Late Capitalism and the Family Unit

I think it has become a well known tendency of this phase of capitalism that it eats away the so called "family unit."

This is interesting for communists/anarchists for many reasons. We all know that communism promises us the dissolution of the family form, while we are experiencing today a total destruction thereof. Should commies celebrate this? I don't think so.

What happens today is that families are torn apart along monetary lines, divorces are rampant, and it is often the case that generational wealth doesn't get transferred down on the line. While in Engels' time capitalism was seen as a machine that required the family form for differing reasons (but most importantly: inheritance), today we are faced with another reality.

Of course, the "right" catches up in its "critique" when they complain about trans/lesbian/etc. parents. For us, however, "gay marriage" doesn't mean much more than the extension of the 60% divorce rates to gays. For us this is a much more interesting case study…

These developments should lead communists to re-imagine not just the way in which they propose to dissolve the family unit, but also to re-examine theoretically the subject itself.

What follows is my two IRL confrontations with said tendency.
(cont.)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=NiK_vBjTw0E
thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-sexual-is-political/
foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/11/03/better-red-than-unfed-a-survey-of-post-communism/
jstor.org/stable/30038228?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Bachofen
jacobinmag.com/2017/05/handmaids-tale-margaret-atwood-trump-abortion-theocracy
theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/)
nytimes.com/2010/01/03/books/review/Roiphe-t.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=0

Case no.1.: Joe.

I met "Joe" in a pub. He was around 17 years old. After exchanging some shenanigans he put forward his current problem: dad has been died for 6 years, mom said that Joe should GTFO since she can't anymore support a "parasite" of his caliber. After some discussions I led "Joe" to apply to a job/shelter-center.

Case no.2.: Billy.
This happened just right now. While I was sipping muh beer this kid with his eyes being cried out approached me: "Mr.!" – he said (as if I was above his stature either generationally or socially) – "I need to buy a train ticket to my grandma, since my father just died today and my foster mom want me out of the house!"

Some "anti"-feminist points: Badiou talks about how young males face the most flack from this trend. Today women are expected to be the next Angela Merkel, the next leader, the next stakhanovite, if you will. Boys lack the inclusion and the "growing up" ceremony that was once provided by the army.

youtube.com/watch?v=NiK_vBjTw0E

related: thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-sexual-is-political/

bump for male inefficiency

Are you some kind of social worker, Ganjeet?

I'm a regular person, tbh. Since our society is so far destroyed I can't even make sense of your question, idk how to answer it…
foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/11/03/better-red-than-unfed-a-survey-of-post-communism/

...

I was just wondering why strangers randomly tell him their problems.

Tell me this Ginjeet, has not some remnant of the ritual of becoming man remained after we went from the old, Oedipal father back to the savage brute before him, the primal papa?

I've been wondering about this, today we get many signs which I believe, baselessly, served an approximately equal function as they did in the past: the car, the woman, having sex (I guess this is an open secret about men), the good job, the own company and so on…

This is why despite being lefty miself, i'll be glad when the nazis win.

"For the working class… but men"

You are fucked

...

Explain

That's what i thought

Who you asked to explain to me. You are even more retarded than I thought.

thanks for the post.

Btw can you repost the links to the books you have? I finished the first.

I have no idea what you are actually asking. Maybe you should work on your English?

Not only that, but liberal democracy too. Both concepts were once useful to its propagation, now they get the chopping block.

Wilhelm Reich's sexual revolution became a reality in the 60s, but sex isn't magical orgone fairy dust, but a biological function like any other. Hunger, thirst and sleepiness are not by themselves revolutionary. capitalism can exploit them and twist them for its own ends, just like it does with sex.Turns out the ' the unleashing of desire' doesn't necessarily lead to people having more sex.

Engels was inspired by the theories of Johann Jakob Bachofen, a 19th century swiss anthropologist, with a romantic, highly eccentric approach quite distant from modern science, think Robert Graves' theories about 'primitive matriarchy'. depending on who you ask, he's either a proto-feminist or a reactionary woman hater.

jstor.org/stable/30038228?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Bachofen

Much of leftist social criticism is directed towards a vanished bourgeois social order that has been for the most part replaced by the cybernetic society. There is no clear break, but the failure of 60s radicalism and the neoliberal counterrevolution in the 80s might be useful guideposts. Reagan's debt to the Hippies is often underplayed.

The modern 'destruction of the family unit' has been less a product liberation and more a result of the general disintegration of social bonds. you've perhaps read this meme article:

jacobinmag.com/2017/05/handmaids-tale-margaret-atwood-trump-abortion-theocracy

it's impossible to know how post capitalist social organisation is going to look like. attempts at top down social engineering are just likely to provoke a backlash among people who've had enough of market driven social engineering already. capitalism has a practically unlimited ability for the recuperation of all sorts of lifestyles, regardless of how 'subversive' they might seem. Besides, being 'subversive' is not a burden that should be placed on trans/gay people. Much of popular 'leftist' and 'feminist' thought of the last half century has focused on telling individuals about the proper way to be free and liberated, which also means placing restrictions on what they should and shouldn't do. Women are in some ways, better adapted to the current form of post industrial society than men.
(theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/)

the 'pop feminism' found in mainstream liberal publications more often than not amounts to a never ending paean to narrow market freedom and a corporate fascist ideal of leadership out of reach for most women. Note the Hillary campaign's use of the imagery of 'poptimism', the courting of popstars, slogans like YAS QUEEN! apparently it wasn't very effective outside of elite costal liberal circles: most white women (at whom the campaign was targeted) went for Trump.

Do you propose some sort of communal care for children, because that shit has always creeped me out and reminds me of cults.

this article is good too
nytimes.com/2010/01/03/books/review/Roiphe-t.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=0

We need more of this, on all subjects. The only way to stay true to Marx & co is by using their methods of analysis on new phenomena instead of only relying on what they had to say about the family.