"Leftist war on the family"

B-b-but, Bill Whittle told me Adorno destroyed the nuclear family by forcing everyone to listen to atonal music and question the results of the Enlightenment!

Literally who gives a shit. This is yet another meaningless cuckservative pet issue.
>won't someone think of the children!?

Lol whut

No.

Oh noes, not the family. Yeah, who cares about the people who literally gave birth to you, gave you your genetic traits and lineage, and gave your personality. Screw em, ammirite?

Man you guys are edgy

You're not as good as actual satanposter.

You're missing the point of the critique of the family unit. It has nothing to do with critiquing reproduction per se, but rather the ideological traditionalist view that children can only properly be raised in a nuclear family, in the home, with a male breadwinner and a female homemaker. Or, furthermore, that any male has the duty to ultimately be a father and a breadwinner, or that a female has the duty to ultimately be a mother and a homemaker.

Anti-natalists aside, most leftists and anarchists are in favor of having children if an individual so desires it, but encourage allowing other methods of child-rearing based on what will work best for the parents and the child. A lot of anarchists advocate for communally raising children, for instance.

>implying I'm the edgy one here

The nuclear family is completely at odds with anarchism, even if it's "voluntarily" chosen.

Hm, yeah, I guess you're right about that.

I quite like the idea of a traditional family.

Not an argument.

Old communism: family values, persecution of homosexuals, propaganda of healthy live style and anti-abortion advertisement.

New "left": cuckolding, polygamy, gay sex, necrophilia, zoophilia, pedophilia…

But giving the idea that all people here are homosexual faggots, of course this board wants to destroy a straight family.

...

Are you even trying to hide the fact that you're a fascist or are you just shitposting.

>implying there is literally anything wrong with necrophilia

Greetings, fellow proletarians

Automation, advancements in modern medicine and cybernetics, and AI will all make biological reproduction obsolete. The future will be one in which humans have sex purely for pleasure and social bonding, and there's nothing you can do about that unless you hold back technological progress.

It's actually like a broom handle thing used as an ad-hoc dildo in the movie.

Kill yourself homo. After reading this thread , i know i have no similar ideology with you.

You just all bunch of faggots who are just as bad as sjw liberals and you are emasculating themselves. Continue to become /cuteboys/ board, i don't care anymore.

Trump will win, and i hope at some point start persecuting you all.

The capitalists destroyed the nuclear family not us. Men no longer make enough to support a family. Anyway The nuclear family is a relatively modern economic unit unlike what you've heard. For most of civilized history people grew up in large patriarchal families. My father grew up in a large family home surrounding by his aunts and uncles and distant relatives. He is far more stable and well balanced then my uncles that grew up in a nuclear family with my grandparents. They all have severe emotional problems and grew up to domestically abuse their wives and children.

Good, now kindly leave.

Thanks doc

...

Sure there is . corpses smell bad and you can catch a lot of awful disease.

A rafflesia to some, a rose to others :^)

You can also get diseases from living people too. They're pretty gross tbh. But that's why protection exists.

You can stop with the "children can only be raised healthily in a nuclear family" shit if that's what I think you're implying, then. Because it's bullshit. The nuclear family is not transhistorical.

^this

Women would make and sell clothes and work in textiles and such as well as teach and nurse throughout history.

Some people seem to think women have been a literal luxury class in european history, its infantile.

Keep sucking Milo's cock, pollyp.

...

Peasant women were always in the fields during feudalism, which is one reason why light skin around the globe is seen as "beautiful" on women.

Rome

FUCKING
DROPPED

Go home analytic autist. Your project has failed and the entirety of the sciences has ignored all your ideas.

Yeah its been "ignored" that's why Noam Chomsky isn't one of America's most famous intellectuals. Oh wait yes he is.

...

I love Chomsky but let's not kid ourselves.

Chomsky isn't a philosopher. Also, his linguistic theories (from which he bases his political views, mind you) are under heavy scrutiny.

And those great nations frequently dominate nature and other human beings because they are so heavily ruled by science and logic.

Why does that imply loyalty?
Whether a family functions well together or not should be the starting point.
If it does, great.
If not, end it.
Family is what we make it
Fuck your spooks.

He said, as he blew a thick cloud of vape.

Chomsky's an analytic philosopher. He teaches philosophy at MIT.
and before anyone goes
understand that i mostly agree with you, but saying he isn't a philosopher is just retarded.

Oh look, a Family Values (TM) thread. I look forward to crypto-fascist shitposting and confused tankies bending over backwards trying to appeal to them.

Capitalism is already destroying the family: the extended family/clan of the medieval era has been obliterated and now capitalism is eroding the nuclear family as well. However this isn't happening for ideological reasons, it isn't happening because of some "cultural marxist" conspiracy, but rather because of economic and institutional developments.
Capitalism has essentially commodified and outsourced domestic relations: children are no longer educated by their families (thank god) but now attend school, labour saving devices have removed much of the domestic work previously done by women (and increasingly will continue to do so), professional child care means that women no longer need to stay home to take care of young children (past a certain age), and finally the proportion of small business owners has drastically declined, removing a large part of the property sharing aspect of traditional marriage.
All of this taken together means that women are able to work instead of being dependent on men for income (something the bourgeoisie encourage to a great extent because it doubles the size of the workforce), children are increasingly raised by non-domestic institutions (either public or private) and proletarians have very little material reason to participate in traditional marriage (other than tax reasons). Consequently the number of people getting married is declining with every generation, the number of single mothers is rising and increasingly all that remains of families (in the economic sense) is a paternalistic relationship between parent and child.

Now that we've established that capitalism is at fault, it's worth pointing out that communism would do nothing to reverse this process and would in fact accelerate it towards it's logical conclusion. Not only would property cease to be an existing social relation (destroying any remaining material reason for marriage) but all education and childcare would be free, there would be no state to enforce paternalistic control over children, and as communism develops towards it's higher phase living arrangements common under capitalism will tend to decline, resulting less people living in individual homes and more people living in communal arrangements (google "kibbutzim" for a presently existing example) for labour saving purposes. Further more, technological development may eliminate the need for sexual reproduction completely, eliminating the reproductive component of sex, reducing it to a mere social activity (it's worth pointing out that this part could happen under capitalism).

In the long run this means that all that will be left of the family is voluntary association and genetic relation, and when there's no longer any economic or compulsive element to family I'm not sure it can be said to exist in any meaningful sense of the term.

not him, but trans bathrooms make sense, even from a spooky right wing fear of others. right wing men don't want a man dressing as a woman in their bathroom (he might look at their peens and get a boner :^o), women don't want men disguised as females infiltrating theirs. So goes the logic.

This is what leftists really believe, which is why they try to destroy the family

at this point its just become a clearance sale on men.
25% off penisses.

wew

Learn 2 reading comprehension
>Further more, technological development may eliminate the need for sexual reproduction completely, eliminating the reproductive component of sex, reducing it to a mere social activity (it's worth pointing out that this part could happen under capitalism).

Russia is not communistic. They only encourage family values because of political campaign of Putin himself and his ruling party, and he is extremely high energy conservative.

I respect him for being himself and not crumbling over western propaganda like other European countries do.

Because parents shouldn't own their children like chattel.

Thanks doc

Indeed, this does seem like a problem.

The way Marx intended it to be
God (Is a spook) bless.

Return to traditional marxism when?

tl;dr

I've read Star Trek fanfics more realistic than that ,8

I've seen plenty of you on here say pretty much just this usually followed up by linking to Engels' book on the family and state. So it is a pretty commonly accepted aspect of most of your theorists thinkings.

This is true though. As OP said, every sociologist agrees. And sociologists are generally cultural Marxist shits.

This is also true, determined by biology. Women HAVE to carry kids for 9 months. There is no way around this. And the vast majority of mothers come quickly to love their kids. Many would resist attempts to take their kids into custody of the state.

BTW what do you all think of Scotland's 'Named Person Scheme'?

"Breakdown" of the nuclear family in order to build up the local community which capitalism has crushed. In actuality this would probably end up strengthening familial bonds.

Actually read one critique of the family you pollack fuckbag

I'm not a commie but I think this is a stereotype. There are communists with a wife and kids and so on.

Maybe that's true, the family shouldn't be destroyed or be preserved in my opinion. If people want to organize differently that's their problem.

Lel, stop projecting.

I love how they note that the guy has a Ph. D. right on the cover

So Satanposter is a posadist?

Learn to read, you autistic faggot.

You didn't read it but you think it's unrealistic? Are you retarded?

quality post

Didn't Marx write something about the family? For what reasons is the family useful, and how might it obstruct the realisation of socialism or Communism?

I see the right talking about the "destruction of family values", which I don't know if it's beneficial, irrelevant or harmful to the realisation of socialism.

Is it about gender roles? Involuntary association?

You believe in something that is very silly

t.Ghostbuster

...

kill yourself

LMAO
actually in post-socialist countries, the families are more traditional than in the western "always-capitalist" countries.

Anti-rationalists pls go.

biologically speaking, family is a social construct.
Humans are naturally pack animals. We are not birds. An Alpha male is supposed to fuck several females and give them his good genes while the beta faggots are supposed to only fuck homosexuals or try to rape any of the Alpha's females. That's why all /r9k/ betas are so pro-rape.

Not necessarily- the data is conflicting on that subject, at best. What you're talking about is mostly true for Chimpanzees, but humans =! Chimpanzees. We might be, but various tribes in different parts of the world have all practiced different modes of family structure/inheritance, some more in line with the "traditional" family structure.

...

...

So 'alpha fucks, beta bux' is biological? What particularly are you advocating for here? Women should be allowed to sleep around and beta providers should take care of their kids?

[citation needed]

Daily reminder that Plato thought in the Republic the family unit was bad for the state and that children should be taken from the cradle, to be educated and get used to communal life.

If you see in history, Sparta, the Celts and most native american nations, did no have a family unit as we understand it today, and they functioned just fine. Also read Freud, the family is the source of all neuroses in the child.

Russia is also a crumbling totalitarian shithole,that depends solely on it's oil reserves, whats your point?

If you lurked around in here, you would find out that no one on leftypol advocates idpol rights like "gay marriage" or any of that bourgeois nonsense. However if you think the family is anything other than a conservative pet issue, you are wrong, there is nothing particularly sacred about it, especially the nuclear family as an economic unit.

I agree the "muh traditional family" meme is a bit overblown, but if you got it rid of it, I'm sure there are many other ways a child would gain neuroses after replacing the family with something else.

The man was verifiabily a weirdo fraud. He also had a bunch of weird unsubstantiated assertions he made about childhood sex practices.

no, betas should just get the fuck out of society until they man up to rank-up to alpha status.

We don't have much data or information how these alternative societies functioned. But several works by anthropologist like Malinowski and Boas explored communal and "primitive" societies, for example they had things like the "gift economy" and did not have the psycho-sexual repressions advanced western societies had. In a sense they both disproved Freud's universality of ideas, but also advanced them in a way, by posing a limit of their sustainability.

I don't think any psychiatrist today challenges child sexuality today m8. Of course some things in Freud, like the Oedipal complex being universal is absolute nonsense, and not everyone accepts it.

...

I wonder what made your bum bum ache.

You get hints for this in late Freud. Lacan, reworking Freud's ideas, came to the conclusion that neuroses (like all clinical categories) are due to our specific ways of immersing ourselves in language. So for Freud our personal development consisted of literal (biological, social) stages, for Lacan these are logical stages (steps we take in positioning ourselves towards language) taken by the individual.

I think your pessimistic premonition is justified.

Since Freud invented a field of enquiry and healing in a Western environment, and especially in an age when the paternal authority was all-pervasive, his findings are to be read with a pinch of salt, not underplaying his importance of course. Same goes to all authors, naturally.

It should be noted that the Oedipal complex was and remains to be the dominant one in human societies.

It remains dominant in Western societies, that was my point, no one is saying it doesn't exist. But to say that it exist everywhere and has existed since forever is absurd.

Read anti-oedipus.

It remains dominant in most human societies. With the globalisation of capitalism the remaining alternative forms continue to disappear rapidly.

How is this even related? Whose position are you arguing against?

how do you know if I am an autist? Projecting much?

I'll rephrase OP's question so as not to trigger your defensiveness so hard.

Why do SOME leftists want to destroy the traditional family unit (mother father + kids)

More importantly, when did you stop beating your wife?

Nobody wants to destroy it. We just acknowledge it as socio-economically determined and as such prone to disappear after capitalism's fall. If it is the natural order of things, why do you feel inclined to defend it? Wouldn't that mean that nő matter what, it stays?

I don't know, why are some people retarded?
Why are there some black nazis?
If "some" is your standard, why should I take that question seriously?

If you don't feel the question relevant to yourself why answer?

Reasons mentioned ITT. The vast majority of cases, a traditional family gives kids the best prospects.

When she learned to shut her noise.

Compared to what alternative configurations?

because I'm curious about your reasons for shitposting.

Confirmed virgin.

What is a traditional family? Mother + Father + Kids? Extended family like aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc?

noise oversensitivity is a sign of autism

You would think Holla Forums would be a little wary of that.

youtu.be/kDtabTufxao?t=53s

Compered to single parent, adoption or foster care. ie what people opposed to the family advocate.

I knew I should have Rated PG Parental Guidance'd that one…

Yes exactly.

is this guy admitting he would have to blindly follow whatever ideology comes along?

what if totalitarian capitalism told him to sell his daughters into prostitution?
would he be unable to refuse?

I've never heard of anyone "advocating" single-parent households or foster care as ends in themselves, let alone leftists.

So what do the anti-fams suggest if not state care?

This needs to be capped, stat!

More communal ways of raising children. This includes radical education reforms (the current education system was designed for providing children the necessary skills for menial labor, factory work – hence the school-bell) and acknowledging and encouraging their independence sooner.

We don't "advocate" these things any more than we advocate gravity you raging idealist, we simply acknowledge that the family is gradually breaking down for material reasons inherent to capitalism and believe that the abolition of private property will accelerate the process.

Material conditions govern social relations, not your warm fuzzy feelings about what you feel to be the most pleasant social arrangement.

There's a difference between "state care" (there is no state in a communist society. "Institutional care" might make more sense) and groups of parents raising their children collectively to minimize work, which is what I think will tend to be the norm as communism develops (obviously not from day one, birthmarks of capitalist society and all that).

I agree with what you've said, I take issue with
Even in very conservative and religious families paternal authority remains an emptied out shell of its formal 'glory'.

For what purpose though? Is there anything to suggest that 'communal' child rearing would be of benefit to either child or parent? Change for changes sake? I don't get it. To be clear I'm not advocating for marriage per se but that kids should be raised by their biological parents as much as is possible.

What you mean by this?

...

paleoconservatism intensifies

The abolition of private property being the one thing that binds everyone on this board. So you want to attribute to the breakdown of the family. My question was why?

Nothing to do with muh feefees. Much more to do with an evidence based approach.

You want me or indeed any rational person to adopt a new way of doing shit you sure as hell better be able to explain how it is in my interest. O)f course this is the issue with the left. All you offer is criticism. Never anything tangible as solution.

There is no such thing as "anti-fams", only people who see the nuclear family not as a speeshul ahistorical ideal but as a social unit defined by material conditions and therefore likely to undergo related changes.

Ok, let me simplify what's been said in the thread

Generally speaking, there will be mummy, daddy, uncles and aunties and grandmas and grandpas

They will help look after and raise baby together

Not sure those terms are meaningful on a social level outside the Oedipal complex. You also missed the neighbors. By communal, we do mean communal.

Why the hell will neighboures be obliged to help with their neighbours kids? I'm not saying there is no place for this, if my parents were still at work when I got back from school I'd just go chill at my neighbours til they got back. That is to say most of what you are suggesting happens anyway. The difference (I think) being I believe that in most cases parents have their kids best interests at heart. You seem to think somebody else should be making these calls.

You can't seem to be able to think in terms outside of social pressure and violence.

We want to abolish work altogether.

Parents act upon popular beliefs generated by our social conditions: "my child should be a lawyer, because that is a respected and well paid job!" Obviously "lawyer" wouldn't make much sense in a stateless society, "pay" wouldn't make sense outside of capitalist relations, "respect" would be gained from different qualities, etc.

What they think is beneficiary to the child is an interpretation of what is available to them, and their power to enforce these ideas comes from them being in a specific cultural/historical position (economic constraint).

Overwhelmingly the cases of child abuse come from the traditional family unit, mind you.

If one examines hunter gatherer societies, or even traditional families

Note the only inaccurate statement here is that these families are necessarily patriarchal the new couple moving in with the mothers family was equally common, and a society would tend towards one or the other

Non-geneticly closely related people with still familial bonds would generally be referred to with familial terms

It is likely in such a society that this would be the case

Even in all the pressures destroying the family in capitalist society most people as adults move no further away from their mother than 20km or so

To answer your original question, ask yourself why you are so convinced that parents would not feel responsible for their children if they were free not to do so

Please describe me how you see a perfect socialist family. I am curious how retarded you are.

yous gots a problem, babs

A fair point, I will concede that it is greatly reduced (I was raised in a catholic family surrounded by other christian families, it may have skewed my perspective). Perhaps economic dependence would make more sense instead?

Mostly for labour saving reasons, communal living is basically economics of scale applied to the domestic sphere. Not only does it mean mothers and/or fathers aren't stuck at home taking care of kids all the time, but by combining living space there's less work to do for all parties involved: shared common areas means shared cleaning and cooking for a start. It also means less resources/labour spent on construction and appliances.
Instead of everyone having there own private gardens, pools, tools and entertainment equipment (though I'd certainly want my own computer), we could cut down on unnecessary production by communally possessing things that would otherwise be sitting unused most of the time. Not only does this mean far less work must be done, but it also allows people to have access to things they would otherwise be denied (good luck bringing the world up to the standard of the western petite-bourgeoisie without doing this).

In short we can cut down on all work while increasing material wealth for the (former) proletariat.

How else do you propose to bring down the family? Given the vast majority of women opt for spending time with their kid given the chance. Funny thing, many people enjoy the family setting and find it convenient.

you do people a disservice.

Not a surprise given the overwhelming majority of children are raised in a traditional setting.

Let's look at this another way for a minute. We're post scarcity now. You've got a girl pregnant and are in the hospital with her as she is about to give birth. At what point does the state assume control and how does it look? The alternative to state coercion is leaving it the parent's choice. This is essentially what we have right now. You can talk about social pressures or expectations all you like but I don't see any of this as coercion.

Well, aren't socialism of yours is heaven on earth, where everything belongs to everybody, no class struggle and everyone is equal and shit, so it got to have a perfect example of a loving family as well.

So in a society where no-one need work, what happens?

Women spend time with their kids? I don't see how this leads to the collapse of the traditional family. Unless we've switched sides without me noticing and you are now arguing from the viewpoint that the traditional family is a force for good and would be better served under communism? I wouldn't actually reject this but we need to be post scarcity first no?

You're an idiot and your entire post is fucking strawman.
Communist society will not be a utopia, there will still be conflict between people, it just won't be class conflict or war.

lel
we collectivize the babbies at birth and assign them random communes through the state lottery

at age 4 we make them take the (currently secret) communist oath: "I belong to the state and I have no free will"

at age 8 we assign them their gender: kids born with benis will be known as "triggs" and kids born with bagina as "rulers"

at age 15 the state assigns the kids couples and makes them reproduces

[the cycle repeats]

Then what are we talking about? How do you envision the glorious post family utopia? Or is this just another case of criticism without offering alternative?

Don't forget the toothbrushes. We gonna collectivize them too.

Son, they're making fun of you

m..mean.

huh. I missed you before. So essentially you wish to relieve people the burden of child rearing? I don't think the majority consider it a burden overall.

You mean one where there's 3 or 4 generations and all their offspring living together in one household?

This will be the future if the population keeps growing as it is though. Hell even in the UK today such situations (though only really 2 generations + offspring) aren't uncommon given the fuckery of the housing market. But no, this isn't really ideal but some may choose to.

It isn't until it is, son

Making baby talk noises and playing peekaboo, definitely not a burden quite rewarding

Changing nappies all the time, and cleaning up the disaster in the kitchen, and the screaming oh god the screaming definitely could do with a hand

But seriously, women keep living past menopause evolutionary speaking there's no need for this unless it is for the purposes of provisioning for their grandchildren

Of course there is more to a human than mere biology, but biology has an effect and there's no reason to think that these biological drives, like familial bonding will just up disappear under communism

Which is to say in simple terms, grandma will still want to spoil the grandkids

Here's an outline of a transitional programme just for you; basic steps towards communist childcare and education.

Post-revolution we introduce education reforms on the principles of dual power. By this I mean teacher unions in accordance with a central body (federal, state, party, council, whatever your fancy) work out an egalitarian system which will aim at creating an environment that puts emphasis on the children's individual talents and interests, give them the necessary experience of communal life (politics, work, polemics, culture) while providing the general knowledge and know-how in the basic disciplines (math, science, humanities). IMO, rating systems and class partitioning have to be abandoned altogether, not just because they are counter-productive economically but harmful as well psychologically. This would mean that more resources and manpower had to be allocated to teaching kids.

It is essential that kids get formally introduced to politics from a very young age, and I say "formally" because they, from a very young age are already political subjects without them knowing it. Bourgeois culture tends to infantilise young people, claiming that you have to reach arbitrary ages or rights to be considered a worthy person. An historical example would be the French revolution, where voting age has been dropped to 12. (If you lurk more you'll notice that most of us are skeptical about parliamentarism, and humanist (rights based) conceptions altogether). One obvious way for this is letting them have more and more say in the education they themselves receive as they grow up with the aim of making them able to out-grow the institutional environment itself, that is to say, giving the means necessary for them becoming autonomous and life-long studiers.

Child and youth centers, movements should be created. It is totally retrograde to constrain kids into waking up at 6:30 AM, going to school, and then back to home, allowing the views and practices of 2 people dominating their lives. I believe that at around age 12 kids should have to experience living independently for a week or so. If you are 12 you get to live in a dorm for a week that has teachers, counselors, and the necessary technical equipment and library. You then are offered to stay there for a longer basis, or to revisit it according to your personal schedule. This is one of the ways kids that are abused by their parents can escape the toxic environment.

I could go on.

kill them loud and dirty babbies, tbh

Fair enough. Don't have kids so cannot give own personal insight. I am an uncle and going on what friends say, most enjoy it overall but sure there's times you would just think 'fuck this'. I did say overall though.

I wasn't advocating for four generations per household. I doubt many would choose it. By traditional I'm thinking what is common in the west today, mother father and kids with extended family and friends for support. I really don't see much issue with this system.

You don't sound like the one I'm looking for. I was curious to hear not from those who see the family changing as things progress but rather those who have issue with the family today and would like to see it abolished.

ritualmag.com/kinderkommunismus/

This article is bretty gud btw.

reddit.com/r/radicalparenting/

What we have today is anything but traditional. The family is in an advanced state of decay.

There's a big difference between the family being abolished as an economic unit (by being subsumed by collective living) and all familial associations disappearing. I've been arguing for the former in this thread. I have no idea why you keep insisting we're arguing for some horrible spartan shit where children are taken away by force.

everyone has, tbh

So, give kids a more balanced, less competitive education. I don't think meritocracy is without its merits but can respect that you see it as potentially more destructive than good.

Would personal development be possible under a system of soft indoctrination? I guess its true we are indoctrinated even today but I'd like to think I've broke most of my programming. You're talk of politicising kids from a young age again sounds a bit like indoctrination to me. As to giving kids more agency, I wouldn't be opposed to this though the practicalities may complicate it.

I can only speak for myself but these things existed where I grew up.

This bit is probably true, if a little over stated in most cases.

This is where I really take issue with your points. Who decides what is right-think?

This or something like this isn't a bad idea.

Cause we don't live ten to a house? Marriage and that are kinda breaking down but I don't think this is something that should be encouraged. In fact I think they should be encouraged to stay together.

I have no idea either. I thought this was a position advocated by some of you lefties?

By 'family as an economic unit' you're talking marriage and how this legally pools assets, inheritance and related right?

Okay kid

Communal life is in an economic sense non-competitive, but on a political level more competitive. Imagine that from now on you don't vote every 4 years for a president, but have to actively engage in how things are organized if you wish to. In the context of a teacher union fierce debates would be had on how to teach kids, in the context of factory how to organize production. This is intellectual and political competition, competition that is not subordinated to a third term (capital) but to the direct needs of the people and our interpretation of them, our active participation in forming them.

starts at when kids learn to speak. Knowledge was never neutral, but always subversive. This is why academia, scientific research is heavily monitored and, again, driven by profits: it takes the "edge" out.

You can't teach a kid to count or to write properly without a certain degree of coercion. I acknowledge this and find some liberal's ideals on the topic very malign.

my got (webm related)

I worded my text in a specific way for this reason. I'm saying that a group of kids in kindergarten deciding on what to play next, or sharing your food with another when s/he has none, when you stand out for your friends etc. IS ALREADY POLITICS. We are social beings, and we should teach our kids accordingly. There's this taboo surrounding child sexuality, child consciousness and child politics. They aren't those pure angels as society currently likes to look at them.

As always. Just because it is hard, it doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt it, or worse, fail and fail again better at it.

Well who decides currently? Mom, dad, according to and acting upon
You seem to valorize parents, something every person being brought up in this way is prone to.

And as a social form required to reproduce the current system we live under.

...

...

...

Partly because the extended family barely even exists anymore, partly because single parenting is on the rise and partly because non-domestic institutions have taken on much of the burden of child rearing.

It will continue to happen whether you want it or not. As I've said previously: it has a material basis. Just look at how all the incentives and moral exhortations thrown about by conservative politicians fail to reverse it.

Only in the minds of paranoid/delusional conservatives. I think part of the problem is a lot of right wingers seem to confuse marxist communism with the kind of society advocated by Plato in The Republic (though I think just as many know better but say shit like that anyway to spread disinformation).

You're getting way too hung up on marriage. In modern common law countries it's possible for families to exist as an economic unit even without marriage (though it complicates things legally). As for communist society, marriage has no material function when private property has been abolished. Getting married would just be ceremonial (assuming people would be bother upholding such a tradition). In material terms it would be like declaring yourself to be the Holy Roman Emperor.

No, he's a linguist. Philosophy and linguistics are a combined field at MIT.

Source: Bostonian, ex-bf used to be MIT staff.

Are you a grill?

OK well then the extended family has already been largely extinguished and the nuclear is starting to dissolve as well. This is because of capitalism and is simply a logical conclusion given the material circumstances. It should be no surprise that classcuck supreme Molyneux is an advocate of cutting off all ties to family given this and if anything will "abolish the family" it will be the machine of capitalism.

Now will the same conception of nuclear family exist in socialism, communism, or some flavor of anarchism? Very likely. Snowflakes aside, a lot of people seem to prefer long-term relationships and if not mate for life will be together for long-term. Marriage may become just another ceremony but unless the population at large is radically despooked then respooked I don't see marriage or common-law practice of living with your partner disappearing.

Pair bonding doesn't imply a nuclear family by itself though. It's entirely possible that people will still long term pair bond even in a society where everyone lives communally. A nuclear family on the other hand implies parents and children living together in an isolated economic unit. Not really the same thing.

The issue of monogamy vs polyamory is a separate matter and it's worth pointing out that living in a polyamourous relationship doesn't negate the family as an economic unit. It's entirely possible for people in a nuclear family to have intimate relations outside of their family after all.

I'll admit I'm a little confused by the concept of nuclear family. Under socialism I do see a more communal living, but I don't think it would be too outrageous for a couple(or whatever) to live in a room or apartment with the offspring within the community. If anything the family under socialism would be more like the extended families of the past than the relatively isolated nuclear families we have today.

I didn't day it wasn't. I did say it seems most people prefer monamorus relationships though. Credit spooks or material conditions for this, but I can't see this radically changing under socialism with the caveat it would become more common in practice than it is now because individuals who desire that sort of relationship now aren't able to do so.

Oh I agree, I think communal living arrangements would be more like a hotel: private spaces containing bedrooms and bathrooms, and large common areas containing kitchens, laundries and various leisure centers. Such an arrangement should minimize domestic work and waste of resources, while at the same time allowing for privacy.

Yeah, it's hard to say how interpersonal relationships will change after the abolition of property and wage labour. While I think the number of people engaged in non-traditional relationships would rise, it could go the other way too (Engels seemed to think so at any rate).

Yes.

XX, vagina, tits, the works.

...

Kengor looks very jewwy.

It looks like she's going to put the baby in the dryer.

...

You misunderstood me fam that wasn't out of blind support of the patriarchy. My dad didn't grow up in a patriarchal home. When my dad was raised there the patriarch and matriarch had both been dead for nearly a decade and no one bother to replace them. He just grow up in a communal family raised by a network of aging members of the communal family home that stayed behind when my grandfather and his brothers fled the family estate when war broke out in Palestine around 1948. The Israeli occupation destroyed traditional life and family structure over there. What's funny about the whole patriarchy situation is that both sjws and tradcons from Holla Forums don't actually understood how it worked. My grandfather wasn't allowed to make a single solitary decision on his own not who he married, not what job he had. He wasn't even allowed to keep the money he earned that went straight to the family coffers controlled by the patriarch.

of course leftcom provides.

just a small note, I don't think that the kibbutzim are a good example of how habitation and communal life would work in communism because the kibbutzim exist essentially within the capitalist totality and are thus tied to this mode of production. Instead, I would say that communities in communism aren't a necessity per se but rather rise out of convenience. So based on the form of convenience communal life has to take communities in communism could look way different than what communities look like today.

My brother-in-law grew up as a Hasidic Jew in Brooklyn, and this sounds identical to what goes on in their community.

Literally every detail of your life is planned out by the people above you, whether it's parents, grandparents, rabbis/rebbetzins, etc. You aren't allowed to make any decisions for yourself. In fact, the whole idea of "self interest" really doesn't exist in that culture, because there isn't a single time when you're really alone as an individual. If you're a girl, you get a bare-bones secular education until you're thrown into an arranged marriage at the age of 16-17, and then you're expected to pump out a lot of kids. If you're a boy, you're barely given any secular education and instead spend all day learning the Talmud. Some Hasidic sects prohibit intermingling with the outside world so it's not uncommon to meet former Hasids who have never seen a movie or watched TV before.

This is also why I laugh whenever anti-Zios like to claim Israeli culture is "narcissistic". Tel Aviv may very well be, but Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh, Tzafat, and the settlements most certainly aren't. The settlements even less so because they're basically military societies along with being mini Jewish theocracies.

The family structure is (ironically) one of the reasons why a lot of baalei teshuvah women like pretending orthodox Judaism isn't "really" patriarchal: the wife makes the final decision in all cases. Of course, she also has to put up with being degraded at every moment by the men.

...

The new family must burst from the skull of the old father.

We want each kid to have 10 moms and 10 dads :)
We want the kids to see many things from many perspectives and ease the burden of parrenthood.

"Family values" have nothing to do with the success of a nation, kids are just a pain to raise well and need role models to properly develop. The nuclear family is just a single way to organize a family structure that can fill these needs, there is no reason a larger, more complex structure cannot foster healthy development.

I agree, but I wanted to provide an example of something analogical to the kind of community will might see in a communist society, to cut reactionaries off before their inevitable cries of "DATS UTOPIAN". It serves to illustrate the flexibility of human social relations and smash the illusion of an eternal family structure. While I could have cited say, pre-civilisation social structures for the same purpose, I felt I present day example might be more convincing, as it's harder to deny their existence.

The only thing that's sabotaged the family and marriage is capitalism, by economically strangling families and singles who might have otherwise considered marriage, but can't afford the expense.

This thread is a proof that communism is anti-family. You are no different from SJWs.

Archived.

Every time.

Thanks fam

Yes, we're not spooked right-wingers, you figured it out Holla Forums

50 percent of US wage earners made less than or equal to the median wage, estimate to be $26,965 in 2011.

There is no way the average man can afford to have a wife that stays home and three kids in this day & age with that income.

If you want to know where all the nuclear families have gone, remember that statistic. Porky media will blame the poor. If the corporations that own the media really gave a shit about families, they'd pay their employees a living wage and guarantee maternal leave for new mothers. Don't buy the Holla Forums bullshit. There's no "degeneracy", people are just doing what they can to survive and have a reason to live.

Seconded. I've babysat a nephew multiple times and I really got a sense of how hard it is to raise a kid right. If anything, people should be having less kids because the work involved is immense. Quality over quantity. Plus, with both parents having to work just to make ends meet means older forms of child-rearing (like getting elders and relatives involved) becomes necessary.

You okay bro? Do you need an epi-pen?
I can provide non-jewish examples if it will make you feel any better.

It benefits me if you will.

IT'S A MEME YOU DIP!

Get this zionist bullshit out of here.

Not only this thread manages to redpill everyone on the fact that all marxists want to destroy family, and take away your children, but also proves that jews are behind everything.

Day of the rope can't come soon enough.

They call themselves feminists and the fact that the earliest members of that cult were a literal luxury class probably has a lot to do with this trend in thinking.

sophists get out reeeee

Here's a couple of examples:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks_Community,_Virginia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommune_Niederkaufungen

Unfortunately most present day communes are populated by hippies and religious lunatics so it's hard to find good examples.

Comprehension really isn't your strong suit is it?

Nothing is free comrade .Educators and childcare workers would have to be compensated for their labor. Or are you suggesting that they would be forced to give up their time for this?

No.

Again, religious Israelis are NOT narcissistic. Narcissism is very much a product of modernity, which Orthodox Jews try to distance themselves from as much as possible.

The only narcissistic Orthodox Jews are the baalei teshuvah (newly religious) Jews who migrate to Israel or the occupied West Bank from the West; they were raised secular and became newly religious sometime in their 20s.

There is a bond between parent and offspring because if there wasn't infants wouldn't have been taken care of throughout human history. Capitalism and traditionalism has nothing to do with it.

Inb4 the reason every species that gives birth to offspring that cannot take care of them self from birth rear their young is because they are spooked.

You're either very new, completely clueless as to what communism is, or a Holla Forumslack troll.
For starters, even today pretty much all developed nations offer free education for children, some offer it for tertiary education and many western countries subsidize child care for a certain number of hours a week.
Secondly, while people may be paid a kind of psuedo-wage (non-circulating labour credit/vouchers) in the lower phase of communism, people aren't paid in a fully developed communist society and money won't exist at all.

The more bathrooms you have the more resources you waste. Also fuck your "you have to go in the bathroom" statism. I go wherever I please. Bathrooms are bourgeois as fuck.

It isn't free. It is payed for with taxes. And why should anyone have to have the produce of their labor stolen for this purpose?

Yes I understand this. The workers would give of their labor voluntarily.

Are you seriously asking why we should have public education?
I really don't think this is the right board for you.

>>>/liberty/

tl;dr

If piss poor people in the third world can do it then there really should be nothing preventing people who enjoy a much higher standard of living from doing it to. No Capitalism is at fault here through consumerism. People who have children do not consume as much useless crap as those who do not.

No I am saying that the produce of an individuals labor is not yours or any others to seize. I did mention giving of ones labor voluntarily.

Look, economic and social theories are all fine and dandy but given their track records I don't think anyone should be under the presumption that post capitalist society will look anything like they describe.

Well, at least those guys haven't gone full retarded like yourselves, and actually allowed parents to take care of their children full day long.
Your israeli example was the worst though.

Related, you should read "Walden two" by bf skinner. That's the book it was based on. Defiantly one of my fave books

We should not be using extreme poverty in the third world as examples of the environment people should raise their children in.

i.e. your opinions are invalid because they don't consider my feelings

Daily reminder the breakdown of the family is to blame for the mass incarceration rate.

city-journal.org/html/myth-criminal-justice-racism-10231.html

youtube.com/watch?v=LPmoSXFxs1g

You do realise that communal care for children includes their parents - as primary care-givers, if they want.

Have you heard of Fascism? It was Old Benny's way of fixing the problems of capitalism and communism. Class cooperation to prevent unfair conditions between the classes. But still adheres to the reality of human nature in the social and economical sphere with traditional values.

worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

Fuck off!

This is your brain on idealism.

...

If society hasn't developed to the point where everything is free and all work is voluntary, then we will have no choice but to deduct a portion of workers income to "fund" development of the means of production, to provide free public services and to support those unable to work. Society simply wouldn't be able to function otherwise. The notion that workers will be able to receive the "full value of their labour" is an infantile notion that marx rightly destroys in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

kek, it's a proven fact that the war on drugs has caused mass incarceration, which has led to families being broken up. it happens to everyone, but it happens more often to blacks because it's designed to target the poor, not certain races

what they won't tell you is that white AND black birth rates are going down, so a lack of FAMUHLEE VALYOOS can't possibly be the problem because there just aren't as many people having kids to raise families in.

classcucks just hate the poor and want to blame them for their problems

As said: we do not intend to take children away from their parents like some kind of horrific spartan society. That said, if parents wish to have any time for themselves to be able to work (or simply to relax!) they will have to delegate some care to people other than themselves (just as we do in today's society). In this context communal care is an alternative to institutional care (child care centres) or leaving kids to their own devices (which sadly happens a lot in today's society). Instead of bored shitless or running around unsupervised, they'll be able to enjoy themselves among friends and family while being overseen by other adult members of the commune.

Found the insecure, sexually frustrated teenager

Paraphrasing Benny.
Right-wing likes to see and understand reality and have a vision for the future.

Bump

BTW what do you all think of Scotland's 'Named Person Scheme'?

...

An indicator showing the breakdown of the family under capitalism

This "Named Person Scheme" serves functions that formerly would have been done by family members, either genetic or through affection

How about the policy itself? It rings kinda true with some of what people have suggest ITT, that the state should have primary care responsibility for children's health and wellbeing.

I think it is more than a little intrusive.

One thing that struck me looking into it at your request is that it is not only the primary contact for the child but also for the parents

I'll look into it a bit further before giving a detailed response

Ok, on a second reading of the government claims on it I noticed this

archive.is/psdYM#selection-599.0-599.134

So the thing to look at would be how it has been in practice

The account given in this article shows it can be shuddersome and intrusive

archive.is/UP37F#selection-2387.387-2387.528

Although this line does show that this case is not how it operates in the general

archive.is/JYXFc#selection-889.0-889.305

According to this claim, the overall effect of it has been less intrusive than the already existing child protection services, but I'd like to see the recorded statistics before believing it

Double posting, so polite sage

TITS NIGGA TITS

Me too.

Ehh

You mean Stalinism

Well… zoophiles have shit taste :^)

but necro is top-tier

Nice archiving but can you really take at face value the council saying their scheme works? And the named person scheme centralises and legally mandates this whole thing. There is no opt out.

Available isn't the word. Mandatory is.

This in my mind takes the role of primary responsible party away from the parents and hands it to an unaccountable bureaucrat.

And with that you have cemented Holla Forums as a bastion of legitimate evil in the world. How can you be so braindead to consider any of that a good thing? Your death cannot come quick enough for me. I look forward to slaying your kind in the upcoming civil war.

*tips katana*

If you read what I wrote, I did not

This is what child protective services already is

Feels good.