So why do we (and by we I guess I mean Marxists more than /leftypol) hate family so much...

So why do we (and by we I guess I mean Marxists more than /leftypol) hate family so much? Would you prohibit the nuclear family arrangement or do you just dislike it as an institution and expectation? What would you replace it with? I'll probably agree with you, I just want a more elaborate explanation of this.

right

marxism isn't against the family, claiming it "hates" it is nothing more than conspiracy theory tier. It describes why the nuclear family came into being because of the material changes to society thanks to capitalism and why it will change and ultimately disappear as the primary unit of societal organization as those same conditions change.

I personally don't give a shit because I'm just into economic leftism.

Have whatever family you want. I don't care.

The "nuclear family" is an unequal family arrangement based on the domination of the father over his family based on his exclusive access to resources.

Socialism would undo this by taking away the economic grounds for the nuclear family. That is, it would give everyone equal access to society's resources, preventing a situation where the family unit would be wholly dependent on a single paternal "breadwinner".

That said, capitalism is doing this already, though in a way we don't approve of. Instead of equal access to resources, it has restricted access to resources, making a decent life difficult to maintain without both parents working. We wanted to replace the nuclear family with a freer, more egalitarian variant, capitalism has stripped away the nuclear family and replaced it with nothing.

Capitalism hasn't stripped the nuclear family away in the West – it's been placed in a pressure cooker.

If you want a country where the family has been destroyed, compared to what it was historically, look no further than China.

The nuclear family is on death's door in the West, if it isn't dead already.

Not at all. Once the economic collapse happens, everything will once again get back to normal.

Last I checked "stay-at-home moms" were very much in the minority in the West, most families being either egalitarian (both parents work and share in household tasks) or single-parent. That's not even mentioning the fact that actual marriage rates are down.

This is the tragedy of feminism. The massive increase in available workers and the temporarily increased buying power of the two income family, ended up stopping wages from rising with the market, and so served to delay the collapse of capitalism (due to fall in the rate of profit) at the expense of workers.

Feminism played a role, but you're ignoring computers, outsourcing and immigration from Latin America. The labor market would have gotten saturated, feminism or no.

I'm speaking, of course, about the United States there, but Europe underwent a similar situation.

...

the way I see it, without the increased disposable income of the two income household, wages would have to follow the market in order to have enough buying power to keep the system rolling. It's not enough to lower cost of production if no one can afford to buy your stuff. In that sense feminism (if understood as in women in the work place) is pretty much an unavoidable part of late stage capitalism.

...

prole women were working outside the home long before bourgeois "feminism" was involved

…

wew

Sure, but mostly before marriage or a small income on the side. One income per family was completely normal. Today a prole on one income has a would have a extremely hard time providing for a family unassisted.

I don't give a shit what people do in their private lives. If you want a "traditional family" (which tradition?) that's fine. If you want enter into a three-way marriage with your twin sisters, that's also fine.

Because we are bunch evil dark triad- personality types who want to see whole of human society to submit into our will?

Traditional power relations between generations, between men and women, and between different ethnic groups are all supported and reinforced by the family unit; and collectively these power relations strengthen and stabilize the capitalist system.


In the run up to the revolution we can't ban it completely, of course, but we have to undermine it as much as possible, given the circumstances. That means erasing/reversing all traditional relationships… who supports whom financially, who can command or punish whom, who can have sex with whom, who makes decisions, who cohabits. That all needs to be moved away from the biological relationships.


Nothing? After the revolution women will raise their children until the child can make its own decisions about where to live, etc.

Not forcing something isn't the same as prohibiting it, you autist.

I have to say, it might be better for Marxists to avoid saying anything about "destroying" "eliminating", or even "making invalid" the nuclear family. Rather, it would be beneficial to talk about strengthening the family.
The fear from anybody who's right of commie is that leftists want to dissolve the dedicated adult/child-teacher/pupil-caretaker/dependent relationship, as opposed to providing a stronger bedrock for both the prospective parents as well as the children in their care through establishing a different economic system. They think the reds want to physically remove their children. And I mean, there's nothing inherently wrong with communal child rearing, and back a century or two ago, extended families and close friends almost provided a semblance of that, even in the west, but capitalism has shrunk and neutered that network of relationships and support.

the whole family working to sustain the family was the norm before ww2 and that's probably the "new" "normal" we've been returning to

lol republicans have even been floating putting kids back to work so it'll really just be like the good old 1910s again

It's literally bad for you. Historically kids were raised communally, which of course is better for their sense of freedom. But also having just one or two adults taking care of a young child full time is extremely taxing to the point that it causes a permanent drop in IQ.

To to the kid or the parents? Gonna need a source anyway.

nuclear family is a 20th century invention anyway, why must it be preserved?

Your Holla Forums is showing, op, delete this immediately.
Literally none of us want to destroy families

Speak for yourself, I do.