What if I just want to cut out the capitalist middle man and have the workers control the means of production? What if I don't want to abolish the nuclear family, don't want to abolish gender roles, don't want all state borders to disappear, don't want society to be nothing but Marxist avante garde artists, dont want to forcibly abolish religio, don't want to forcibly export revolution to societies not interested or prepared for it etc?
Am I a reactionary? Why does worker control have to be joined at the hip with a bunch of crazy shit almost nobody wants and nobody will ever get behind?
Capitalism is already contradictory with the nuclear family, trans people perform within gender roles (read: don't want to abolish them) and don't care about the Tumblr demi-boys and demi-girls because they're actually trying to change themselves, and nation-states remain exploited by the mercantile relations of production leaving the whole superstructure, the Party, the Parliament, et cetera, to become a hindrance on workers (self-management not bureaucracy, k??).
Angel Reed
all that other shit is irrelevant one way or the other.
Nathan Miller
Sucks to be you then, because nothing will save them. Capitalism is already destroying these useless "conservative" values daily and communism will only accelerate their demise. You'll get over it eventually.
Kayden Gutierrez
What the hell does it mean to abolish the nuclear family? It's just a structural arrangement.
Christian Long
I guess that means making the Epinal picture of nuclear family impossible because the mom have to work?
John Fisher
I really don't get it. I understand that neoiberalism has hurt the conservative structure of the family, but how will communism abolish it? What's wrong with the nuclear family?
Kevin Allen
That's BS tho. Middle-class south american families have working parents, while the children are cared-for in either daycares or by retired family members such as grandmothers and so on.
Nuclear family in this sense is a fairly vague term, I don't see what is there to abolish.
Another vague as fuck term, women largely enjoy being "girly" and men largely enjoy being "manly"… Activities that are commonly associated with each gender role are not necessarily enforced by a en evil capitalist patriarchal conspiracy, they can be a result of natural gender sensibilities.
This whole trans-demi-queer-whatever thing going on is just a bit social fad that will eventually go away, it's just a new free-love movement, and just like the hippies, this whole ordeal wil come to pass and will become the fringe movement it is doomed to be.
LGBTQ will not be the end of society, nor will they completely change gender and sexuality for good. 20 years from now, we'll have former trannies being the neo-liberal scum of the future.
Ryan Roberts
Because what you saying is a bunch of right wing memes about socialism based on the belief that because socialist doesn't believe these are core issues they wanmt to foricbly get rid of them. They're spooks and spook doesn't mean it's something bad, it means it is irrelevant. The family unit doesn't have to be restructured under socialism, it's free to take any structure it wants. Gender roles doesn't have the be abolished, they're free to take any role they want etc. Not even religion that marx said to be the opium of the masses isn't inheritably bad, it just means that religion numbs the worker to his expolotation with promises of a good afterlife. So stop leting your spooks dictate you and live however you want and even if your spooks really pleases you then fine follow them.
Leo Mitchell
Socialist, probably. The real question is how are you going to do it:
1) Via random acts of violence - Anarchists 2) Via persuasion of capitalists - SocDem 3) Via organization of workers - Bolsheviks
Marxists don't actually want to abolish it. Not in the sense you are talking about, at least.
Same as above.
Uh… What?
This is beyond silly. What does any of this has to do with Marxism?
Even Soviets didn't do it and church practically declared war on them.
Not sure what this even means.
Either way, what is your problem with Marxism? As in: did you actually read Marx? Because most of your post is some nonsense and the rest is an obvious misinterpretation. For example, "gender roles" in mid 19th century meant females didn't have the right vote and got paid less for the same work. Unless your intention is to go back to those gender roles, I'm not sure what you want.
Ian Thomas
These things are unlikely to be caused by some great cultural revolution accompanying the seizing of the MoP. They will probably simply die off and the new mode of production will form new social relations.
Adam Jenkins
You came to the wrong place then kiddo
Jordan Ward
Nothing wrong with the nuclear family in itself. It's only a definition of family amongst others. The nuclear family model is just the result of particular material circonstances ( like urbanisation leading to the disappearance of large rural familial homesteads with several generations living under the same roof). With materials conditions evolving again under communism, elements of society will evolve once more and that include family. How? Maybe with people cooperating more, the family could become enlarged because people would tend to trust each other more? But this is pure speculation.
Aaron Anderson
No one is forcing you to be a Marxist or even agree with Marx on ALL things. I'm not sure why it's : "agree with things that some guy said in the 19th century or I'm a reactionary".
Can you really not think of any other stances?
Ian Foster
Exactly. There is no readon to think that the holy trinity of family will be entirely dissolved by communism. This "institution" has survived nearly every form of civilization and their respective cataclysm, we even have evidence to suggest it's as old as agriculture and perhaps older.
Marx critiqued the nuclear family because marriage was primarily an economic institution. Even back in his day marriages were arranged by two wealthy families to have economic ties with each other. He believed people should marry for love, not for money. Thankfully we have a much different view of marriage today but the bourgeois influences are still there. Um, no. I mean, under Communism there will be no states to enforce state borders. This doesn't mean nations would cease to exist though. What? Nah. All that Marx said was that people's deep reliance on religion was due to the emotional strain and alienation capitalism put on people. When he said religion was the "opiate of the masses" he meant it was used as a pain killer to make people complacent. Any society is not interested in revolution as long as it is thoroughly under the control of bourgeois ideology. Nothing makes it prepared for revolution other than the people themselves building a dual system and dismantling capitalist superstructure. Even then, you'll never have 100% of the population on board with it. This isn't much of an issue anyway as the general Marxist-Leninist line is firmly establishing socialism in one country to set an example for workers in other countries.
There are a lot of idpolers spewing a lot of weird shit under the name of Marxism/Communism. Be cautious about what you hear, go back and check the original sources if something seems off.
Matthew Thompson
Actually avant garde art has its roots in facism, Marinetti for example
Jose Rodriguez
I can't wait to watch documentaries ten or twenty years from now about former Tumblr shitposters and random people who became trannies because it was trendy and edgy. (I'm not saying transsexuals aren't real, but you know it's in vogue right now)
Connor Turner
...
Jason Roberts
Your point being?
Isaiah Morales
My point is that your supposition was disingenuous.
