Please explain how destroying families isn't despicable and satanic

marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm

...

i want to have a million kids then replicate the exact conditions i was raised in then unleash them onto the world, hoping at least a few of them will also have the same drive and do the same so me and my ilk can bring about the reign of terror.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Are you a sea turtle?

Satan isn't real.

Both Marx and Engels are saying that family based upon capital rather than love is shitty you autist

How is the nuclear family based on capital. Also, I mean in any society, capitalist or not

You're right OP - lets end the war on drugs so that Black American families can stop being torn apart.

You're all mental teenagers

The man is the worker who gets his wage from the capitalist and pays for his whole household. The woman does the labor needed at home, so he has more time/energy to give to his boss. It's a scheme to fool the men into thinking they're autonomous and the leaders of their family unit.

Because when you marry based on economic incentives (taxes, pooling income, etc) it takes away from the real meaning of marriage and love. Engels explains in his "On Family" that bourgeoisie marriages are the most exemplary of this because upper class people marry almost exclusively intent on economic power and power alliances.

Take away capitalism and its focus on pooling capital, and you'll soon see a freer, more real love emerge among people. Communists support real love and family, instead of convenient arrangements based around survival and money.

How is providing for your family not an expression of love?

How is the existence of private property the most important aspect in the nuclear family? This is why dialectical materialism is autistic, is exists only to look at organic hierarchy and see oppression

Please explain to me how the biggest threat to strong families is not capitalism itself? Is the 50% divorce rate not proof enough for you? Or countless single mothers raising generations of dysfunctional kids? Or mothers and fathers spending so much time labouring for next to nothing they have no time to spend with their kids? I utterly fail to see how capitalism has done anything but destroy families. All throughout history, in all cultures, it has been in direct opposition to the strong family unit.

How many times have you been forced to choose between your financial well-being and spending time with your family? How many hours have you sacrificed to keep your finances in check that could have been spent with your family? How could you possibly suggest capitalism is in any way a benefit to families?

inb4 >organic hierarchy LOL
All interactions are hierarchical, even things like gravity and biological life

No, I'm a statue.

What does that have to do with anything?

How is capitalism at fault for this stuff specifically? Maybe I'm retarded but I don't see the connection. I thought the divorce rate was because no-fault divorce became a thing and people just don't really take to marriage to begin with so they took the opportunity.

Work is necessary to have a functional society, even pre market societies still had work. cavemen hunted. Feminism (which is inherently leftist) is what i blame for the destruction of the family.

...

SATANCHAN PLEASE DRAIN MY SEMEN

satanicleft.weebly.com/why-socialism-is-satanic.html

Grow up and stop hating your parents

I don't give a fuck about it, people should just organize their daily life however they choose, be it a family or not.
Muh freedom.

I'm saying capitalism is no defense at all from the destruction of the family, these things still occurred despite ourselves living in the most openly capitalistic age of human history. Socialism can not be worse than this, we are nearly at peak-shit when it comes to family unity. Even if capitalism itself is not at fault for these things, it was allowed to happen, capitalism can not protect the family unit.

Gotcha.

You know, nothing actually simplifies to capitalism vs communism

That is obvious, I am not saying work is bad, I'm saying the capitalistic system forces one to make family compromises when we ought not have to because of the burdens of strictly capitalistic financial obligations.

How is socialism a solution to this? These weren't problems under feudalism.

You wanna know how I know you don't know what those words mean?

Because capitalism forces people to work more than is necessary. One of its premises is that people have to work to eat. If someone invents technology that reduces the amount of necessary work, under socialism that means people have less work to do. Under capitalism, it means people have to find more work to do in order to make a living. Combine that with wage stagnation, and people have to spend ever more time working and less time with their loved ones.

There are people taking jabs at socialism in this thread and I just wanted to make clear that capitalism is doing the family not a single favour, whatever it is that socialists wish to do with the family it can hardly be worse than our current state of affairs. I agree destroying the family is evil, it's inhuman, and considering capitalism has done such a horrible job at maintaining the integrity of the family I see no reason to oppose socialism on the basis of "preserving family unity" as some people have hinted towards here.

You still have yet to explain feudalism, or distributism for that matter

Feudalism is irrelevant, but all the lords cared about was productivity. The peasants didn't get wages. They got to work enough to produce what they needed to and then they were done.

When workers control the means of production, they will not choose to do irrelevant work in order to reap the profits of their labor.

Accepting the status quo is an old man sign of wanting things to stabilize and stop conflict, it's not maturity.

Marriage and families cost money. People are squeezed financially and can't afford the things to maintain the traditional "nuclear family", not to mention that most work these days is part time, precarious or demands so much of your time you don't have time for family.

In addition, in order to increase its pool of wage laborers, capital brought in women to the workforce, saturating the labor market and suppressing wages, and began globalizing their production process, meaning that the jobs that once allowed a single income to support a whole family (which was the foundation of the nuclear family) no longer exist.

Capitalism destroyed the nuclear family without us lifting a finger.

Good >:)

Without private property you cannot build or have a family. I cannot beleive you are asking such a stupid question.

The family itself is the primary tool for ensuing the future circulation of capital, as the family through marriage is meant to have children.Furthermore wealth is passed down the line, making sure the accumulation of profit benefits the Capitalist economy.

OK cool. Thanks for the explanation. It made sense there would be a connection, I just wasn't seeing it.

Capitalism and privatization of the Commons did that without us, buddy

Please leave

Satan kills like 4 people in the bible, god kills at least tens of millions

So, Automation is destroying society?

sage

BETTER TO REIGN IN HELL

THAN TO SERVE IN HEAVEN

U dun goofed

if he rules it then why the FUCK couldnt i get some of that forgiveness everyone's talking about

tell me how black crime rates having nothing to do with them not having a fatherly figure.

...

This.

Capitalism is doing a fine job of destroying the family already. In fact, I believe that at this point a socialist society could only bring the family closer together.

...

...

Because Satan does not exist and percieving something as "despicable" is entirely subjective