Is communism really anti-family?

...

The traditional family is built on oppression. Kill your parents. They are oppressing you since birth.

You make us anarchists look bad, son.

Stefan plz go

The nuclear family is not the traditional family.

Fuck you. Pussy!

A family that doesn't base its relationship around owning the means of product, retard?

He wasn't here to begin with because there were no arguments left to be made.

What product cunt?

means of production*
this isn't hard to understand, retard.

And doctors, friends, friends of the family, babysitters probably.

Explain how a family is related to the means of production faggot

...

Is he wrong though

I wonder whose voice is more annoying

This is real basic shit, retard

Inheritance laws and you raising your children are different things faggot

Who decides who gets the inheritance?
These things are built upon relationships and influence family dynamics, retard. Familial ties devolve into contract making, retard.

Yeah inheritance is about property rights as enforced by the state, has absolutely nothing to do with the familiar bond.

The legal fiction that allegedly owns whatever the other legal fiction inherits.

You can abolish inheritance laws and keep the family unit intact.

How are you anarcho cucks going to enforce this without a state?

Shit like this is why I'll never be a leftist

I'm anti-communist and happen to be in a family

that's such a shame. we'll dearly miss you user :^( .
>>>Holla Forums

Yes, the bourgeois state has a say, too.

Not an anarchist, but you abolish capital accumulation. Do you know anything about what your opponents believe? Christ.

...

The concept of inheritance did not began with middle class city dwellers that employ people. It is far older than that.

I'm a centrist. I just think family has some inherint value. Not just nuclear family obviously. It makes for a better society than one where children leave their parents and stick them in retirement homes

Leftists are not against the 'traditional family unit' itself, its the fact that in a bourgeois society it is a financial unit dependent upon one member of the unit. also its not so much that leftist want to destroy it, its that we see that capitalism is already destroying it making it a inherent contradiction to capitalism

What does this have to do with families? How are children raised and who bears responsibility for them?

...

where marx says that all wives being common property etc is a strawman?

It is, but the bourgeois have their own dynamic.

Family isn't influence by accumulated capital and private property if you abolish them.

Family. They are just no longer bourgeois.

Already happens in bourgeois society.
Kindergarten, school, soccer club etc.are already more or less involved in raising children. So how is child raising different in communism?

Apples, oranges. Changes nothing regarding inheritance and families, both of which have existed since recorded history began.

I agree. Sadly the left is amoral these days, and your mum is now a spook.

Remember that the anti-family sentiment was from the time where the normal family structure was way different. It's not really relevant now. Hell, you'd probably see a lot of leftists being pro-family in some respects, considering how atomised people have become due to late-stage capitalism.

Centrists are authoritarian and need hierarchies to force other people to swallow they delusional bullshit. kys liberal

Not having to put up with the uncertainty of markets in servicing those connections, for one thing.

History is a set of observations and opinions written by the survivors and has no special authority. (see also appeal to tradition)

Except that the relationship is based around who owns the means of production, so yes, it does matter there are different power dynamics at play. Every relationship they have is influenced by whether or not they are interested in maintaining that power in the future.

are you pretending to be retarded?

Caring about family.. Shaking my head TBH fam.

Where we're going we wont need families.

I wasn't appealing to authority nor tradition. I was merely demonstrating that neither inheritance nor family has anything to do with the formation of capitalism and the bourgeois.

Inheritance is inheritance and family is family regardless of the material conditions. In the past an elder would pass on to a younger a personal possession he had a familiar bond with, regardless of blood relations. And so it would also be in a post capitalist future.

I don't think any communists are anti-family so much as we just think that the traditional family unit will just naturally evolve into something else when capitalism disappears.

Seems a lot of socialists and communists want force it into something else rather than letting evolve on its own. Seems that is their position on a lot of things unrelated to capitalism and the means of production.

What will we need then?

Choke on your classist rhetoric and vomit up something like a reasoned argument rather than a proud ad hominem hairball.

Ah, okay, my error in not decoupling the social economy from the material economy, though I maintain that, before the frontier closed, the normal way to accumulate factors of production, aside from primitively, was through inheritance of largely unrestricted exclusionary rights to those factors.

The logical conclusion of kin selection is generally authoritarian patriarchy.

Further research and experimentation is required. 4D waifus when?

We will emerge fully formed from the clone pods ready to take our place in the collective.

And how will you enforce its prevention without an authoritarian state?

Nuclear family a shit.

Friends are the family you choose, user.

How about flooding the zone with Jantelagen?

Materiel conditions shape how people respond differently to what they are going to inherit. If you want to go further back, we can. There's a difference between a peasant inheriting a cooking pot, and a someone inheriting kingship, for instance. This doesn't even stop at inheritance either. Marriage itself is based on these types of dynamics. If you don't think groups act differently based on the material forces that give them power in society, then I guess you're a lost cause.

nazbol is right. Nuclear family is this recent weird idea that a "family" should be an isolated group of 1 mother, 1 father and however many (2-3 usually) kids. Families used to be much larger networks of people who supported each other.

read engels book on the family son

I am Scandinavian an Jantelagen will nor prevent this but reinforce this because it already does that.

But inheritance and family are not a product of capitalism and the bourgeois. They existed before and they will exist after, unless of course humanity is enslaved under a global totalitarian nightmare government that is.

Which Scandinavian? Swedes seem to sort of believe it; Norwegians mock it. In any case, some other humbling corrective to the idea that anyone is intrinsically better than anyone else, let alone is even remotely qualified to sit in judgment of others, is needed. If Buddhism had not been largely co-opted by trendy bourgs in the US, I'd borrow from their doctrine of attachment.

No one said they were. It's family dynamics in relation to the means of production.

No.

Actual communists have more important things to worry about like imperialism and fascism, unlike like the "communists" caricatures you seen in cartoons.

Nationalism sees the nation as an extant of family. Communism sees the working class of the world as an extension of family.

Then why are socialists and communist so against it? It is clearly not the problem here, the material conditions are.

Changing the material conditions is exactly what communist are for. Saying commies hate family in and of itself is a meme, since what they really hate is the relationship built around material conditions.

in practice they are because they promote the same bourgeoisie propaganda of education and career over family and reproduction among women under the veneer of egalitarian totalitarianism.

Do you mean an "extended family" ?

Yes, an extended family. But not spread out and only coming together for occasional gatherings throughout the year as is the standard right now. Extended family often used to live in close proximity and supported each other, now, each family is an island.

It takes a village to raise a child, user

t. single mother

Why are the commies against the family?

I'm a guy who has no friends and has only ever gotten to the pity hug level with a female..

idk, but I'm not. I think it was something marx wrote about the contemporary family structure dissolving under socialism or somesuch. I've probably got it wrong tbh.

Same, fam. 'Twas back in highschool almost 10 long short, fml years ago. Well, I've got one friend tho, but I'm confirmed lifelong wizard, so I'm going for triple threat sorcery.

i don't have friends

Yes. Did you even read Marx?

Large, supportive families like are preferable. You might consider your community a second family.

naww. If families form voluntarily rather than as a means of coercively reinforcing the gender division of labor, it's fine. As it stands now, family is marked with the capitalist mode of production, but I see no reason why people wouldn't form similar-looking families in a communist society (just without most of the trash parts). Maybe I'm unimaginative, but I have a hard time believing that given the choice most people will choose the sort of degenerate poly relationships that Holla Forums thinks we advocate for. I genuinely think monogamy is better for most people, it's just infected by capitalism right now.

How is poly degenerate, other than in the purity-cult sense?

ITT: The Nazbols prove how reactionary they are

pls this. I wanna wife and daugteru with a strong supportive community.

The way I see it, family just won't be bound by blood relations, and although most of the time parents/children will maintain a close relationship, if it turns out that a certain aunt, uncle, older cousin, or even non-blood family bonds stronger, that's fine too.

Most traditional families while being partiarchal also supported and highly valued and respected their elderly rather than sealing them off in a retirement gulag as soon as they become inconvenient to slowly die in a lonely, sterile and often abusive purgatory, as they are kept artificially alive by modern medicine only to face dementia and slow decay surrounded by strangers. But that's OK because grandpa's a fucking racist reactionary bigot anyway. I hate my parents and had a shit childhood so that's enough for me to demand the aggressive radical restructuring of the most basic human and social relations just to prevent inheritance from spoiling my rock solid plan to get to FALC with no possible flaws.

I never use the term degenerate unironically. I was saying essentially that Holla Forums believes we want to end monogamy and institute constant orgies or whatever. I think the more accurate view is that most of us see problems with modern family life but think it's not really our place to regulate it one way or another. The mode of production will change, but more than likely what people want out of family life will remain largely the same, perhaps a bit more egalitarian.

If general socialist idea is correct, and gets implemented, social relations will simply become more organic and authentic, and normalize to something egalitarian under a free and egalitarian society. The problem is we literally can't say what this is now, and totalist authoritarians of all stripes are always trying to force it one way or another without reforming the actual system that forces unequal relations. This is just as irrational and potentially disasterous as letting the logic of capital run on autopilot while also being socially engineered in different directions by competing conspirators at the top for whatever warped reasons.

Holla Forums is reacting to bourgeois, cosmopolitan decadence and the mythology of Progress pushed by the global neoliberal establishment as the one true way, while ruling incompatible conceptions totally illegitimate and were beginning to repress them out of existence. They see its intense hypocrisy and rampant propaganda, but then react by rejecting any forms of social progress entirely. So we have fucked up neolib lifestylists experimenting with new social forms that might bring about the new social paradise and thinking they are enlightened but really just being parrots of the corporate-academic complex and putting the cart before the horse.

Holla Forumsacks are the same as the progressive technocrats, just in a different direction, seeing neoliberal universalism as a dysgenic homogenization process, but they also want to also use top-down technocratic social engineering to create an order they see as more just and wise, once they have captured the state. But it's still just as strangely inhuman and impervious to criticism. Authoritarian states will always become a monstrosity, left is particularly vulnerable due to the degree of (supposedly transitional) repression required, and this technocratic problem solving mentality of coerced, not organic, social transformation. It's utopian and doomed to cause problems, problems the state will tend to solve with mass graves.

You can't know the ideal societal organization under the current conditions under which all ideology is built. It's cultish futurist fanaticism to presume you can, you assume you've escaped your programming due to being initiated into the book club. This attitude has been hugely damaging to the left in the long run, and its secular religious character is a big part of all the disunity and schismatism. You have to achieve a more genuine emancipation before we have the means to really pose the question properly, let alone answer it. That doesn't mean progress in the meantime isn't good. It's just that all society is essentially the cargo cult of capitalism, and no one is an exception.

Hey faggot

Kill yourself

...

Is that fucking Michael Cera in that pic?? What's up with his hair?! I don't care if this is off-topic, that pic is gonna keep me up all night…

not no arguments

not readable

Anti-patriarchal family and anti-nuclear family for sure.

Read the Origin of Family, Private Property and the State by Engels, please, for the love of god

family is literally ownership of children and telling them how to live their lives and try to enforce their beliefs on them

So if you're against patriarchal and nuclear family, what are you for?

I'm all for extended domination free multigenerational homestead. The way old people are just thrown away in retirent hom is properly revolting.

True, nucfam is a bourgie concept. But even tradfams disintegrate under the atomitstic tendencies of capitalism.

"Specifically, the form of self-enjoyment which is excluded, the secret
self-denial hiding at the heart of privatized egoism, is the denial of all the social pleasures, the communal
pleasures of spontaneous gregariousness, the warmth of human solidarity, the exuberance of
authentic festivity — the pleasures of association and social satisfaction in general. The vestiges of
these are confined within the ever-narrowing circle of the private family, itself the nuclear remnant,
adapted by capital, of the bygone primitive-communist kinship societies and their “extended families”,
which publicizes its final self-critique in the burgeoning rates of divorce, divorce being recognized as and
officially titled “estrangement.” This especially in the “advanced” capitalist countries — that is, the
countries which have reached the advanced stages of social alienation."

"But here also is a threshold, and an “attractor” n1 where the expansion of egoism can stop, can get
hung-up for epochs: a collective egoism that never grows bigger than the couple, the collective of two;
the isolated duo, the nuclear family. We have here the ideology which holds that the egoistic project
could become adequate to itself if only it included two egos. This is but another form of the ideology
of antisocialism; the ideology that seeks to deny the social ingredient in the individual, the self, the
personal world, and ends up by denying and depleting the self as well; ends up with an emptied self.
According to this ideology, only the personal, intimate, family world, the private world of the home,
is real. The strange, crazy, cold “outside” world — the social world — is held to be unreal, though it
must be related to, if only to support this narrow “real” world. This ideology knows society only as an
invasion of privacy. This is the ideology that will keep the personal world narrow and impoverished,
and the social world menacing and alien. Will we get beyond it? Do we want to? Need to? Only time
will tell. Capitalist anti-socialism is now rapidly reaching its logical conclusion: the destruction of
society. Over this question, all of our lives are at stake."

tl;dr: y'all niggas need communist egoism

In a way. If two children are sick and you have medicine only for one, you should heal the child that is more gifted and hardworking, even if the other child is your own.

Behind the "corruption" meme in USSR, NK, China, you'll usually find bourgeois family relations - people functioning with the core motivation of improving the welfare of their family unit, at the expense of the collective.

For a communist society to thrive, its children should be raised by the whole community, so they build attachment to everyone, not just their "parents".

Capitalism is the greatest enemy of family
read Chesterton

It used to be before bourgeois liberals made family values popular again.

That' just a parody, the real comic is based.