Should the nuclear family be eradicated?

Why?

I'm not the one who first made this argument about family and property, actually.

Forcing the eradication of the nuclear family is a mistake and actually isolates people more so. Large families that are very much connected allows for people to be social and active within themselves and others such as friends of the family. The destruction of such a structure creates anti-social behavior as the mind set of children having parents walk out on them or being abandon develops a mindset that they are on their own and shouldn't trust anyone.

It's just easier to maintain. Also the extended family has existed long before capitalism. Poly proto-harems not so much.

(you)
sigh

Is the extended family nuclear though? I was under the impression it referred to more isolated family units consisting of male, female, and off-spring.

Fuck.

Nuclear family is not enough family. We should encourage as much as possible to maintain extended familial relationships. Good extended families act communally, anyway.

No. The nuclear family is comprised of two things: the parents and their children. There are no other members of the nuclear family household. Capitalism constructed the idea of the nuclear family in order to encourage home "ownership" or renting out a place so you don't have to live with your parents.

Ok then, wouldn't this deteriorate under socialism? Not so much in the sense that there would be no more parents living with children, but rather seeing the community as a family as opposed to a collection of isolated family units.

...

More like we become one big happy extended family.

I hate to say it. And once again, everyone will be fucking offended

But Asian parents and white parents are on two entirely different levels. The more desperate for their child to succeed in life, the more regimented.

My parents rarely argued, in fact they were pretty quiet most of the time.

As opposed to some dysfunctional near divorce subrubanite I think I came out the end of it all doing p well for myself all things considered.

I disagree that everyone who questions something must have a bad mum or a bad dad, because clearly, you probably did. And so did everyone on Holla Forums, with that specific type of liberal parenting that lets you get addicted to loli at 14 and spam nigger on the internet in high school.

Every child has a right to feel wanted and accepted. I don't see why eliminating a social structure that deprives them of this is a bad thing.

How did your dad feel about me burning down your mum's village in bed.

The only people I've ever seen advocate for this shit are gay/trans/feminist types that really just hate everything around them.

I'm not anti-any-of-those things either, but the ones that are incredibly antagonistic toward anything they consider "heteronormative" really get on my fuckin' nerves

Capitalism and the wage stagnation of the last 50 years is already doing a good enough job at obliterating it.

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having 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.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

...

0/10

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02.htm

Can someone please explain this line to me? I have always been kind of creeped out by it.

It means we're going to pool all women together and stick our dick in this pool as we please.

What else could it possibly mean?

Women can fuck around and men have to deal with it. Honestly, I can't wait for sexbots. That way I don't have to invest emotionally in 3DPD.

...

Yes

Enforced femdom matriarchy now!

fuck the family, eat the children.

Seriously though it only means that marriage isn't a strict bound and there are no particular social or legal responsibilities (like spreading legs when the man feels like it), but also more importantly no economic dependency either.
He's refering to the bourgeoise that fuck each other wifes and also fuck those of the workers, literally and figuratively as work slaves.
So, the solution he's proposing is liberation of women as described before.
Kinda what this guy said but also pretty much what was well established in former socialist states.

designated shitting thread

Oh Ok thank. That makes sense. I always forget that marital rape was a thing in lots of western countries back in the day. Sounded like he was trying to argue in favor of state sanctioned mandatory orgies or something dumb like that.

time to off myself

harr harr harr!

Are you saying this is wrong? Isn't anarchism by definition lack of hierarchy and coercion in personal matters?

complete neoliberal "free" market capitalism
we need to get costs of living down as low as possible, and wages as low as possible. Have fun raising kids when you live in a shipping container and your water is poison!
stupid commies, I'll be rich someday.

I see you say Nuclear Family, and I can only think about one thing.

basically, women in communities can help each other with household labor and child-care
it doesn't mean family is abolished, or that children wouldn't have a primary relationship with their parents, but a small town or city would have a less atomized individual and by extension less atomized parents

...

...

It means that women will be able to freely associate rather than being bound as housewives. KIM this was back when the cult of domesticity was a big thing.

dunno if this is b8 or if you're retarded and have never actually read trotsky

Sounds like terrorism or neanderthal ape-like warfare.