What do you think of the free love movement?

Ahh reversed. Got you. So how do you get rid of the nuclear family?

I was on the fence between who was more authoritarian: tankies or technocrats.
thanks for helping me make up my mind.

Capitalism has already pretty much done that by itself.

Dumbest fucking sentence I've read in my life, and an awful post.

How do you accuse others of being romanticist with a straight face whilst posting a picture like that?

Well that was rather silly, friend.

I can personally assure you that I really do make Stalin look like Gandhi.

What a wonderful and detailed criticism.
10/10 post, friend.

Well that is quite simple.
By not posting a picture that has anything to do with romanticism.

I honestly do not see how one could think an old magazine short showing a mock-up of what a potential future American serviceman may wear in the field is in anyway romantic in nature.

Would never exist today because women have unlimited access to Chads via social media.

And for fairness, the average man today is even less manly and attractive than a average hippie.

If you are going to say something is positive you should explain why. Saying monogamy is inherently bad without any explication is retarded.

Free "love" is retarded, you can love more than one person at the same time.

I will be you friend!

Firstly, I never said that 'monogamy is inherently bad'.
I said that discouraging it is inherently good.

Secondly, I would have hoped that the reasons would have been rather obvious.
People less focused on just one other person would be less likely to be insular and with their attention divided, more likely to hold a greater degree of loyalty to the state; With relationships (both sexual and not) seen as rather transitory and wispy things in comparison to ones love of the state (and associated ideology).

Don't know enough about free love. On the contrary the family will come back. No.

Stability is not the only political consideration.

In Demons, Dostoevsky wrote “Full freedom will come only when it makes no difference whether to live or not to live. That’s the goal for everyone.”

Think about that for a brief period.

What family structure? It hardly exists anymore

Sorry but I don't get it. Is this some Zen bullshit?

I'm a supporter of free love, but I don't believe monogamy should be discouraged.

It's totally retarded.

*cant

How about this: people should do whatever they want. How's that?

Marx is

NAZBOL

Capitalism as it is destroys the family structure, Commuism will only mean to affirm it. Relationships will be more authentic, husbands and mothers will have more time to be with their children, extended families will build strong ties amoung relatives, and having a child will no longer be treated like a finacial burdan. "Free love" is bourgeosie nonsense, even marxist feminists decried it as such.

Communism will sublate the existing family structure rather than reinforce it, families in the sense that they exist today are products of property ownership. You can expect communist social relations to be more akin to those of pre-civilisation in that regard.

it's liberal idpol

Put down Origins Engels, Marx would have shot that xenu-tier garbage down if he had lived to read it. Extended families units and monogamous relationships are perfectly normal and commonly arise naturally.

Will socialism make anime real?

May I have the source please?

We should be free enough to engage in whatever form of love we deem appropriate, in whatever arrangement suits those involved. And obviously monogamy and marriage is suboptimal, polyamory without marriages maximizes happiness for everyone. (At the expense of increased need for clear communication, which is just the sort of thing we would want to foster in our free associations.)

nothing should be "encouraged" or "discouraged"

Yes yes yes yes

who gives a fuck?

Lmaoooooo 'Xenu tier shit' Marx is the original author of Origins. Engels finished the book for Marx, using his drafts and updated using more historical information

Marx wrote simply a synopsis of of the book "Ancient Society" and it can be assumed it mostly touched upon the three stages of human development. He wrote it after reading Marx's synopsis and its quite obvious that most of the ideas presented in the book are Engels own. Origins is bad anthropology, better then other works at the time, but still bad. There are entire portions of the book where Engels just talks about incest as a development.

Ancient Society was written by Lewis H. Morgan, an early American anthropologist who studied the Iroquois people. There is a wide variety of property and kinship structures in 'primitive' societies. Some are indeed matrilinear/ matrilocal but not all. also matrilinear/ matrilocal does not mean 'matriarchal'. see the following article for a recent survey of kinship structures:

radicalanthropologygroup.org/sites/default/files/pdf/class_text_105.pdf

Contrary to popular belief, Engels wasn't an advocate of enforced polyamory:

Apart from Morgan, Engels was also influenced by the Mother-Right theory of Johann Jakob Bachofen. Bachofen was an eccentric Swiss anthropologist and critic of modernity, described by some as a proto feminist, and by others as a woman hater and proto nazi.
jstor.org/stable/30038228?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

vocal 'polyamorists' are middle class lifestylists and from what i've seen, their personal lives tend to be jealousy ridden clusterfucks.

It's fine, let people do what they want.
Only when it gets a public health concern should we even start to debate about this (if VD becomes a thing again, or when the reproduction of the proletariat is endangered like in Japan).

Monogamy is ideal because in polygamy you have a few men fucking all the women. And we’ve seen how far-right single men can become. We can’t let men be single in a socialist society or we’ll deal with a huge problem of counter-revolutionaries.

What’s wrong with romanticism it gives people passion and meaning in an otherwise dull life. How is it reactionary?

Your future seems so dull.It gives men no reason to fight for it. It has no meaning. There’s nothing desirable about it. Authoritarianism is a tool to achieve a better society, a more desirable society, one that is more interment then our own. Authoritarianism for the sake of authoritarianism is useless. It’s like digging a hole for the sake of digging a hole.

cucks

Smells like ideology

...

This pertains to lifestyle. Any socialist should be fine with individual choices that do not conflict with other people's rights. I don't think socialists should have any official policy regarding "free love" or "monogamy" or whatever, that makes no sense — government of any kind has no business in people's private life.

What I do believe though is that the nuclear family unit shouldn't be given favorable treatment over other household arrangements. Why should a married couple of landowners be eligible for social benefits or tax breaks when young working-class flat-sharers or isolated tenants aren't?

this.

Nah m8

based.

yes, and anyone clinging to this arbitrary norm is being reactionary.

yes and it should be entirely eliminated as a social norm. polyamory and public nudity/sex should be encouraged.

polyamory is also an arbitrary norm, you know. what about letting people doing whatever they want?

The only problem I have with polyamory is its tendency to exclude certain people

yes and yes

Why am I not surprised

Leave it to Holla Forums to respond only to the shittiest threads, shittiest posts and draw inane conclusions from what he read.

Damn, you guys are spouting some absolute nonsense.

I really don't care, do whatever you want.

well come to technocracy aka STEMfag paradise

No.

No.

No. Ban contraception.

why

Overall good.

Unrelated to your initial question, and no and no. Fundamentally misleading, but got me to reply so kudos.

Free love is only free for a small minority based on one's ability. Strict monogamy gives everyone what they need.

Hmm I wonder which one is the better choice

Reddit leave

How is that reddit?

If anything that's /r9k/.

For over 90% of human history we've been male dominate non-monogamous. That being 1 male multiple female partners, large number of off-spring, and many mothers/aunts/siblings to help the development of a child. There are exceptions to this of course like in pre-colonial Americas, but even that varied greatly. Nobody has to "eliminate" family structure, but it definitely would be largely beneficial for it to just change a little bit. Unfortunately under capitalism you end up with societies like Japan where your born an only child to 35 year old parents, and end up an alienated, alcoholic wage slave until death. To those shilling artificial wombs, and sex bots as an alleviation to these miseries, your "solution" isn't one at all, just a way to make life under the situation less "harsh".

Just say what you mean you fucking faggot. You want a society similar to Europes past, in which fathers forcefully married off their daughters, and the husband had complete authority, with no way to end said marriage. So instead of one miserable lonely virgin, you now have one miserable women, and a control freak forcefully playing out his desires.