Communal child raising

Common knowledge like facts such as physics, human behavior, sociology etc

Which is far different from "dis is bad, Dis is good, be good cuz muh morality, fuck sense, be good boy"

Tbh, I think that's what the education system is turning into, it's just that most of the costs fall into the parent(s). Though most schools are essentially training grounds for children to enter capitalism and are still mostly running on the 19th century models.

It's hardly communal considering it's run either by the state or a private company.And in a Socialist society we wouldn't have people needing to be capitalist drones

I know 'human nature' is a meme but I think it is genuinely human nature to find this repulsive, even if it would be logical to abolish familial ties. Mothers would go mental if someone tried to take their babies.

Family is a spook

The 'muh human nature' meme is more to do with libbies saying socialism cant work because people are competitive and don't work together or are too greedy to be in a collective.I don't think here that the obvious Darwinism of mother being attached to their babies is being refuted,however perhaps if we fetishised motherhood less and individual family units less for a greater whole communal unit then there would be less push back than men with guns storming in to take a baby.

Apprenticeship is definitely something that I think should make a resurgence.

I guess what I was imagining was under communism people would spend their abundant free time doing productive things. Naturally not all of those things would be appropriate for children for one reason or another (I don't think it would be smart to let a child hang around while Uncle John is welding equipment for the commune or whatever), but while they're with adults doing this or that kind of thing, learning an instrument for instance, including the child when possible to at least expose them to these different activities, interests, and skills. In the US for example, whole families used to learn music–singing, the fiddle, piano, banjo, all kinds of things. Music wasn't just something to be consumed, but a creative activity for the whole family to partake in.

Maybe it's just kind of a half formed idea in my mind, but I've been trying to think about this sort of thing as well as my friends get married and have kids.

On the one hand, I don't think it's possible to completely do away with the imposed hierarchy. It definitely doesn't need to be as authoritarian as some parenting is now, but sometimes kids really don't know what's good for them and they need to have order imposed on them. I'd definitely like to see the proprietary mindset toward children disappear though.

Is it? For much of human history children are more of a burden than a boon, however necessary. Especially among the upper classes. Raising kids was something the poors did. And then you have societies like the steppe peoples of Asia, the Mongols in particular, who sent their kids away to other families as young as seven or eight.

How did the Spartan women handle it? I think their children left for the barrack life even younger, but I might be mistaken. And yeah, it isn't quite the same as taking a newborn straight from a mother's arms, but like I said, I think the general feeling post birth for the majority of families throughout history was relief if both mother and baby were okay at all since it was so dangerous. After that though, unless its the heir to some wealthy piece of real estate, it's just another mouth to feed.

Oh, you're talking about uncommon, academic knowledge.
The overwhelming majority of "knowledge" commonly known by people is just a series of subjective opinions and incorrect assumptions.

Even among the subset of knowledge published in peer-reviewed journals, a significant percentage has or will end up being disproved. For instance it was common knowledge that smoking was harmless and anyone who disagreed was just a conspiracy nut.

I would say that a plurality of opinions is essential for rapid progress as a society. We need people investigating the unlikely avenues just as much as we need people investigating the obvious ones.

I dislike communal child raising because it can encourage single motherhood which is bad since under capitalism it produces socially maladapted people. I like communal parenting arrangments within extended family however.

This thread makes leftism look like a freak show.

No wonder Americans are gravitating towards the right.

It's dumb, they did tried this 1968, they gave several groups of 3-5 men and women two children to raise. It failed hard, since nobody paid much attention to the child in the end.

Most people here have never had children of their own, but if you actually have your own you will realize you have an extremely strong bond with them that trumps pretty much anything else.

Some people are shit parents and they shouldn't be allowed to take care of children, but most people do an at least half way decent job.

It's mostly just a pipedream for single mom activists. No one actually wants to get stuck in that situation.

Essential. Can't tell you how often I would have left my family behind if I could have.

People will naturally form communities when capitalism stops alienating them (they already kind of do right now). The whole community should be responsible for the kids. Everyone has free association, including kids. If they have good, nurturing parents the kids will want to stick around with them. If not they'll use the free public transportation and internet to find a better home elsewhere. Public housing and free food means they can travel without worries as well. They can settle down and take up education or work (if they're mature enough) wherever they land. There really wouldn't be that much difference between what kids are allowed to do and what adults are allowed to do. That's how it used to be before adulthood was codified as something that happens when you turn 18 instead of something that each person grows into individually.

Only if the child consents. In infancy and early childhood, this is pretty much a given barring child abuse. Since communities should be more open, that would be easier to notice though.

I can relate. Dad's a narcissist. Mom's an enabler. They can't handle relationships with other adults, much less kids.
Lucky motherfucker. Their whole families are fucked up, and I got helicoptered. Had to figure shit out for myself.
It's also how human society has functioned for almost its entirety.

Nope. People form special bonds with other people who work well with them. I have a couple of friends, one I knew for several years before either of us met the other one. The two of them are much closer than I am to either, just because their personalities mesh that way. That has nothing to do with being a relative. From personal experience, I get along with kids really well. They seem to just like me more than most adults; I would guess it's because I actually listen to them and don't treat them like retards. Someone who's good with kids would have more kids gravitate toward them. It's like leadership, people know it when they see it and like to associate with it.

To be honest I think it's time we as a species eat a slice of humble pie and realize we're not some wise masters who will pass knowledge onto the next generation. New generations will (hopefully) have access to more information at a faster pace than before. The best any "older" generation can offer person-to-person is advice and suggestions. The younger people will always outpace the older ones (I say this as a 24 year old).
Kids would just do their thing. They'd interact with other kids, with adults, with geriatrics, with babies, with animals at their discretion. Kids absolutely fucking love to learn and if you give them the freedom to pursue whatever they want they'll go do what they need to. I'll point out, it's not like this happens right out of mommy's twat. It takes a few years before a kid has the mental independence to handle this stuff, think kindergarten age or so.
Fuck no. No more than heterosexual intercourse should be an obligation to gays. It's an important part of society that not everyone has to participate in.

Not to mention it results in a permanent drop in Autism Level in the parent(s). The nuclear family dumbs down the working class (bourgeoisie can just hire nannies).

Wow, it sounds almost like they tested communal child rearing with a bunch of people that weren't culturally adapted to the practice. Weird!

Hunter-gatherer societies communally raise children all the time. It's how humans were raised for most of our history.

the 'le human nature is a spook' meme really needs to fucking die. It leads to completely retarded garbage like this

spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html

'hunter-gatherers' aren't a homogenous group you fucking mong.

There's no evidence to suggest that humans were raised 'communally' throughout most of history since we don't have records. Most children still have social contact outside of their parents, like at day care, schools and other family.

cultural adaption is an excuse, everyone fujcking knows you needs to feed a child regularly and give it affection.

Here's my read of the situation
Irksome tbh famalam.

yes because raging because children aren't praying to the lord jaysus and a fucking flag in schools is much more rational

The only mong here is the dipshit that believes in spooky bullshit like human nature and bases his knowledge of human development on his feelings and tabloid articles. Read a book you insipid dipshit.

Why are anarkiddies always the ones who want to fuck with basic pre-capitalist institutions like the family? Have an argument with dad over the dishes or something?

Der Spiegel isn't a tabloid but okay. You haven't come up with any sources at all.

It seems to mainly just be the "human nature is a spook" memetards who genuinely believe that there's no optimal way to raise a happy human.

postmodernism is genuinely the worst thing that happened to the left after tankies

I think the parental unit with support from the community is best and will probably be most common. Capitalism has largely eroded the latter and is starting to erode the former.

...

"Spook" should filter to "meme".

Nothing could go wrong with this.

But no, my great grandfather was a drunk and a deadbeat I guess, so my grandfather left home around 10. He hitchhiked across Depression-era America, finding work where he could and taking care of himself.

Pretty much. If you were old enough to walk you were old enough to work. Ideally we wouldn't revert to that, but

Ouch. I dated a girl once whose mother was and I guess it really fucked her up. Took her forever to get past it.

Yeah, history is replete with examples of families turning on each other or otherwise just not giving a fuck. Somehow this magical and eternal Family connection somehow fails {*[:^)

For my part I think you have family you're born to and family you choose.

I agree

>Professor Tromovitch and the psychologist Bruce Rind (of Temple University) in 1998 published an article based on a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of 59 studies which used the self-reported experiences of child sexual contact with adults by 35,703 college students. A substantial percentage of the people in this study did not report any harmful effects of (non-coercive) sexual experiences (as opposed to victims of coercion), and a substantial minority even stated these intergenerational sexual contacts and relationships had a positive effect on their life. This article was published in the Psychological Bulletin, the prestigious, official journal of the American Psychological Association (APA). Predictably, this caused a storm in the mass media and in the political elite. Apparently for the first time in US history, both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate condemned a scientific paper and threatened to withdraw funding from the APA, so the APA apologised for publishing this study. 12 past and present presidents of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex sharply protested against the APA's response to the public and political pressure surrounding the study, stating that it "cast a chill on all such research". The American Association for the Advancement of Science refused APA's request to review the study, stating they saw "no reason to second-guess the process of peer review used by the APA journal in its decision to publish" and that they "saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article's authors". See also this study - link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-002-1001-3 More recently, the Harvard lecturer Susan Clancy came to the similar conclusions in her book "The Trauma Myth", although she rejected the Rind et al.'s conclusion that adult-child sexual relations are not necessarily abusive.

Sometimes it's worth it to read the comments.

Having actual parents for every child but also a large community of people where the children interact freely and everyone takes part in raising the children is the best balance

Nothing more than people being able to bring a life into the world and exert control over it with near impunity.

It's not like we'd be hurting for labor in this hypothetical society. If a little kid can work, wants to work, and the work doesn't cause health problems I don't care if they work.

It's extra fun when they're probably literally autistic and obviously repressed gay.

There's a reason why "ragtag band of heroes" is such a popular story element. One thing that makes humans stand out from other species is our ability to cooperate with people we're not related to.

i'm_a_centrist.png

(OP)
It's the only way to guarantee individual freedom.

The best way to teach children social/moral values is through social role models not by imposing it on them, unless you want a fake mindless drone and not a free and honest individual. As for formal education of children, it should first focus on practical skills, so they can work as soon as possible and academic knowledge later if they want to.

All of this.

Which is more of a reason to go against it. Nature sucks, if we want to create a better society we have to surpass nature.

Nope, I am statist as fuck because I know that only a powerful State can protect children from their parents. Also the fact that it's a pre-capitalist institution only makes it an even more traditional oppressive institution.

You wouldn't continue to live with someone that you didn't get along with and/or disliked. Then why the double-standard towards blood-related people? People should be free to associate with whomever they want regardless of their age.

t. slave that forgot how it felt like to be a child constantly submitted to adults.

I completely agree, but you can't get everyone to follow rolemodels if the only rolemodels you pick are complete normalfags. When people realize they are fundamentally different from their friends, they look for rolemodels like themselves. If there aren't any, it doesn't work.

its cool if everyone is friends and knows each other well, not cool at all if its done in a statist commie society with pedos and creepy misanthropes handling children through bureacracies. also children should still live with parents, but spend a lot of time with the community. taking them away at birth is evil and anti-human

Oh so this is the daily stealth pedo thread then. Carry on.

Not really sure what you mean by "normalfags". Also rolemodels don't need to be real, they can be fictional characters.

The only thing the State would do is ensure children do whatever they want and protect them from people who want to violate their freedom. As for sexual harassment and rape of children: the reason why this exists is because children are conditioned to view adults as superior to them so they find it difficult to refuse unwanted sexual advances. By treating them like adults, letting them do what they want to do and not submit to adults and letting them carry firearms to defend themselves, this would stop being an issue.

If they want to.

Read above.

Holla Forums's desire to dismantle the family unit is one of the biggest reasons you'll never go beyond a tiny fringe movement.

It is common for the same people who talk about providing good rolemodels to want to have only the blandest and most stereotypically normal role models. Anyone different ends up getting banned because of a mistaken belief that they will "spread fun".

No, it's another "anfem barges in and says something stupid" thread.

What ages are you talking about here?
Unless it's late teens you're basically proposing a eugenics program which selects for the least playful children.

you faggots keep saying that and leftypol just keeps growing

He's right that trying to abolish families is retarded. It might not stop Holla Forums from succeeding, since humans are known to do stupid things on a regular basis.

I'm not.
Anyhow,
The child should be given full autonomy and equality but be placed with the original parent if desired, allowing them to be with their child unless the child feels like leaving to another "parent" figure.
Parents place would simply be to guide, play with, teach, and generally make sure their kids don't do stupid harmful things while otherwise not restricting them and only giving their input in a neutral way (no talking down).

No their opinion is irrelevant.

It can either come naturally or the implementation of voluntary (but highly recommended) courses children can take, where they can progress as quickly or slowly as they want and can simply choose the classes they're interested in, with prerequisites for ones that require prior knowledge.

The only meaningful difference today is that you can be a fascist fucking pig to them and that you typically have more time with them.
If they start with you and you treat them well they have no reason to leave, and thus this likely stays the same, minus the fascist pig authoritarianism part.

Lol we don't need more people doing that, and if so we encourage them to make babies and give them away to others who want them but not the pregnancy.
They don't need to, people like me would ensure kids stay around :)

Uh, we're the natural caregivers of children, boohoo bigot.
In communism/anarchism pedos would be encouraged to take care of children thank you very much.

It would also (and more importantly) recondition society to respect children and not see them as lesser beings or objects to use, abuse, ignore, and generally not care for.

While I think firearms in general should be eliminated in every position in a healthy civilized society, I'd disagree with your reasoning.
Kids only want to "play guns" because they're taught to. If they're taught they're tools to kill and serve no other purpose they wouldn't go bang bang for no reason or accidentally.

Got it. I was specifically talking about moral role models and true morality goes as far as not harming others and letting them do what they want. People should be free to role modeling on whoever they want.

Seven? Idk, as soon as they can run, jump and climb.

How so? Ever heard of child soldiers?

Complete abolition of the family unit is neccasary for Communism.

Are there any studies which give statistics on the number of self-inflicted injuries to child soldiers?

How long term are we talking? In the deep future abolition of biological bodies will be necessary for communism.

I haven't seen them, but from documentaries I never hear or see them happen.
Kids can understand it all fine, they're just have a shit arm and can't control recoil well at all and get tired, aren't as fast, etc.

So about 9-10months old then?
Do you even know children, or ever interacted with them m8?

Unit, yes.
But relationships, no.
One should not live by their family as special people, but rather live by them only if they choose to as those who know them and are committed to them (theoretically).

yup i didn't pick up on it till i came back to see new replies. mods won't do anything about it either

Erm… no. Pedophilia means being sexually attracted to children solely because they are children without any regards for their individuality, which is wrong.

Don't know. I do know that there are many accounts and reports that claim child soldiers are better than adult soldiers in many ways.

Nice straw-man.

Do you even know children, or ever interacted with them m8?
Yes, I was one. You know that child soldiers exist, so what's your deal? Even if they are bad at using firearms in comparison to an adult, they still should be allowed to own it for their protection.

who else is talking about fucking children besides the pedophile and the mutualist

Actually there are two pedos here and I haven't seen either of them talk about fucking children, unless you're using "fucking" as an expletive.

I'm the guy anfem replied to . How does my post imply pedophilia at all?

It doesn't. I wasn't talking about you.

You mean like homosexuality and same sex, and heterosexuality and opposite sex? Yeah, that's how sexualities work, you love and have an attraction to (X) group because of who they are.
Who would have guessed?

That is meaningful :)

No, you're just a retarded shitcunt.
Sorry but 9-10year olds often can walk, sometimes run, jump, and climb.
Even being generous we're still talking before the age of 2.
Do you even know what you're talking about yourself?

The idea that anyone needs a gun to defend their self in a civilized society is insanity.
Once the culture is to treat them as equals, we have proper mental health care, and they're listened to and respected in general amongst other things like them not being trained to bow before elders or tolerate mean weird folks company then they have no reason to have a gun.

Because you don't think children are little objects that are inherently irrational and have no value in their feelings, wants, desires, etc, you must be a pedophile.
Not even joking, that's their logic.

idk i thought we were just talking about communal child rearing which is a common talking point for leftists and is something worth discussing. i forgot 8ch is a hive for pedos and that we have like 3-4 dedicated pedo posters on here who flock to these threads. i wish we could have these discussions without having to be disgusted/wade through pedo propaganda

One of the ethical principles of Bookchin's dialectical naturalism, is the concept of communal interdependence.

They describe this sort of interdependence in what Bookchin calls "organic society":

"These strong attitudes of intragroup solidarity were fostered in the earliest days of Hopi childhood and continued through life. They began in infancy with the process of weaning, which emphasized interdependence between Hopi individuals and the group—in marked contrast to the surrounding white culture's emphasis on "independence." Weaning is not mere "a transition from milk to solid foods," observes Dorothy Eggan in a study of Hopi socialization. "It is also a gradual process of achieving independence from the confort of the mother's body and care, of transferring affections to other persons, and to finding satisfactions within oneself and in the outside world." In this sense, many whites "are never weaned, which has unfortunate consequences in a society where individual effort and independence are stressed. The Hopi child, on the other hand, from the day of his birth was being weaned from his biological mother." But this weaning process resulted not from social indifference or maternal neglect. To the contrary, and very characteristically:

Many arms gave him comfort, many faced smiled at him, and from a very early age he was given bits of food which were chewed by various members of the family and placed in his mouth. So for a Hopi, the outside world in which he needed to find satisfaction was never far away." - Ecology of Freedom

The thread wasn't any good anyway. It's full of idiots unironically suggesting that the best way to raise children is to rip them away from their parents at birth and ask a bunch of strangers to organize themselves into a functional child-rearing unit. If you think that is actually the best way to run society, you had better be prepared to present some extraordinarily good evidence to support your assertion. The first problem is that studies have shown that stopping breast-feeding early is detrimental to children's development.

Admittedly western society has gone slightly too far in the other direction, to the point that a man walking out of a park with his daughter may be treated with suspicion, but your attitude doesn't exactly help that.

I was on PBS and a show called Ascent of Woman came on and they talked about a culture that did this. I forgot what it was called. Basically there was this community of people that had their kids living in other peoples homes. I'm not sure but it might have even switched around by day or something. I think it only would work in small communities though in larger ones you might see a lot of abuse.

i said:

You've described an extended family. Hell, that goes on in a lot of capitalist countries. I'm not sure what there is to discuss if your point is just that grandparents should look after the kids more often.

It sounds more like you read something you didn't like and got stupid-angry instead of actually engaging concepts you don't agree with.

Literally the only people I have ever known who wanted this were single moms with 1 to 3 children (all from different fathers.) Not sure what that means about this idea.

It means people who don't have help to raise their kids would prefer communal rearing for obvious reasons.

Though I suspect you are implying only filthy whores like communal rearing.

For some reason this makes me feel sad. Also I wasn't trying to call them whores. They were quite nice. Just a bit stressed out. Oh and I'm guessing about the whole "different fathers" thing. They just went through lots of boyfriends (including myself.)

But really who would need help raising kids under communism? Seems like most parents would rather spend more time with their kids currently.

Almost every parent I know needs help with thier kids. But it's because to raise the kid with a middle class standard of living, both parents need to work.

Read the thread again. Anyway, engaging is pointless. Nobody comes to a thread like this to have their opinion changed.

That's why I prefer the way I said before, because then parents who don't need help (and are properly raising their kids with adequate love, attention, and affection) don't need to take it, but those that may, like them, and arguably most parents (as kids in this culture at least are not enjoyed 100% of the time by the parents), need some help, people like myself would be more than glad to help out :)

Uhm, most parents "want a break" from their children and find child-activities mundane, at least in the west, so that's definitely not true.
Give two parents off work for more than 2-3weeks with their kid and they'll be bored as fuck and annoyed most likely.
People just aren't very fond of kids usually, mothers are, pedos are, but most fathers simply aren't, and many women aren't either.

It's only getting worse by the way.

Excuse us for having a voice and being passionate about things that involve and affect the lives of those we love and our own, shitcunt.

Should strangers be allowed to spank other people's kids under communism? Like, the parents aren't around for some reason or another, they're picking beans in the beanfields while their kid is acting the cunt. If the little shit is bullying someone else's kid, does that parent have a right to discipline that other child?

You're the type of people who's kids would flee or be forcibly removed from your home.
:)

If you can spank your children I can beat the shit out of you in communism.

You mean abuse?
No.

Fuck, this hits me hard. I'm only just now starting to realize that my parents didn't know shit about child rearing and just had me and my siblings because it was socially expected of them in their peer circle. Also, they had kids for really selfish reasons, like how "fulfilling" it would be for them.

I agree that lots of forms of discipline are just straight up abuse.However children need to learn right from wrong.They usually learn by testing their boundaries,some need to have a reasonable amount of push back to know not to do something.I Don't know what reasonable levels would be considered,but not like hitting them or shit

I was with you until this point. This sounds like a horrible idea.

My general thoughts. There is in innate hierarchical aspect to child rearing no matter what method is used, as kids don't know jack from shit. Which is the whole purpose of said child rearing. Even if kids had full autonomy to live anywhere and be parented by anyone, the teacher/pupil relationship automatically places one over the other.

I defitely feel that having a secluded family of two parents who raise a child alone is flawed, but it's a fairly modern take on family life, as families used to be more unified, and aunts, uncles, grandparents and even older siblings and cousins could and would step into a nuturing, providing or educational role for non-immediate family. There were obviously issues with these families, such as a baseless with one person as the head, to whom all else were subordinate, corporeal punishment being the norm, and having useless restrictive rules based on a high ranking family member's opinion or tradition, not to mention the family including solely biological relations. Despite all that, the set up makes sense, I think. Each child tends to have two primary providers, but is capable of forming strong bonds with any family member who connects well with them. Every child also recieves support from the family as a whole.
If the biological connection as a requirement were dropped, and spooky rules and baseless authority wiped out, I think it's a good setup.

While the support network of a full community/family certainly assists in raising a kid. Without developing a strong bond with an appropriate adult, the child will grow without any conception of what to aspire to. For example, while my parents are, in my mind, very flawed, I can still see the good in them and that was invaluable
to my development into adulthood. The biological parents need not be enforced, but there's no reason to deny either. Certainly, not every adult is suitable to raise a child, but it would be incredibly difficult to find a child the absolute perfect family to be raised in, as they have no developmental history to draw from. Thus, so long as parents are deemed suitable for child rearing by commune-wide standards (eg not being a reactionary, rapist, mentally inbalanced, etc.) there should be no reason to remove them.

Also, some people think kids should just be able to choose where to live at any time for any reason. I think this is stupid. Kids have kneejerk reactions and attempt to run away from home for the stupidest of reasons. There should be a legitimate way for children to raise issue with their upbringing and request a transfer of residence/guardianship easily, but not at will for any given reason.

tl;dr a network of adults is important to easing the burden of child rearing, but a deep relationship with at least one adult is important to development. Biological connection is no reason to keep a child in an inappropriate home, but there's little reason to separate them either.

Fascists pls go
There's other ways to teach a child other than a boot.
Tell me, if you didn't support, say, fuck it lets crank it all the way to "definitely doesn't support it," child-adult sex, do you think it would be more likely for you to change your mind because a boot on your skull or a rational debate where I prove that it's clearly harmless?
Would putting a boot on your skull be ethical?
No?
Then it definitely isn't with children you fucking fascist.

What evidence do you have for that claim?
Every child I've met, when I use my "we are equals" behavior as I always do with them, they never misbehave, disobey, etc, unless it's something radically new, and then it's just an accident, and they quickly adjust accordingly when I inform them, politely, that oh shit we shouldn't have done that.
Children aren't different than the rest of us. They follow the same behavior pattern which is a system of mutual aide (till they're taught otherwise). If taught otherwise, like many are, they still seem to return back to it (like most people do) when in the situation where it's beneficial (literally all situations).
The only children who haven't fit this, of the dozens I've known personally and spent plenty of time with, individually and alone typically, only the severely mentally ill ones do not follow this. And I mean severely as in they hit everyone, spazz out, scream like madmen and have no fear whatsoever. True madmen.