Childrens and Parents in Communism

[ArrowLance]

Isn't telling a 10 year old he can't use heroin beneficial to society? What makes us confident that we will present correct information to children?

I know there are likely some parents who tell their children smoking is fine because they don't want to see themeselves as acting unethically or improperly.

When this 10 year old thinks it's ok to start smoking cigarettes and his parents are willing to give him a pack, we should do nothing? Is that really the kind of society we want? One that sacrifices the children born to unintelligent and ignorant parents "for the greater good of freedom."

I think we clearly have to intervene on behalf of people who are doing really stupid things at ages where they are biologically predispositioned to making rash decisions.

Not to get off topic but. . . Children shouldn't be raised by parents.

[Manzil]

Not to get off topic but. . . Children shouldn't be raised by parents.

No, they should be thrown in the forest and left to fend for themselves. Especially the loud ones.Sod this 'communal rearing of children' lark. Wolves, big cats and even bears have all evolved to raise our castaways - I overheard a bloke in a pub - and lead them on fantastical adventures, providing Disney with many years of material.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Not to get off topic but. . . Children shouldn't be raised by parents.

Not entirely, but subduing bonds formed by biology... dare I say it... is unnatural.

[Nwoye]

Not to get off topic but. . . Children shouldn't be raised by parents.
yeah... yeah they should.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Not to get off topic but. . . Children shouldn't be raised by parents.

Children should definitely be raised by patrents. It's because of their parents that they learn alot of the things they do. Parents are typically there to teach their children about rules and responsibilities that need to be followed within society, well at least within Capitalist society, considering relations with various people are often based around money. Keeping that in mind, How would a child learn not to steal? Not being a thief generally helps you get accepted into Capitalist society. So yes, without parents there would be alot of children unsure about things. They even learn the basics such as how to take care of themselves by being with a nurturing parent. They see their parents eating they'll eventually copy this. Same with any other action. However, of course some parents can be a bad influence. Parents who are alcoholics, smoke, or do drugs are more likely to have children who copy these habits.

[AnthArmo]

Fuck the nuclear family.

The idea that parents always "know best" is an old and outdated notion. After witnessing fundamentalist christian and Neo-Nazi family's teaching their children to hate, I do believe the notion of the Nuclear family is dead. I was lucky enough to be raised by fair parents who have earnt my respect, but that doesn't mean everyone will.

I would also point out that kids raised in Israeli kibbutzim grow up independent from birth, so its not as if there aren't alternatives.

P.S: I'm with Socialist, can a mod split this thread?

[F9]

Ok split it here, i may add my response too later when i am not that bored.

[Plagueround]

I've reposted this a few times now, but if I made a new post, I'd essentially be rewriting this:


As for the notion that children should not be influenced by their parent or guardian, but rather society...I think that ignores the diversity of human thought. A communal society does not mean the end of different approaches, thoughts, and attitudes toward living. If anything I would agree with Oscar Wilde and say a society under socialism would be more diverse and individualistic. You are not going to have a set standard for society to raise a child by. Certainly the consensus society has on certain matters would deter most people from abuse, as it does (or should do) now, but the notion that doing away with family units would eliminate the complex relationship between guardians and children ignores human diversity too much.

I have a feeling that a society under socialism or communism would not see the end of the family unit so much as an extension and furthered development of it, where we view more and more people as part of our family or community. Simply because children are not confined to one style of guardianship does not mean that some won't choose to primarily live with one person, and others may prefer to "bounce around". Again, children are every bit as diverse as the rest of us.

[TC]

Not entirely, but subduing bonds formed by biology... dare I say it... is unnatural.

Having children in your late twenties, thirties and forties, instead of your teens, and then having those children all survive to adulthood (shocking!), and having only a minimal rather than reasonable chance of dieing in the process of reproducing, is pretty unnatural, given human biology...

...yet we do it...

...because our ability as intelligent, deliberative beings rather than purely instinct driven beings allows us to live better than the totally non-moral, undesigned, semi-random evolutionary conditions that predate but don't dictate our physical conditions, would allow in and of themselves.

Religious people think what is 'natural' is good because its the creation of a good god. Secular people should know better. Marxists should recognize that there is no analytically coherent category as 'human nature'.

[Aeval]

Children need to feel secure to develop properly and are not able to properly form relationships without this security, this means they kind of do need 'parents', or at least one or two people (maybe a couple more, what I mean here is specific individuals not just the whole 'community') who look after them whilst they are young so that they can feel secure and can later form a multitude of relationships with everyone else. The family also helps distinguish between those we can have a sexual relationship with and those we can't (as can be seen by the fact that brothers and sisters who meet later on in life not knowing they are related can fall for each other - there's no built in reflex telling us to fall for people not related to us, that only gets programmed into us through having a family)



I would also point out that kids raised in Israeli kibbutzim grow up independent from birth, so its not as if there aren't alternatives.



Three researchers who wrote about psychological life on kibbutzim were Melford E. Spiro (1958) , Bruno Bettelheim (1969) and Michael Baizerman (1963). All concluded that a kibbutz upbringing led to individuals' having greater difficulty in making strong emotional commitments thereafter, such as falling in love or forming a lasting friendship. On the other hand, they appear to find it easier to have a large number of less-involved friendships, and a more active social life.
Independence isn't everything.

[Manifesto]

Would there be any kind of relationship between children and parents?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The idea that parents always "know best" is an old and outdated notion. Please reference a single user who reached such a conclusion. Not even that - reference a post where someone verbalized a sentiment that could be taken to mean even a single parent in the world knows best. Careful: straw can bruise knuckles.


I would also point out that kids raised in Israeli kibbutzim grow up independent from birth, so its not as if there aren't alternatives.Individual instances of independence from birth are not the subject of contention. Plenty of parents disavow guardianship over their kin via adoption agencies. That's perfectly fine, but to actually call into question the existence of families is juvenile rebelliousness gone awry. Are we all going to live in giant dorm-like facilities? (Rhetorical) You are arguing for a monopoly that is just as bad and futile as traditional male/woman nuclear families.

Passing off family institutions as a simple social construct is akin to arguing one day we're all going to be friends. There won't be "any" exclusion or tiers to our social interaction. That is simply naive. Mothers care for a child in the womb, and even from that point a bond grows between them that most can't consciously remove. Fathers too experience this bond, but a lot of times in a less dramatic way due to the lack of physical necessity.


There is nothing "biological" or "natural" about the current form of human families. Its just a symptom of the historical development of the modes of production.Just as a desire for some time alone is an outgrowth of the economic production, right? Please. Humans are malleable creatures to some extent, but we are no different than any other species - we have a point where nature simply can't be outdone, unless through actual evolution. Communal involvement in the family has certainly fluctuated over time, but there has never existed a society where parents (or a very small, select group of guardians) were completely removed from child rearing en masse, and there never will be.


Having children in your late twenties, thirties and forties, instead of your teensAnd if your refutation is actually meant to be taken seriously, please point to how - under a socialist system of commerce - one's actual genetic livelihood is going to change family institutions. Your comparison is an example of phony categorization. An extended life line means humans reschedule aspects like child care and retirement; it doesn't mean our desires change. Family institutions are certainly evolving, and thanks to the material benefit of birth control and freer labor markets many women can now avoid children entirely, but there is not anything conceivable that would destroy parental guidance - other than an authoritarian state run by people like Socialist.

[ArrowLance]

Children need to feel secure to develop properly and are not able to properly form relationships without this security, this means they kind of do need 'parents', or at least one or two people (maybe a couple more, what I mean here is specific individuals not just the whole 'community') who look after them whilst they are young so that they can feel secure and can later form a multitude of relationships with everyone else. The family also helps distinguish between those we can have a sexual relationship with and those we can't (as can be seen by the fact that brothers and sisters who meet later on in life not knowing they are related can fall for each other - there's no built in reflex telling us to fall for people not related to us, that only gets programmed into us through having a family)

I don't see why parents are needed to make children feel secure. And I don't see what is wrong with intimate relationships between consenting adults.

[Aeval]

I don't see why parents are needed to make children feel secure. And I don't see what is wrong with intimate relationships between consenting adults.

Well 'parents' aren't, but some adults are - unless we're saying kids should just be left to run about together with no adult guidance whatsoever. What I'm saying is that first forming a close bond with one/two/three/a handful of adults is good for kids, obviously the wider community can be involved but in the first few years having a 'parent' (or guardian if you don't like that word) isn't a bad thing.

I presume the second bit is in reference to the incest thing?


Premarital sexual behavior and marriage patterns were investigated in Israeli kibbutzim. All adolescents and adults of the second generation in one kibbutz were studied. There were no cases of heterosexual activity between any two native adolescents of the same peer group and no cases of marriage between any two members of the same peer group. The avoidance was completely voluntary. Among 2769 marriages contracted by second generation adults in all kibbutzim, there were no cases of intra—peer group marriage. These findings could represent a case of negative imprinting whereby collective peer group education which includes an incessant exposure to peers from the first days of life and an unimpeded tactile relationship among the peers between ages 0–6 results in sexual avoidance and exogamy.

Sure, people can form relationships with who they want, but people tend to avoid those they are brought up with. Avoiding people you are directly related to is fine - let's be honest, having babies with your sister isn't the most intelligent thing to do - but being brought up with a mass of other people seems to confuse the line between who you 'can' and 'can't' have a relationship with.

[AnthArmo]

Please reference a single user who reached such a conclusion. Not even that - reference a post where someone verbalized a sentiment that could be taken to mean even a single parent in the world knows best. Careful: straw can bruise knuckles.

Ok fine, I was wrong in using that strawman. Regardless, I think its dangerous for children to grow up as the private property of their parents. Believe it or not, Parents are humans that aren't always correct. The nuclear family also places parents into a position were they can indoctrinate their children into believing incorrect, stupid or immoral positions. Looking at how children have had religious or racist dogma forced onto them is merely an example of this.


Individual instances of independence from birth are not the subject of contention. Plenty of parents disavow guardianship over their kin via adoption agencies. That's perfectly fine, but to actually call into question the existence of families is juvenile rebelliousness gone awry. Are we all going to live in giant dorm-like facilities? (Rhetorical) You are arguing for a monopoly that is just as bad and futile as traditional male/woman nuclear families.

I never argued that there should be giant dorm-like facilities. I argued that children shouldn't be the private property of their parents and should be independent from birth. Would you object to children growing up in a democratic boarding school such as Summer Hill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School


Passing off family institutions as a simple social construct is akin to arguing one day we're all going to be friends. There won't be "any" exclusion or tiers to our social interaction. That is simply naive. Mothers care for a child in the womb, and even from that point a bond grows between them that most can't consciously remove. Fathers too experience this bond, but a lot of times in a less dramatic way due to the lack of physical necessity.

I never said that the bond between children and parents should be violently removed, I just said that children should be independent from birth.


Just as a desire for some time alone is an outgrowth of the economic production, right? Please. Humans are malleable creatures to some extent, but we are no different than any other species - we have a point where nature simply can't be outdone, unless through actual evolution. Communal involvement in the family has certainly fluctuated over time, but there has never existed a society where parents (or a very small, select group of guardians) were completely removed from child rearing en masse, and there never will be. Once again, your presuming that I'm blaming the family on Capitalism, I'm not, and just because something may be caused by Capitalism dosen't make it right. And just because something is unnatural dosen't make it justified.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Would you object to children growing up in a democratic boarding school such as Summer Hill?Yes.


I think its dangerous for children to grow up as the private property of their parents.I believe, as far as RevLeft is concerned, that's a moot point. Nobody here is as radical with "parental responsibilities" as right-wingers tend to be.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Children need to develop strong connections with individual people, I think, as part of their developmental process. Of course, we could have them raised by a community, but there should be some consistency so they can establish relationships over the course of a long time.

I'd also say to suddenly have a revolution and expect people to naturally start adopting certain ideals is rather unrealistic. You take a baby from a parent after the revolution to be raised by the community. Yeah, that's not going to go over well with people. I'm not even sure it would ever go over well.

I'm not sure about nature when it comes to how we raise children. I'm pretty sure adopted children are just as well off given similar circumstances. I don't think a person would love their biological children more. I think their just attracted to the continued idea of perpetuating a legacy. Many people raise children other than their own with no idea. There isn't any study showing that children who are less loved are more likely to be non-biological even though the parent thinks they are.

It's all semantics and preconceptions. However, being a leftist doesn't make them go away. I still find the idea of carrying on a legacy attractive. I know it's irrational especially given a number of factors. However, at least with a biological kid I suppose you're guaranteed they will be somewhat similar above random chance.

[black magick hustla]

children should be raised by whoever the hell they want

[AnthArmo]

Yes.

That's great, could you tell my why you would object to it


I believe, as far as RevLeft is concerned, that's a moot point. Nobody here is as radical with "parental responsibilities" as right-wingers tend to be.

Can you explain why its a moot point? and I don't quite understand what you mean by "Nobody here is as radical with "parental responsibilities" as right-wingers tend to be.", how does that make my argument that children being the private property of their parents a "moot" point?


I'd also say to suddenly have a revolution and expect people to naturally start adopting certain ideals is rather unrealistic. You take a baby from a parent after the revolution to be raised by the community. Yeah, that's not going to go over well with people. I'm not even sure it would ever go over well.

Yea, good point. I don't think its a good idea to forcefully take children from parents. But they should most certainly have the right to run away from home. I've actually had a friend who was sexually abused by her father so she ran away. She got placed onto the national childcare system and has new foster parents now. This freedom of being able to choose were you live, I believe, is an important one.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Not to get off topic but. . . Children shouldn't be raised by parents.

Then by whom?

[zerozerozerominusone]

Ok fine, I was wrong in using that strawman. Regardless, I think its dangerous for children to grow up as the private property of their parents.

Children are not the private property of parents. Parents hold certain special rights where their children are concerned, but not those of chattel owner. If this were so, they would hold the right to dispose of the child in any way they pleased, including murdering them. This is clearly not the case, either morally or in fact of law.


Believe it or not, Parents are humans that aren't always correct.

What's your point? Which source of child rearing would be always correct, the existence of which is implied in your statement?


The nuclear family also places parents into a position were they can indoctrinate their children into believing incorrect, stupid or immoral positions.

That is part and parcel of being free. I might point out the hubris implicit in your statement. There is no single, universally correct opinion on life and how to live it. I've known people living on the Bowery in NYC in cardboard boxes who choose to live that way. They wanted to drop out, and they did. That is their right and nobody on the planet holds any moral authority to choose otherwise for them.

Just because you may disagree with some belief or value a parent imparts to their child, neither you nor anyone else on the planet may claim the moral authority to interfere by way of force. Attempting to so interfere is a really good way to get oneself hurt or kind of dead.


Looking at how children have had religious or racist dogma forced onto them is merely an example of this.
[/quote/

And again I say so what? Being racist in one's opinions is one's right. Everyone's right. You may not like it. I may not like it, and I don't - but I hold absolutely no moral authority over another to interfere with their personal opinions. I hold my own right to disagree - to argue against it even - but none to force another to not hold such feelings and opinions. Besides, it is categorically impossible to force someone to change such opinions. It has been tried in places like the USA for at least 2 generations and has failed miserably. People will believe and feel as they choose. The more one interferes with such things, the greater the resistance.




I never argued that there should be giant dorm-like facilities. I argued that children shouldn't be the private property of their parents


They are not, therefore there is no issue.



and should be independent from birth.

If you really believe this, then you are mentally deranged and belong in a hospital on a heavy regimen of Placidyl. Infants can do nothing independently except sleep, crap, and cry and if you stop feeding them they cannot even do those things for very long. When was the last time you observed an independent newborn going to work, or cooking itself breakfast? I mean, in the real world and not some LSD hallucination gone awry?

I really wonder where people get ideas like this.




Would you object to children growing up in a democratic boarding school such as Summer Hill?


As long as they went home to mom and dad every day, no. To remove a child from its parents by force under any circumstance even remotely resembling normal is the act of a criminal. I can tell you that anyone approaching me or my children with such intentions would be shot stone dead in a split second. Nobody messes with my kids.

[quote]
I never said that the bond between children and parents should be violently removed, I just said that children should be independent from birth.


But it is the logic of your position and it is irrational.


Once again, your presuming that I'm blaming the family on Capitalism, I'm not, and just because something may be caused by Capitalism dosen't make it right. And just because something is unnatural dosen't make it justified.

I've noticed all this highly dated talk against capitalism - ignorant, irrational talk against it, I might add. What exists in places such as the USA is not free market capitalism. It is rigged-market capitalism. The two appear to be the same to the ignorant man, but they are not the same by a very long shot. Most importantly, the fundamental results are different because in a true free market system, prosperity is a personal choice for the vast and overwhelming majority, the sky being the main limiting factor in most cases. In rigged-market capitalism, having been pawned off on ignorant people as the free-market variety, there is an essential difference - the hegemony of those at the top influence environmental factors such as monetary policy and legislative contexts to their personal advantage and to the profound detriment of the other players. The result, world-wide, has been that the power trust, which has included more than one socialist/communist government (China and USSR come to mind), has manipulated affairs to their strong advantage while the rest of us suck ditch water. The apparently "free" markets and the players who operate within them, are at the mercy of the whims and caprice of those at the tippy top of the power pyramid, which means that those markets are in fact anything but free. This is the "capitalism" against which you folks rail, and I cannot really blame you. It is a sham, and a grand screwing up the ass, especially these days in the wake of the various bubble implosions through which we must all wade, wondering what will come tomorrow. But if one is going to have an enemy against which to lay effort, it would make some sense to ID and evaluate that enemy correctly, and this is something that the left has failed to do with a most alarming consistency.

I would add that "capitalism", such as it has been over the past, say, 150 years, has brought us virtually every worthwhile advance that we enjoy today. It has also brought some horrors to be certain, but that is par for the course, to some extent, and many people work tirelessly to correct these deficiencies. For example, one cannot have a high technology culture without producing some rather horrific poisons that are, at least at this time, very difficult to dispose of. Try producing steel without producing huge quantities of really nasty wastes. As of today's state of the art, it cannot be done and will not be doable for the foreseeable future. Yet engineers work diligently to minimize the negative impacts of these messy, but now necessary basic processes, the fruits of which we all take advantage of.

Look at China as a great example of the failure of "communism"- they are become an authoritarian capitalist state. They call themselves "communist" but that is a huge lie. Today they are about as communist as Adam Smith. Note that while they were socialist-on-the-way-to-communist they lived like apes in trees scratching their asses with branches, and barely able at that. The model of the happy worker waving his little red book around was so pathetically infantile that one cannot help but wonder which idiots the Chinese propaganda films were targeted to. I don't think anyone could be that stupid and survive more than 30 seconds after birth. The moment China began adopting capitalistic economic characteristics, their material prosperity began to skyrocket. There really is a lot to be said for this arrangement, and it is mostly good. But China is a rigged-market state as well - the government being the interfering factor in labor rates, as just one example of the evils they foist upon their people and which in the end will torpedo them.

Russia has had a similar experience. As a centrally controlled socialist economy where the so-called "state" amounted to nothing more than a hegemonistic mob who ruined hundreds of millions of real lives, all the people had to look forward to was no real opportunity for anything that they would have liked for themselves, empty shelves, stale bread, and long lines in which to wait, not to mention the prospects of the gulag, torture, and ignominious, agonized, lingering and unceremoniously anonymous death. Look at them now. Yeah, I know... the mafia sucks. Big news flash there, but the nation itself is in far better shape than it was at any time during the existence of the USSR. For one thing, people are not being murdered by the millions or shipped off to gulags anymore. I'd call that a quantum improvement, the current mob presence notwithstanding.

So, rather than rail against the only real hope for prosperity and happiness that the world holds for any of us, how about a real revolution where people are not uniform, interchangeable drones, but rather where opportunity is truly equal for all and where they are free to make the choices that really interest them? Real freedom is a shit-scary thing - but it is also exhilarating - it demands only one thing of people: personal responsibility for one's actions. There are no guarantees of equality of outcome for anyone, an infantile pipe dream that has been tried time and again and has failed miserably in every single case. Refer to the old definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. That is what most so-called "revolutionaries" advocate and it is not only insane, it is criminally so.

People are not equal. This is apodictically demonstrated in every corner of humanity. There are no exceptions to this, anywhere and the assertion by the likes of Marx and Lenin that people are equal or can be made so is nothing less than a giant, bald-faced lie. It is incontrovertible fact that people are all unique, individual, and therefore unequal. To aspire to an ideal that is at diametric loggerheads with reality is irrational and pointless, except to destroy life in place of affirming it. One harsh element of the reality of being a living being is that not everyone is going to make it and there is no effort that will change this inescapable truth. It is what we call in the engineering profession a "gravity issue". But to provide one and all on the other hand with the best opportunities possible to take a swag at the proverbial brass ring - that is a worthwhile and noble goal, for it removes the power of dictators to destroy even the least among us. That is the goal I would work toward. It should be at least tried once. The USA came as close as anyone has ever come to it and during that time they built the world where 3 of every 5 children no longer die before age 5. It put us on the moon and gave us antibiotics and MRIs and plentiful food. And I will note that as the USA has moved further away from this model of personal liberty and choice, it has devolved into a third-rate, paranoid security state. I would admonish one and all to open their eyes and see what is really going on. All it takes is an open mind and some care in observation. The patterns are crystal clear and there is much to be learned from them.

Pardon the soap box.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Yea, good point. I don't think its a good idea to forcefully take children from parents. But they should most certainly have the right to run away from home.

I could not agree more. To force a child t live with people they do not want to live with, whether biologically connect or otherwise is nothing less than slavery.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Children are not the private property of parents. Parents hold certain special rights where their children are concerned, but not those of chattel owner. If this were so, they would hold the right to dispose of the child in any way they pleased, including murdering them. This is clearly not the case, either morally or in fact of law.

Bullshit, children are private property, there slaves.
They are denied the most basic and fundamental rights, because of the view that a parents rights to control there child's rearing supersedes all of the child's rights.
And it will remain that way until the entire institution is removed. A parent should not have the right to beat there child, teach them racism, intolerance, lies or to completely deny them basic education and health care. But you support those rights by giving the parent absolute unchecked control of another human beings life. There is no way to claim that is anything but slavery.

Without the belief that a parent has intrinsic rights of ownership on there children, there is no reason to believe they have intrinsic rights to rear the child in question. Strip the parent of ownership and the only question remaining is what is best for the child.

[the last donut of the night]

Bullshit, children are private property, there slaves.
They are denied the most basic and fundamental rights, because of the view that a parents rights to control there child's rearing supersedes all of the child's rights.
And it will remain that way until the entire institution is removed. A parent should not have the right to beat there child, teach them racism, intolerance, lies or to completely deny them basic education and health care. But you support those rights by giving the parent absolute unchecked control of another human beings life. There is no way to claim that is anything but slavery.

Without the belief that a parent has intrinsic rights of ownership on there children, there is no reason to believe they have intrinsic rights to rear the child in question. Strip the parent of ownership and the only question remaining is what is best for the child.

Parenthood doesn't intrinsically mean the 'oppression' of the child -- whatever that means. It's in our evolutionary instinct to raise our offspring: birds, bears, chimps, hell -- even fish raise their offspring. The bond between a mother and a child between parent and child is one of the strongest bonds known to humanity. And I'm not surprised why it would be. That bond keeps children from walking into a lake, or eating a bottle of advil, or doing something really stupid. It's essential to human mental development as well. So how the hell can you say it's wrong? We need it to be human! Now you're gonna start saying that teachers are tyrannical, despotic people because teaching is oppressive and outright slavery. Step into reality.

What you're going against isn't parenthood, but bad parenthood. Stop making these generalizations. Nobody here wants children beat or lied to. But try to go up to a mother of a child with cancer and tell her she is oppressive and enslaving her child. I'll be very surprised if you come back to RevLeft with any fingers to type your delusional messages.

[mel]

Bullshit, children are private property, there slaves.
They are denied the most basic and fundamental rights, because of the view that a parents rights to control there child's rearing supersedes all of the child's rights.

Not where I'm from.


And it will remain that way until the entire institution is removed. A parent should not have the right to beat there child, teach them racism, intolerance, lies or to completely deny them basic education and health care. But you support those rights by giving the parent absolute unchecked control of another human beings life. There is no way to claim that is anything but slavery.

Where I'm from, parents do not have the authority to deny their child a basic education. Any parent that does not enroll their child in school is subject to fines. If the community is at all involved (which often does not happen in capitalist society, but should happen in a theoretical communist one) the signs of a child being beaten or otherwise mistreated should be readily apparent and the child removed from that environment.

Nobody supports giving parents "absolute, unchecked" control of another human being's life, but allowing them to raise the child, to be responsible in part for teaching them about life, about community, how to walk and use the toilet, and how to make decisions. The community will of course have its part in the socialization of the child, but forcefully removing children from the care of parents in favor of some sort of institutionalized community dwelling arrangement is bizzarre at best and will never go over well.


Without the belief that a parent has intrinsic rights of ownership on there children, there is no reason to believe they have intrinsic rights to rear the child in question. Strip the parent of ownership and the only question remaining is what is best for the child.

And what's best for the child is probably allowing a consistent pair or small group of adults care for and raise the child, because having a small group or pair of people that you can trust is important to psychosocial development.

[Dust Bunnies]

I'll take the middle ground and say, let it be an option for a parent to keep the child or send the child to the place for children to have democratic control of their school and environment. Or for the child at a certain age to choose to go to the democratic living place, or offer themselves up for adoption.

All throughout society we see and feel classes in nearly anything. Whether it is a school, or a household, or a workplace, or a religion. After the revolution, there still will be those right-wing Nuclear Family people. What I propose is, encourage a less restrictive household. To allow a child, when he or she becomes a teen to be able to be recognized to be able to make some decisions based off of maturity. That father is not always right. So if the parents are repressive and tries to force beliefs, give the teen the option to join the Democratic Upbringing Community where they live among fellow teens and run the household the way they democratically decide.

Still this leaves the question of schools. I feel that sometimes some teachers have a huge superiority complex. That even the stupidest, worst teachers belief that they are superior to their student purely because they are the teacher. I would correct this one teacher I had that had this belief, showing her up in history and politics. I feel that certain mature students should be seen as equal to the teacher. The teacher still learns, and the student still learns, they are rather partners in learning. The teacher helps the student learn, while the teacher learns about the student and people. Without one the other dies. Just because you are a teacher does not make you superior.

[Riza Karabasan]

First off, parents should be raised properly so they would be able to raise children.

[RedRise]

I agree! Parents often raise their children based on how they were raised.
Maybe people should have to go to parenting classes before they are allowed to have children? Scratch that - it would never work.:rolleyes:
I do think children should be given rights of choice at an earlier age.

[Dust Bunnies]

I agree! Parents often raise their children based on how they were raised.
Maybe people should have to go to parenting classes before they are allowed to have children? Scratch that - it would never work.:rolleyes:
I do think children should be given rights of choice at an earlier age.

Agreed, sometimes the child can be more mature than the parent. To simply say parents are superior in every situation due to age and that they are the person's parents is a classic version of ageism.