Living arrangements and ''family values''

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

If there's one thing I despise, it's hearing David Cameron throw the word ''family values'' into a speech or conversation. Just what is he talking about? But anyway, that made me wonder about living arrangements in a fully communist society. Would the concept of family still exist? Would there be very strong communities with children being raised by whoever they want? Surely there will always be couples that want to live together on their own and raise their children without interference? How would society work?

Sorry if all of these are obvious, silly questions.

[Raúl Duke]

If there's one thing I despise, it's hearing David Cameron throw the word ''family values'' into a speech or conversation. Just what is he talking about? But anyway, that made me wonder about living arrangements in a fully communist society. Would the concept of family still exist? Would there be very strong communities with children being raised by whoever they want? Surely there will always be couples that want to live together on their own and raise their children without interference? How would society work?

Sorry if all of these are obvious, silly questions.

Personally, I have a feeling that all sorts of living arrangements will be allowed and some even experimented with.

We may still have conventional families, other forms of families (extended, etc), and communal-styled raising done by people who want to raise kids because they like raising and being with kids, etc.

[FreeFocus]

There would be a wide array of living arrangements, most likely. Personally, in my own bouts with patriarchy and my experiences living in a household in which I do not want to, I would and will definitely fight for the freedom of children to determine their living arrangements (not necessarily young children - if they can formulate a logical reason why, they should be allowed, but this is geared towards teenagers mainly). Moreover, in a post-capitalist society, hopefully this kneejerk, "rebel-for-the-sake-of-it" teen culture will be gone, because it is rather annoying (e.g., I heard a girl a few weeks back say, "I fucking hate my parents, taking away my phone. I hope they die." I mean, what the hell? Over a phone?). This would cut down on teens simply leaving just to leave, although I suppose that should also be an option, but leaving your family on a whim is rather silly, I think.

What is unacceptable, however, is the forced living arrangement currently, in which men are always at the head and women and children relegated to subordinates.

[Pogue]

Family values is like the term 'social justice', except its used by right-populists instead of left-populists. It doesn't really mean anything and has often been used as a last ditch effort by Conservatives to try and sure up some policies they know will rally the old guard to them. Usually its accompanied by a few stories of sleaze in the Conservative Party too so keep yuor eyes and ears open.

Also its often used to refer to traditional sexist/homophobic ruling class ideas of the paternalistic, patriarchal Victorian nuclear family full of obedience, fixed gender roles and 'respectfullness'. More patrnosing rubbish from politicians who have no idea of what life is like for the average family.

[Kukulofori]

Marriage is a very old structure that arose from circumstances in which it was necessary for a person to live a very structured and ordinary way of life. As soon as it becomes obsolete (as in, when jobs no longer require us to make a long-term commitment to a single way of life) it will fade just like all social constructs. I suspect love will become somewhat like any other emotion, which is to say it will be acknowledged how unhealthy it is to pour all of it into one person.

As for children, there will be nothing stopping them from just packing up and leaving to start their own lives, hopefully at an age much younger than 18.

[Pogue]

Marriage is a very old structure that arose from circumstances in which it was necessary for a person to live a very structured and ordinary way of life. As soon as it becomes obsolete (as in, when jobs no longer require us to make a long-term commitment to a single way of life) it will fade just like all social constructs. I suspect love will become somewhat like any other emotion, which is to say it will be acknowledged how unhealthy it is to pour all of it into one person.

As for children, there will be nothing stopping them from just packing up and leaving to start their own lives, hopefully at an age much younger than 18.

In my opinion it arose as a purely patriarchal institution. It was about buying women for men (hence the need to ask for permission from the father) the way you would a cow, and it was seen as the sole aim of a woman and something neccesary for a man for purely physical reasons (have a son, to be looked after, etc). I think it has largely changed these days and it is more seen as a romantic/legal solidification of love.

[ArrowLance]

I am against parenting in the common sense. I do not think one or two adults should be given near complete control over a child simply because they gave birth to it. I support a communal system, where the child will be given much more freedom to do as they want.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think we can say exactly how people will choose to live their lives when they don't have to worry about basic needs not being met. The important thing is that the family unit as we see it under capitalism - and the fertilization of of the hetero nuclear family by the right wing will absolutely will be gone.

It used to be common (and is in many places) for families to include grandparents and older aunts and uncles not just parents and kids. This is less common in post-war US and Canada and the UK because health care was provided for and there were better services for old people.

It will be the same for family units as we know them now - if parents choose to live with their relatives or couples want to be monogomous, it will be purely their own choice, not something expected of them by ruling-class values in the culture or forced on them due to circumstances such as lacking the money to live on their own without a partner or relatives supporting them.

[JJM 777]

Socialism was popular in the early years of Israel, and in many moshavs (industrial villages) the children of all families were raised by children's homes, possibly without living at home at all, so the parents visited their children in the children's home. One of the motives for this was said to be the commonness of mental disorders among parents in post-WWII society, so they wanted to raise a new generation in the hands of stable professional caretakers, rather than the often mentally unstable biological parents.

As a father of a 2 months old boy, I can see some practical convenience in this arrangement, taking care of a small baby is heavy unpaid work 24/7. It makes economical sense if one woman takes care of 5 children full time, instead of 5 women taking care of 5 children full time.