we see post-world war II, greater economic turns produces more families, which suggests that it is more rooted in Capital and market trends then you really think it is.

"Family" does not exist in a vacuum.

Because you just aren't getting the simple idea the nuclear family is informed by tradition either, that tradition must be more than 6 decades old. Even four will do.

Note: I never suggested any sort of cabal

What I see as the traditional family is not the set of particularities characterizing the families of my parents generation, it's not merely it's own period stereotype.

Which doesn't explain why different cultures in similar economic circumstances have different family structures.

You don't so much as find out how capitalism effects it, you've taken capitalism as it's shaping force as an a priori and reason from there.

While people being able to move out of their parents home certainly ads to the creation of new households, I don't see how this roots the family itself in Capital, unless you take Capital as the big whole to which it all belongs by definition.

One of the most fundamental hypocrisies I see in Leftist thought is it's advocacy for Abortion, when such a practice hurts the proletariat more than any other single policy I can think of.

The nuclear family as traditional is horseshit, it's basically the bare minimum required to fill the needs of a small number of children and is often not enough help to properly rear them. Families can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and there is nothing unnatural about it.

And no, it is not code word for gay adoption, Holla Forums

I don't see how everyone isn't informed by it, or how you as an individual matter in this argument when most people don't read this deeply into the way they feel.

If Capitalism shapes a phenomenon to only exist when it is healthy, and when said thing exists it helps market itself into consumerism, when it's nailed home even in entertainment which benefits from the former

Tradition resembles tradition in so much of a skin deep analysis. New tradition that looks like itself takes hold.

If Capitalism can make families exist or not, it starts to become clear that what I said is literally true.

Capitalism makes families - Capitalism destroys families it creates

k hol up

you are a social darwinist that ideologically endorses artificial selection in humans

and wants nonwhites to have less babies

but you think abortion is bad

That's because you don't think.

I just use the swastika to signal i'm from Holla Forums
i'm not actually Nazi

alright but still, explain

I don't think you know what you are

Because it's us who are having the argument and because the sentimentality around a thing is not the thing itself.

Economic circumstances have effect on relationships and said relationships play a role in the economy. This is a truism that doesn't lead to the conclusion that capitalism is the sole shaping force of the family.

I'm not sure what you mean with this, I'm assuming it's supposed to convey the image of traditionalist yearning as based in a past that never existed, I agree that this often the case, though I don't see the relevance of mentioning it as point.

Your tendency for cryptic monologue isn't very helpful.

The C giveth, and the C taketh away.

There's a sentimental familiarity in this vision of people as pure subjects with religion that doesn't strike me as coincidental.

More than that, they determine the limits to which a family can extend, the necessity to extend to a certain size, how much time parents and other care-givers are able to expend in childcare, where a family will be able to live, what they will be able to eat, who in the unit will be required to produce income, and how necessary labor will be divided between individual members.

A family is entirely an economic unit. Its structure is almost entirely determined by economic necessity, because it would constitute a tremendous hardship for a family to adopt a structure beyond its economic necessity. An agrarian extended family needs to produce children in abundance or face destruction. A nuclear family needs to be able to take in a large income with a relatively small expenditure of labor time, or it will fracture. The family is economics.