Abolish of the family

[Leftsolidarity]

I think I understand what Marx meant for the most part but I would like to hear some good pro/con points on this topic because I feel I don't have enough of a grasp on the concept.

Edit: haha opps that title doesn't make sense. I really should not try to start threads when I'm tired.

[Hebrew Hammer]

What's wrong with the family unit in general? Not referring to the 'nuclear family' just the family unit/structure in general.

[Leftsolidarity]

What's wrong with the family unit in general? Not referring to the 'nuclear family' just the family unit/structure in general.

That's what I would like to see a discussion on so I could try to make up my mind a little bit more about it.

[ArrowLance]

I have a problem with the concept that two adults should have exclusive control over the lives of the children put in their care. Why two adults only, why not all of society. Often the only claim these adults have to the children is that they were able to successfully procreate. I don't see how the ability to reproduce justifies someones control over another one.

[JustMovement]

I have a problem with the concept that two adults should have exclusive control over the lives of the children put in their care. Why two adults only, why not all of society. Often the only claim these adults have to the children is that they were able to successfully procreate. I don't see how the ability to reproduce justifies someones control over another one.

Well I dont think even in bougouis society parents have exclusive control. There are laws that regulate how you treat your children, and I think thats a good thing. Also who more than the people that raise you and bring you into this world have your interest at heart? Yes there are many exceptions, families can be fucked up, psychotic, restrictive and so on, but hopefully many of these things are a symptom of capitalism and can be improved. Also when we talk about families there are so many different models, there is the nuclear anglo saxon family, the extended mediterranean type, and many other variations throughout the world.

Anyways what is the alternative proposed? Democratic control of the children? To me it seems very alienating to have children cared for by abstract society. When I hear these proposals (also the abolishing all languages in favour of a universal one) I think that people are proposing some kind of cultural year zero and throwing away all the things that we do cherish in life and make us who we are now.

On the other hand I do think that everything should be questioned, and there is space to critique the family, and every other aspect of our current social lives, however I think it is a mistake to automatically revert to an extreme position because it is the opposite of what goes on now.

[Kamos]

Why two adults only, why not all of society.

Two reasons.

1. In the end, it's still other individuals exercising total control over a child. It's unavoidable.

2. How can all of society care for a child? You don't assign all of the city's populace to build a house (DPRK jokes notwithstanding). Raising a child is the job of a small handful of people.

The family can stay, it just needs to be removed from the list of so-called "basic values" (as it is in some countries).


Often the only claim these adults have to the children is that they were able to successfully procreate.

That's one more claim than what the rest of the society has.

[Tenka]

2. How can all of society care for a child? You don't assign all of the city's populace to build a house (DPRK jokes notwithstanding). Raising a child is the job of a small handful of people.
You assign people who can build a "house" to build a "house". Why shouldn't children be raised by those who are trained in the raising of children? I don't know about your parents, but mine and those of many other children were dreadfully ill-equipped for the task to which they condemned themselves. Collective child-rearing also lessens the chances of parents passing on their ridiculous prejudices and such.


The family can stay, it just needs to be removed from the list of so-called "basic values" (as it is in some countries)."The family" has a pretty broad definition. As we know it today, in general, I think it's on its way out. No great loss.


That's one more claim than what the rest of the society has.It's no more claim than has the rest of society. Contributing genetic material to the birth of a child shouldn't give one any more say over the development of that child than anyone else; that it should is a regressive notion. The birth itself, painful as it is, may rightfully (at least in many cases) reserve more rights over the child for the mother than anyone else, but in the future I hope that such a painful and tedious and gruesome mode of reproduction will be replaced.

[Leftsolidarity]

You assign people who can build a "house" to build a "house". Why shouldn't children be raised by those who are trained in the raising of children? I don't know about your parents, but mine and those of many other children were dreadfully ill-equipped for the task to which they condemned themselves. Collective child-rearing also lessens the chances of parents passing on their ridiculous prejudices and such.


I also have the bad luck of getting stuck with parents unfit to raise children and trying to pass on homophobic/xenophobic/sexist/racist/etc. ideals onto me and my other siblings. Almost every single one of my friends has a messed up home life also. Yet, I would not want to be thrown into a state childcare kind of program and friends of mine who have been in it have gone through extensive and horrible measures to stay out of it. We are people not objects to be assigned and passed around. You lose the love of what a family can provide for a child when you pass it off to "society". If I had a child right now with my girlfriend I would want to keep it in just our care.


I hope that such a painful and tedious and gruesome mode of reproduction will be replaced.
:confused:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Lets not kid ourselves, the nuclear family needs to be abolished for the good of humanity.

When society is allowed to raise children it will be on terms that are humane, and as previously said, will lessen the chance of the passing on of negative behaviors.However,what is seen as "raising" won't last for too long, not if you are a proponent of youth rights and see "children" as actual humans instead of objects.I imagine that within a highly developed socialist society young people will be independent as early as 15 (if not sooner).

[Tenka]

I also have the bad luck of getting stuck with parents unfit to raise children and trying to pass on homophobic/xenophobic/sexist/racist/etc. ideals onto me and my other siblings. Almost every single one of my friends has a messed up home life also. Yet, I would not want to be thrown into a state childcare kind of program and friends of mine who have been in it have gone through extensive and horrible measures to stay out of it. We are people not objects to be assigned and passed around. You lose the love of what a family can provide for a child when you pass it off to "society". If I had a child right now with my girlfriend I would want to keep it in just our care.


:confused:
Present-day state programmes are obviously insufficient as well.
About the reproduction thing... I mean really, humanity needs to find a better way than bloodily squeezing new individuals out of an orifice after having said individual develop as basically a literal bodily parasite for nine months.

[Leftsolidarity]

About the reproduction thing... I mean really, humanity needs to find a better way than bloodily squeezing new individuals out of an orifice after having said individual develop as basically a literal bodily parasite for nine months.

That would just be how nature works. That's how babies are born. You can get it cut out too. That's what my step-mom had done since she had twins.

[Leftsolidarity]

I imagine that within a highly developed socialist society young people will be independent as early as 15 (if not sooner).


You also need to consider mental development like that fact that the front lobe (I think) is not completely developed leading younger people to make worse choices.

[Tenka]

That would just be how nature works. That's how babies are born. You can get it cut out too. That's what my step-mom had done since she had twins.
Well the way things are isn't the way things should always be. I'm not sure if I could propose any realistic alternatives now, to the painful and inefficient mammalian way in which humans reproduce, but I'm sure there will be some. That's why we need science without taboos under socialism. :)

[ArrowLance]

Two reasons.

1. In the end, it's still other individuals exercising total control over a child. It's unavoidable.

2. How can all of society care for a child? You don't assign all of the city's populace to build a house (DPRK jokes notwithstanding). Raising a child is the job of a small handful of people.

The family can stay, it just needs to be removed from the list of so-called "basic values" (as it is in some countries).



That's one more claim than what the rest of the society has.

Of course control will still be held over the child but this can be done in communal fashions or delegated to people with training and experience in raising children.

Society cares for the child but as it is just a construct must delegate individual tasks to actual persons. In many ways this is already done with the tasks being given to the parents. However there is no good justification for why the genetic parents should be assumed to be fit for that role. There are of course exceptions such as education and healthcare but I don't see why these shouldn't be expanded and more tasks be given to those more fit as well as in greater names.

And of course, we can all be One Big Happy Family.

Also it isn't any more claim than what society has considering I don't see it as a valid claim at all.

[Sensible Socialist]

Allowing a pair of people to have eighteen or so years to thoroughly indoctrinate a child with a range of incredibly moronic beliefs (or providing no intellectual stimulation whatsoever, creating a mindless drone) is something that should not be kept around. Children need to have more options outside of relying on two individuals.

[UnknownPerson]

I think professionals should take care of children's educational process. While academical education is largely performed in schools, ethical and cultural 'education' is performed in families for the most part, where children are taught things which are often very harmful for the society and our species.

[OhYesIdid]

Indeed, what originally attracted me to the left was the idea of throwing away all the bullies and the brutes to give their jobs to people who can actually do them. Of course, since then I've had my deal of desillusionment and am now more of an anarchist, but still :D.
When we speak of society raising children we speak of a free asociation of free individuals coming together to decide how it is best to raise a child. If such a society is truly free, then this will be a civilized and intelligent debate, one where truth, or at least whatever is closer to it at that moment, will prevail.

There's nothing wrong with Tenka's transhumanist ideas: cloning is being perfectioned every day, and one day there will be no physical bodies or matter to speak of. You go, sister, we need more dreamers in this world.

I have had profoundly painful personal experiences with nuclear families, and so I'm fully in favor of its abolishment. However, this can only come about with the People's consent, and for this we need to re-educate ourselves throughly. This, I think, is the left's most important mission in history.

[Tenka]

There's nothing wrong with Tenka's transhumanist ideas: cloning is being perfectioned every day, and one day there will be no physical bodies or matter to speak of. You go, sister, we need more dreamers in this world.


But I'm not a transhumanist. There's nothing transhumanist about an alternative to mammalian birth in humans, no matter how artificial; especially seeing as it's not something unique to humans (mammalian birth). It is perhaps uniquely painful to us though... and anyway, I mightily disagree with general transhumanist notions such as abolishing the physical body (assuming that is one). I thanked your post but I didn't realise 'til after that you might just be having a laugh here.

[Principia Ethica]

I don't know how I personally feel about this. I only have my experiences to make judgements and consider, but I wouldn't have it any other way for myself than to be my mother and father's daughter. I am who I am in large part because of them. My parents loved/loves the shit out of me. Made many sacrifices for me. I love the shit out of them back. Many of the joys and happiness in my life can be directly attributed to them.

My parents were my first lessons in life about unconditional love. I know for a fact that there is nothing I can do to make them stop loving me. Do you think a professional care taker tasked with overseeing children in general would be capable of this? I don't know the answer to that. . .and that makes me hesitate to say whether it would be a good thing or not.

I'm not denying that some nuclear families are caustic/detrimental/dysfunctional but to create some sort of system abolishing the nuclear family just because it doesn't work for some. . .I can't say that I could really rally behind that.

[Uncle Rob]

Often the only claim these adults have to the children is that they were able to successfully procreate.
Beautifully put.
The concept of ownership of children by the parents is a reflection of bourgeois property relations. I don't see the abolition of the family as an active aim of the communist movement but rather as a passive consequence. With the abolition of private property, and the establishment of socialist relations of production, the concept of private ownership will inevitably disappear. So too will the concept of parents "owning" children.

The increasingly socializing character of bourgeois property relations are what will eventually create the means for a socialist society. An example of this in regards to the family question are day-cares, and social services. We see (as was mentioned previously in the thread) that parents don't always know whats best for children and sometimes the state has to step in to assure the safety of the child. Further, when parents are working they bring their children to day-care where they are cared for by professionals.

[OhYesIdid]

disagree with general transhumanist notions such as abolishing the physical body (assuming that is one). I thanked your post but I didn't realise 'til after that you might just be having a laugh here.

I'm not having a laugh, for I'm proud to be a transhumanist. What's wrong with a desire to evolve?

btw, Uncle Rob has won this thread

[Tenka]

I'm not having a laugh, for I'm proud to be a transhumanist. What's wrong with a desire to evolve?

There's nothing wrong with that. It just remains to be seen whether separating our consciousness from our physical being constitutes evolution.

[UnknownPerson]

There's nothing wrong with that. It just remains to be seen whether separating our consciousness from our physical being constitutes evolution.

If we define evolution as being any positive change, then yes, it would constitute evolution. From the moment that our consciousness has been moved to a non-biological computer, we would be able to improve our intelligence as well as other skills by vast amounts, in an exponential manner.

[Terminator X]

Sorry, but most of these comments are complete bollocks. Am I on RevLeft or did I accidentally stumble onto a Mormon/polygamist cult site?

Whoever spouted that "one big happy family" tripe sounds more like David Koresh than a communist (not to mention semi-incestuous). If communism involves taking your kids away after birth and having them raised by complete strangers while we all hold hands and dance around the maypole, then I want absolutely fucking nothing to do with it. Just curious, how many of you actually have children and know what the emotional impact of such a step would be?

There is a difference between raising your own children in a loving manner, and treating them as "bourgeois property."

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If communism involves taking your kids away after birth and having them raised by complete strangers while we all hold hands and dance around the maypole, then I want absolutely fucking nothing to do with it. Just curious, how many of you actually have children and know what the emotional impact of such a step would be?
"

No more strangers than the mother that was never met.

[OhYesIdid]

If we define evolution as being any positive change, then yes, it would constitute evolution. From the moment that our consciousness has been moved to a non-biological computer, we would be able to improve our intelligence as well as other skills by vast amounts, in an exponential manner.

Thank you. Is there a transhumanist group on this site?

Takayuki has a point: the mother's affection for the child is irrelevant to the kid's upribinging. In fact, would it not be better if we could be raised free of the guilt and restraints that come along with "unconditional love". By the by, there's no such thing, that's why obedience and emotional blackmail exist.

[Principia Ethica]

So the only motivation for having children is to increase the population? Harvest more workers? I'm not trying to be facetious but I don't "get it." I guess when you take the family equation out of it. . .I'm at a loss as to why I'd want to give birth at all. . .

[Mettalian]

I don't know, it all just seems a tad... cold. I think that the 'family' could certainly use some work, but I feel that emotion and love are important. I realize that it can work both ways, where some like me, fortunately for me, had great parents, and others had parents that were awful. I'm all for the social education of children, but I believe there's room for the family in there.

[OhYesIdid]

Whoa you two, is this the first time you've considered this? Am I witness to your sudden existential awakening? Has Sysiphus realized the nature of his task?
We have free will, get over it. No higher power or human nature is going to come to save, justify, or explain you. The world is your own and you're responsible for finding your own reason to live.

At least, that's how I see it.

[Kuppo Shakur]

ITT: Naivety. (And possibly fuckin singularitans)

People are complicated. The upbringing of children isn't just some system for you to optimize and make more efficient.

[OhYesIdid]

ITT: Naivety. (And possibly fuckin singularitans)

People are complicated. The upbringing of children isn't just some system for you to optimize and make more efficient.

¿Why does a system's complexity affect the possibility of its reality?

[Kuppo Shakur]

¿Why does a system's complexity affect the possibility of its reality?
¿Why did you just post something that made no sense?

[OhYesIdid]

¿Why did you just post something that made no sense?

I meant: why does the fact that raising children is hard mean it cannot be done better? I use a spanish language keyboard, ¿problem?

[Mettalian]

Whoa you two, is this the first time you've considered this? Am I witness to your sudden existential awakening? Has Sysiphus realized the nature of his task?
We have free will, get over it. No hugher power or human nature is going to come to save, justify, or explain you. The world is your own and you're responsible for findning your own reason to live.

At least, that's how I see it.

I agree that there should be social alternatives for abusive households, and I agree that children shouldn't be treated as property, and that they should definitely have more of a say in their upbringing. But parents and family are constructs that while, yes could use some work, would still be relevant in a socialist world. Not to the pseudo-religious-worship-extent they are now, where a politician can platform on their values, but certainly in some form.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Ok, well: How is child-raising ability quantified? How are child-raising tasks distributed? Etc. These are questions you have to figure out, if you're going to take that approach. Also, please provide a more thorough analysis of emotional connections between parents and children, or point to one that already exists.

Good luck and god speed.

(Also, don't think I was hatin on your ¿, that was just a result of my intentionally mimicking your previous post, which really didn't make any grammatical sense, just to clarify.)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I agree that there should be social alternatives for abusive households, and I agree that children shouldn't be treated as property, and that they should definitely have more of a say in their upbringing. But parents and family are constructs that while, yes could use some work, would still be relevant in a socialist world. Not to the pseudo-religious-worship-extent they are now, where a politician can platform on their values, but certainly in some form.

Why? What is the difference between the biological family and a collective effort at raising, and perhaps later on cohabitation based on mental similarities and personal chemistry?

[OhYesIdid]

but certainly in some form.

Fine, this is something that, while I don't agree, sounds reasonable as a stance, and not needlessly primitive/puritanical.

In my opinion, the nuclear household's only fitting place is a museum, but that's, apparently, just me.

[OhYesIdid]

don't think I was hatin on your ¿
'tis cool.
Also, "unknowability" is not an argument: unless you can lay down those very same analises, I fail to see your point

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I have a problem with the concept that two adults should have exclusive control over the lives of the children put in their care. Why two adults only, why not all of society. Often the only claim these adults have to the children is that they were able to successfully procreate. I don't see how the ability to reproduce justifies someones control over another one.
we did that and So now we have propganda bullshit tv for our kids, it cant hurts anyone's feeling and it has to be perfectly right. what happend to popeye, road runner, bugs bunny, (robotech?) all gone because it has to be right for the children, or violence is bad. anyone seen blazin saddles? best fucking movie ever.

[Mettalian]

Fine, this is something that, while I don't agree, sounds reasonable as a stance, and not needlessly primitive/puritanical.

In my opinion, the nuclear household's only fitting place is a museum, but that's, apparently, just me.

LOL sorry, I have horrible comma usage. At least we can agree to disagree. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of abolishing the family on closer inspection. There certainly are many parents that raise their children in a very harmful way and where a social alternative would only be beneficial.

[Leftsolidarity]

Sorry, but most of these comments are complete bollocks. Am I on RevLeft or did I accidentally stumble onto a Mormon/polygamist cult site?

Whoever spouted that "one big happy family" tripe sounds more like David Koresh than a communist (not to mention semi-incestuous). If communism involves taking your kids away after birth and having them raised by complete strangers while we all hold hands and dance around the maypole, then I want absolutely fucking nothing to do with it. Just curious, how many of you actually have children and know what the emotional impact of such a step would be?

There is a difference between raising your own children in a loving manner, and treating them as "bourgeois property."


I think this is the best post so far

[UnknownPerson]

I think this is the best post so far

"If communism involves taking your kids away after birth and having them raised by complete strangers while we all hold hands and dance around the maypole, then I want absolutely fucking nothing to do with it."
-
I think it's the worst post so far. Whoever posted it was so biased by emotion that his/her ability to think rationally was blocked off.

[Leftsolidarity]

"If communism involves taking your kids away after birth and having them raised by complete strangers while we all hold hands and dance around the maypole, then I want absolutely fucking nothing to do with it."
-
I think it's the worst post so far. Whoever posted it was so biased by emotion that his/her ability to think rationally was blocked off.

Why do you think that?

[UnknownPerson]

Why do you think that?


Because letting the family, and not the professionals perform the educational process results in a zoo-like society with a largely lowered potential.
While academical education is already done by the professionals in most of the countries, most of the ethical and cultural 'education' (rather programming) is performed by the parents. For this reason, we can see different cultures with idiotic norms and traditions emerge, without any goal or purpose, which promote (even if indirectly so) over-consumption of resources, anti-intellectualism, imperialism, low interest in science and progress, nationalism etc. If the professionals could take care of the children's education, within a few generations, we would see our species achieving greater goals and a better society, and nations gradually dissolving.

[Leftsolidarity]

Because letting the family, and not the professionals perform the educational process results in a zoo-like society with a largely lowered potential.
While academical education is already done by the professionals in most of the countries, most of the ethical and cultural 'education' (rather programming) is performed by the parents. For this reason, we can see different cultures with idiotic norms and traditions emerge, without any goal or purpose, which promote (even if indirectly so) over-consumption of resources, anti-intellectualism, imperialism, low interest in science and progress, nationalism etc. If the professionals could take care of the children's education, within a few generations, we would see our species achieving greater goals and a better society, and nations gradually dissolving.

I don't think it's your place to tell people what they should value.

[UnknownPerson]

I don't think it's your place to tell people what they should value.

If you're referring to my post, I'm not telling people what they should value, I'm simply expressing my opinion.

If you're referring to the professional educational programs which would replace laissez-faire family education (which has already been partly replaced anyway), then you're confusing things, as the professionals would have this responsibility.

I would obviously support and promote the values which I view as being beneficial, as well as other people who support the same values - this is how value management in the society works. Even you telling me that it isn't my place to tell people what they should value is you showing and enforcing a value/position which you support. From what I've seen, many liberals and libertarians fail to understand this.

[Leftsolidarity]

Even you telling me that it isn't my place to tell people what they should value is you showing and enforcing a value/position which you support.

Flawed argument that you probably already know isn't legitmate.


From what I've seen, many liberals and libertarians fail to understand this.

I'm neither one.

[UnknownPerson]

Flawed argument that you probably already know isn't legitmate.



I'm neither one.

Actually, this argument is perfectly legitimate.

I never implied that you were one, I simply pointed out.

[cogar66]

So what role should the parents play in their kid's lives? None? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_bond How do we deal with this? I've yet to make up my mind on this one, but it seems like most people would want to keep their children.

[OhYesIdid]

So what role should the parents play in their kid's lives? None? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_bond How do we deal with this? I've yet to make up my mind on this one, but it seems like most people would want to keep their children.

imho, such "intrinsical" concepts as this are social constructs. Therefore, a societal change will bring about the end of them, along with the formation of new fallacies, of course, but socialism is an ongoing struggle, is it not?

[cogar66]

imho, such "intrinsical" concepts as this are social constructs. Therefore, a societal change will bring about the end of them, along with the formation of new fallacies, of course, but socialism is an ongoing struggle, is it not?
Part of it is social, part of it is genetic. "Of all human bonds, the maternal bond (mother–infant relationship) is one of the strongest. The maternal bond begins to develop during pregnancy; following pregnancy, the production of oxytocin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin) during lactation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactation) increases parasympathetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasympathetic) activity, thus reducing anxiety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety) and theoretically fostering bonding. It is generally understood that maternal oxytocin circulation can predispose some mammals to show caregiving behavior in response to young of their species." Genetic. "Breastfeeding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding) has been reported to foster the early post-partum maternal bond, via touch, response, and mutual gazing." Social. The maternal bond is formed during pregnancy and birth. It is strengthened during parenting of the child. Unless you plan on doing away with pregnancy/birth you're going to have to deal with it. I'm not sure why we should want to raise children collectively either. So we can avoid reactionary values being passed on to the children? A Communist revolution is only going to happen after a huge value shift from almost everyone on the planet. Parents will no longer be as reactionary on an individual level, so this will no longer be a problem. Let's assume that parents are reactionary, who decides what values the Collective teaches the children? The Collective? How? Democracy? Then it will just be Collective prejudices that are passed on instead of individual ones. If the majority of people are reactionary the Collective will teach reactionary values. If the majority of people aren't reactionary then there is no reason to take kids away from their parents, as they'll be raised by people who aren't reactionary anyway most likely. This entire issue sounds moot to me. It also sounds like it would create problems with people who don't want to separate with their kids and it'll make Communism sound even more "Scary" to ignorant people and thus it'll be counter-productive to our cause.

[OhYesIdid]

A Communist revolution is only going to happen after a huge value shift from almost everyone on the planet. Parents will no longer be as reactionary on an individual level, so this will no longer be a problem.{...} Then it will just be Collective prejudices that are passed on instead of individual ones.

lolwut


Unless you plan on doing away with pregnancy/birth you're going to have to deal with it.

Ever heard of transhumanism/singularitarianism?


A Communist revolution is only going to happen after a huge value shift from almost everyone on the planet. Parents will no longer be as reactionary on an individual level, so this will no longer be a problem.{...} it'll make Communism even more "Scary" and thus it'll be counter-productive to our cause.

double lolwut

[cogar66]

lolwut



Ever heard of transhumanism/singularitarianism?



double lolwut
I thought I was being clear. A Communist revolution would require most people to not be reactionary anyway. So the worry that parents would pass on reactionary values after a revolution is a moot point.

Transhumanism is all well and good but we aren't there yet. I'd prefer a more here and now solution.

[Aurora]

I haven't read much on the family but it's my understanding that by abolition of the family we are referring to the bourgeois family, in practical terms this means the withering away(that seems the most correct term) of patriarchy and sexism by bringing women and children into social life through elimination of domestic slavery by the creation of free daycare, cafeterias and schooling etc
It's seems likely that other areas of what we consider the family today will also change for example the normalisation of homosexual relationships and normalisation of polyamorous relationships will no doubt change the family.

[UnknownPerson]

So what role should the parents play in their kid's lives? None? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_bond How do we deal with this? I've yet to make up my mind on this one, but it seems like most people would want to keep their children.

The only role that the parents should play in their kid's lives is being genetic donators. The Maternal Bond would be dealt with the same way China successfully institutes the 1 child policy.

Some people don't seem to like this concept mainly due to all the right-wing propaganda bullshit like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0q4DKE0eeM

[Comrade Crow]

I'm all for abolishing the nuclear family but I'm not sure if I would trust anyone that lives in my neighborhood with the raising of my child, just saying.

[Leftsolidarity]

The Maternal Bond would be dealt with the same way China successfully institutes the 1 child policy.


Successfully?


Some people don't seem to like this concept mainly due to all the right-wing propaganda bullshit

It's not from propaganda bullshit but a thing called real-life bullshit. I (and many others) crave good family relations. I have a strong community of people that take care of my needs but there is more too it than that. Since I do not have strong relations with either my father or mother I have turned to my long-time girlfriend's parents to fill that void and they treat me sort of as a son. A family is something many people want and need.

[UnknownPerson]

Successfully?



It's not from propaganda bullshit but a thing called real-life bullshit. I (and many others) crave good family relations. I have a strong community of people that take care of my needs but there is more too it than that. Since I do not have strong relations with either my father or mother I have turned to my long-time girlfriend's parents to fill that void and they treat me sort of as a son. A family is something many people want and need.

If the family doesn't teach it's children social norms/beliefs/traditions and instead, the professionals would take care of that, then it would be fine.

[Tenka]

It's not from propaganda bullshit but a thing called real-life bullshit. I (and many others) crave good family relations. I have a strong community of people that take care of my needs but there is more too it than that. Since I do not have strong relations with either my father or mother I have turned to my long-time girlfriend's parents to fill that void and they treat me sort of as a son. A family is something many people want and need.
Haven't you thereby shown that the genetic element of family is irrelevant? People want care and support (i.e., a "family") and the genetic parents can't always provide this, and for the most part can never provide this entirely adequately.


"Of all human bonds, the maternal bond (mother–infant relationship) is one of the strongest. The maternal bond begins to develop during pregnancy; following pregnancy, the production of oxytocin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin) during lactation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactation) increases parasympathetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasympathetic) activity, thus reducing anxiety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety) and theoretically fostering bonding. It is generally understood that maternal oxytocin circulation can predispose some mammals to show caregiving behavior in response to young of their species." Genetic. "Breastfeeding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding) has been reported to foster the early post-partum maternal bond, via touch, response, and mutual gazing."
I wasn't breast-fed.

[Zanthorus]

Some of the technocratic fantasies in this thread are disturbing. I'm not going to take the trouble of getting my psychology notes and citing studies for people trying to express issues they had with their parents through politics on Revleft but for healthy psychological development children need the constant care of a single primary care-giver especially in the early months of development. Biological links and the gender of the care-giver are irrelevant but growing children need a figure who's consistently there for them to develop an attachment relationship with. This simply can't be provided by an instittution of faceless bureaucrats. There are countless other ways to improve the quality of childcare without resorting to bringing children up like machines, for example the provision of proffessional advice on child-rearing to new families. As for instilling reactionary attitudes in kids, how many of you had parents who weren't exactly at the cutting edge of radical politics? I rest my case.

[Thirsty Crow]

Instead of jumping on the emotional bandwagon and spouting all kinds of nonsense, maybe you all should just turn to the definition of what constitutes the family in its manifestation within capitalist society (ain't that Marxism?).

From my understanding of the problem, I think that the existence of the family in bourgeois society is vitally connected to the structural phenomenon of sexism/patriarchy and indeed class exploitation/domination. Therefore, toi abolish the family in socialism entails, as a minimal precondition, a degree of socialization of the faculties of child rearing and upbringing - as people have mentioned, daycare centers and schools (on this point, we could go off topic and into the debate on the prospects for education in socialism). What is also changed here is the relationship between the parents and the people performing this socially useful labour (since we can't expect really that a total change in social organization, proceeding from the relations of production, will not eradicate the social basis, the basic social experience which favours the development of a kind of consciousness we call reactionary, and which then is being taught to kids at home).

There's no basis whatsoever for the fantasies about separation of a child from her caretakers/parents by means of an institutional decision.

[cogar66]

I wasn't breast-fed.
Neither was I. Parents taking care of kids in general helps strengthen the bond. But the bond is there since pregnancy.

[Leftsolidarity]

Haven't you thereby shown that the genetic element of family is irrelevant? People want care and support (i.e., a "family") and the genetic parents can't always provide this, and for the most part can never provide this entirely adequately.


It is not irrelevant, as cogar is saying, but when that genetic family can not give you the "love" element in a family people will turn to others to replace them. I don't think that means that just because some parents aren't the best we should take all children away from their parents just to stop the possibility of a kid having a bad relations with its parents. When a kid's parents fail they turn to society but what happens if society fails a kid?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This thread is pretty disheartening.

Social structures reflect the underlying conditions of society. The current nuclear family form, isolation and competition between families, children as property of parents, etc., haven't always existed, and (thankfully) won't always exist in the future. And if you've noticed, as much as capitalism needs the bourgeois family unit, the motion of society is tearing it to shreds, much to the chagrin of "family values" conservatives (and apparently a lot of leftists).

When the satisfaction of the needs and wants of all is guaranteed there will be no reason to enter into sexual or other relationships for economic reasons.

"It [communist society] will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage, the dependence, rooted in private property, of the woman on the man and of the children on the parents." - Engels

"Thus, what we can conjecture at present about the regulation of sex relationships after the impending effacement of capitalist production is, in the main, of a negative character, limited mostly to what will vanish. But what will be added? That will be settled after a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in all their lives have had occasion to purchase a woman’s surrender either with money or with any other means of social power, and of women who have never been obliged to surrender to any man out of any consideration other than that of real love, or to refrain from giving themselves to their beloved for fear of the economic consequences. Once such people appear, they will not care a rap about what we today think they should do. They will establish their own practice and their own public opinion, conformable therewith, on the practice of each individual – and that’s the end of it." - Engels

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

From a past thread:

The entire capitalist system is based on the exploitation of the working class, a class made up of people who have no way to survive other than selling their labor to the owners of the means of production. Despite creating and running everything, the members of the working class receive only crumbs in return. In order to liberate themselves from this modern form of slavery, working people must eliminate the foundations of capitalism and class society: private ownership of the means of production.

By ripping up the capitalism system by its roots--which by necessity includes eliminating the state that corresponds to it--and reorganizing society in its own image, the working class will liberate all of humanity from all the forms of social misery that arose out of class society.

Yes, that includes the "nuclear family" as it exists today.

Are we talking about Secret Police snatching children from their parents in the middle of the night to be trained as some sort of shock troops? Of course not. That's nothing more than paranoid fantasy deriving from 1950's Red Scare propaganda films.

We're talking about the individual or "traditional" family dissolving in a new kind of society. And in fact, that is already happening to a large extent. Despite what we're told, the "traditional family" isn't all that traditional at all. It didn't even exist for the biggest part of human history. It arose in and corresponds to specific material conditions.

Originally a way for men to assert their ownership of women and transmit their wealth to their offspring and/or a business arrangement between two existing families, "traditional" marriage is increasingly becoming obsolete. With new information and opportunities, women and children are less likely to accept being the property of others; with different economic conditions, marriage and the nuclear family no longer serve the same purpose.

Not only is the number of marriages decreasing in the most economically advanced regions, the number of divorces is also rising. In the U.S., nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Of existing marriages? Studies show that upwards of 70% of married people engage in extramarital sex. Instead of doing this openly and freely, they are guilt-ridden into doing it in secret, damaging all parties involved.

The "traditional family" unit and "family values" are the bedrock of bourgeois society. They teach youths about "natural" hierarchy, power, and accepting their position in society; serve as a transmission belts of bourgeois ideas; and serve to generally repress all involved. Would thinking people flock to religion if they were not fed the god myth from birth? Would children "naturally" develop nationalist or racialist ideas?

That's why the defenders of the bourgeois order and reactionaries of all stripes so viciously denounce anything and everything outside of the "traditional family," from same-sex relations to single parents to promiscuity and "non-normative" sex. And that's also why it doesn't disappear.

The decline of capitalism is not enough to eliminate something so ingrained in our minds as "right" and "natural" from birth. Thus we end up with a majority of married people saying "adultery is wrong" and cheating on their spouses, divorced Catholics who "don't believe in divorce," etc.

Only the sharp break of the revolutionary elimination of capitalism itself will free us from all the inherited crap weighing us down.

In a new, classless society, in which all participate, what will be the basis for atomized individual family units? When production is organized to meet human need, and wages no longer dictate what one has, what will be the basis for neighborhoods with 1000 homes each running their own inefficient heaters (instead of being connected to a central system)? What will be the basis for 500 housewives spending 2 hours each doing 1 load of laundry when the laundry of 500 households can be done in one 2 hour session by a 1 or two people in a central facility? What will be the basis for 500 housewives spending 1 hour each cooking food for 3 or 4 people when 10-15 people can cook for 500 households in a 1 hour session in a central kitchen?

When the needs of all are met, how can spouses be trapped in marriages for economic reasons and lack of other opportunities? When the free development of each person is the goal, and equality fundamental, how can we expect parents to spend their entire days meeting the every want and need of their children? When cooperation is the basis of our entire society, how can we isolate children from their peers and subject them to the control of one or two people?

People are not property.

Revolution is a radical rupture. It is the overthrow of all social conditions. It is the creation of a new society, with new social forms.

We don't simply need to remodel our house and sod our backyard. We need to tear down the house, build a new one in its place and plant a garden where the yard once was

[Leftsolidarity]

much to the chagrin of "family values" conservatives (and apparently a lot of leftists).


I haven't seen anyone here siding with traditional conservative "family values". Some just don't like the idea of completely and forcefully getting rid of the idea of a family.

[OhYesIdid]

Jeesh, you guys, what's wrong with my technocratic fantasies?
Look, I prefer to believe we are free to choose everything about ourselves, including our personality and family relationships. For the longest time, a god-appointed monarch was considered necessary and even natural, yet now we know politics is a social construct; my case is that these "endemic" family relations are also unnecessarily painful societal constructs.

As for:

...getting my psychology notes and citing studies for people trying to express issues they had with their parents through politics on Revleft...

Whoa, way to ad hominem the shit out of this discussion.

[OhYesIdid]

By the way, Nothing Human is Alien already won this thread, so...:cool:

[Leftsolidarity]

For the longest time, a god-appointed monarch was considered necessary and even natural, yet now we know politics is a social construct; my case is that these "endemic" family relations are also unnecessarily painful societal constructs.


I'd have to disagree. There is a lot about "the family" in modern times that I don't agree with and I think most traits about it are societal constructs but the basic idea of a family unit I think also partial comes from nature. It (usually) takes 2 people to make a baby and that baby is carried for 9 months by the female. It is understandable to think that the people who made and carried this baby around would feel an attachment to it that others would not. I'm not saying that I don't agree with day-care or communal education or any of that good stuff but I just think that there is some extra attachment between certain people because of nature.

[Aurora]

Social structures reflect the underlying conditions of society. The current nuclear family form, isolation and competition between families, children as property of parents, etc., haven't always existed, and (thankfully) won't always exist in the future. And if you've noticed, as much as capitalism needs the bourgeois family unit, the motion of society is tearing it to shreds, much to the chagrin of "family values" conservatives (and apparently a lot of leftists).
This is such a good point i just had to quote it :cool:

What was it Marx said about the foundation of the new society growing within the old? ;)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I have a problem with the concept that two adults should have exclusive control over the lives of the children put in their care. Why two adults only, why not all of society. Often the only claim these adults have to the children is that they were able to successfully procreate. I don't see how the ability to reproduce justifies someones control over another one.

Because there is a genetic and childhood bond there.

In actual fact, I don't think family is a bad thing at all, in terms of the actual existence of an emotional bond between the nuclear family.

Granted, some of the crap that comes along with the notion of 'family' in general - its hegemony over societal interests, marriage tax breaks, inheritance and so on - are not welcome, but I find the idea of the state raising children instead of parents abhorrent and quite cold.

The state should be used, at most, as a tool of class warfare. We should look to dismantle its peripheral dimensions as soon as possible, rather than expanding it into some all-encompassing, cradle-to-grave 'I know best' protector.

[SocialistAction]

By ripping up the capitalism system by its roots--which by necessity includes eliminating the state that corresponds to it--and reorganizing society in its own image, the working class will liberate all of humanity from all the forms of social misery that arose out of class society.

Yes, that includes the "nuclear family" as it exists today.

I agree with the section in bold. However, I see no need to humor any superfluous antagonism towards private individuals choosing to pursue a union based upon the framework of the nuclear family — a married couple and their children occupying the same living quarters.

There is a rather profound difference between abolishing the material conditions which render the nuclear family a flawed construct and completely abolishing it.

Surely socialism will serve to instill a more communal consciousness amongst society, but I doubt it will lead to the voluntary abolition of what constitutes the basic parameters of the nuclear family. To assume as much strikes me as Utopian and nowhere in Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State does one encounter such conjecture.

[Tenka]

By the way, Nothing Human is Alien already won this thread, so...:cool:
I second this notion.
Most people today will not be willing or able to imagine such a basic thing as our long-enduring mode of reproduction being some day usurped, but I for one look forward to the obsolescence of sex, and the development of a new sort of "test tube baby" that won't have to grow nine months in a host female's uterus. Don't think me some silly idealist -- it's not something that I think will come about within the next couple of centuries.

[Leftsolidarity]

I second this notion.
Most people today will not be willing or able to imagine such a basic thing as our long-enduring mode of reproduction being some day usurped, but I for one look forward to the obsolescence of sex, and the development of a new sort of "test tube baby" that won't have to grow nine months in a host female's uterus. Don't think me some silly idealist -- it's not something that I think will come about within the next couple of centuries.


umm why would you want to get rid of sex??? I fucking love sex.

[Tenka]

umm why would you want to get rid of sex??? I fucking love sex.
It's inefficient. It has evolutionary advantages over asexual reproduction, but they could easily be made irrelevant by our medicines; and anyway we'll all be dead long before humans see the light, so it doesn't really matter what any of us 'loves'.

[Leftsolidarity]

It's inefficient. It has evolutionary advantages over asexual reproduction, but they could easily be made irrelevant by our medicines; and anyway we'll all be dead long before humans see the light, so it doesn't really matter what any of us 'likes'.

Why does it matter if it's "inefficient"? It's enjoyable. Try being a person and like have emotions and that stuff, you might like it.

[Tenka]

Why does it matter if it's "inefficient"? It's enjoyable. Try being a person and like have emotions and that stuff, you might like it.
Not loving sex equals not having emotions now, does it? Your words cut, stab...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I second this notion.
Most people today will not be willing or able to imagine such a basic thing as our long-enduring mode of reproduction being some day usurped, but I for one look forward to the obsolescence of sex, and the development of a new sort of "test tube baby" that won't have to grow nine months in a host female's uterus. Don't think me some silly idealist -- it's not something that I think will come about within the next couple of centuries.

Idealist?? You must be joking.

My word, it's fucking 1984.:rolleyes:

You are clearly massively out of touch with ordinary people. Most people love sex, and rightly so. Your thoughts on obliterating sex are not Socialist in the slightest, they are merely your own weird philosophical musings and don't really have any place on a revolutionary Socialist forum.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Way too many singularitans up in here.:(

[Tenka]

Idealist?? You must be joking.

My word, it's fucking 1984.:rolleyes:

You are clearly massively out of touch with ordinary people. Most people love sex, and rightly so. Your thoughts on obliterating sex are not Socialist in the slightest, they are merely your own weird philosophical musings and don't really have any place on a revolutionary Socialist forum.
You gravely misunderstand in your eagerness to call out whatever authoritarian baddies might be lurking about. I never implied it would be forced on people; it is something that would come about naturally as social conditions and scientific development make sex (for reproductive purposes at least) a thing of the past.:rolleyes:

Edit:
@Kuppo: Not a singularitan at all.

[Leftsolidarity]

Not loving sex equals not having emotions now, does it? Your words cut, stab...

No, viewing everything as if it needs to be turned into some machine where you completely forget about human emotions and actually living is why I think you have no emotions.

[Tenka]

No, viewing everything as if it needs to be turned into some machine where you completely forget about human emotions and actually living is why I think you have no emotions.
I have plenty of emotions; how about you stop flame-baiting, eh?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You gravely misunderstand in your eagerness to call out whatever authoritarian baddies might be lurking about. I never implied it would be forced on people; it is something that would come about naturally as social conditions and scientific development make sex (for reproductive purposes at least) a thing of the past.:rolleyes:

Edit:
@Kuppo: Not a singularitan at all.

I think you are being massively optimistic about the direction human development will go.

Aside from reading too much 1984, there's really no basis in logical thought for thinking that we will ever reach that stage. Periodic shifts in global temperatures will probably always see to it that our development is put back at regular intervals.

[UnknownPerson]

Some of the technocratic fantasies in this thread are disturbing. I'm not going to take the trouble of getting my psychology notes and citing studies for people trying to express issues they had with their parents through politics on Revleft but for healthy psychological development children need the constant care of a single primary care-giver especially in the early months of development. Biological links and the gender of the care-giver are irrelevant but growing children need a figure who's consistently there for them to develop an attachment relationship with. This simply can't be provided by an instittution of faceless bureaucrats. There are countless other ways to improve the quality of childcare without resorting to bringing children up like machines, for example the provision of proffessional advice on child-rearing to new families. As for instilling reactionary attitudes in kids, how many of you had parents who weren't exactly at the cutting edge of radical politics? I rest my case.

Parents might play a very small 'emotional' role it the children's lives, but nothing that would involve them teaching their child any culture/norms/traditions, as this would bring HUGE implications.

It is why we still have nationalism, religion, intentional aggressive war bullshit, massive resource waste, consumerism, etc.

[Leftsolidarity]

It is why we still have nationalism, religion, intentional aggressive war bullshit, massive resource waste, consumerism, etc.

I think it is simply wrong to blame all those on the nuclear family. Those things and the family are results of the modes of productions.

[Thirsty Crow]

It is why we still have nationalism, religion, intentional aggressive war bullshit, massive resource waste, consumerism, etc.
That's an enormous oversimplification, if not for other reasons, then for the reason that it ignores other influences upon the development of the peronality.
Also, we still have nationalism and war because certain groups of people take interests in such phenomena.

[Lanky Wanker]

This sounds scary... :scared:

[Aurora]

This sounds scary... :scared:

Ya honestly avoid pretty much everything in this thread, as it turns out communists don't wanna snatch your children in the middle of the night and send them to the reeducation center.