How Should Children Be Raised?

[RedHammer]

In a hypothetical communist society, what will be the family structures and relations? How should children be raised?

Is the nuclear family model a product of capitalism? Is it a proper model for a family, or will it, either by choice or necessity, be replaced? And if so, by what?

Some people propose that all members of a community should live in common; children should be raised under the same roof; there should be no custody of children to particular parents; or something alone those lines. I'm inclined to disagree with this idea. This was tried in the Kibbutzim and it's been demonstrated that these policies impair child development.

I think children should still be raised by one set of parents, in their own separate home, but their education must, of course, be a social responsibility. Still, it's quite probable that the personal biases of the parents will rub off on the children. I cannot think of a way to avoid this, although it's not necessarily problematic, depending on the context.

How would a communist society teach history? How would schools work? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

[Comrade Samuel]

Firstly i'd like to say this is a very good idea for a thread, I've often wondered the same thing. To me it makes sense that a set of parents could just adopt/have kids and raise them while an educational system equips them with the social skills needed for life and if the personal biases of the parents happen to rub off on them it would be a small price to pay (especially since this is a hypothetical communist society and things like racism, nationalism, sexism ect. have been done away with for the most part). However I would like to express my concerns with what has come to be known as "progressive parenting" the whole "no physical punishment of any kind" and "no pushing them be better than what they are" ideas seem detrimental and in my opinion are going to ruin a whole generation of kids.

Don't expect much else out of this but speculation though, it's impossible to know what could happen between now and when communism is a reality.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Kids would be raised collectively. When they are out of the breast feeding age (6 months) kids start to become independent beings, with their first independent thoughts. When children are 3 years old to five, working class parents in capitalism usually seek help in raising them because they are out working. So in Communism "Kindertagesstätte"/day care centers would be made gratis for working people, so that they can work freely and their kids be integrated into society. When i was a kid i also went to the kindergarten at age 5 and every time i was dropped off by my mother i hated it, but when she came to pick me up again i didn't want to leave. Children are formed, and collective upbringing is only natural in an industrialised society of mass communication and socialised labor, especially for communist society. State Schools will be around so long there is the necessity for a state, when scarcity is removed/socialism evolves into communism, schooling will most likely get rid of its industrial character, become more organised towards the free development of the individual. An organisation and production of pupils of various sectors will always have to be organised around the needs of society and its environment. The social institution of the school will need to always persist, communis is a prerequisite for communism's survival. Any anarchists that do not want to accept the fact that the advance of the productive forces necessarily spell a(n ever decreasing) socialisation of individuals, society's rule over the individual, is fooling themselves. We all want the freedom for the individual, but with increasing productive capability of the individual laborer comes an increasing need to have society regulated by the natural scientists.

[Leftsolidarity]

There was a fairly good thread I started on this like last year that maybe I'll dig up if I feel adventurous. Or maybe you can. I don't remember everything in it but I do remember it helped me learn a bit.

[cynicles]

How did kibbutzim impair child development, the only negative I read about was that children didn't marry other children from the same kibbutz later in life because they developed sibling attachments with them.

[Silvr]

In a hypothetical communist society, what will be the family structures and relations? How should children be raised?

Collectively. *cue moral outrage from the resident hoards of teenage boys*



Some people propose that all members of a community should live in common; children should be raised under the same roof; there should be no custody of children to particular parents; or something alone those lines. I'm inclined to disagree with this idea. This was tried in the Kibbutzim and it's been demonstrated that these policies impair child development. I don't think that is has been demonstrated at all, particularly considering that children were raised along these lines for the majority of human history, before class society. It is also the most ridiculous thing ever when people point to the Kibbutzim as an example of this, like raising children in settler colonialist camps in a virtual warzone is an example of communist child-rearing. But even so, the idea that the children who were raised collectively in the Kibbutzim were developmentally impaired is completely bogus and sounds like the sort of thing you just pulled out of your ass because the thought of collective child-rearing offends your sensibilities.

[Silvr]

I would like to express my concerns with what has come to be known as "progressive parenting" the whole "no physical punishment of any kind" and "no pushing them be better than what they are" ideas seem detrimental and in my opinion are going to ruin a whole generation of kids.


That is because you are a douche bag.

[Terminator X]

Ugh. One of my least-favorite subjects whenever it gets brought up. This thread will no doubt devolve into a bunch of 17 year olds with no kids or experience around children telling everyone that parents should have their children taken away from them at less than a year old and raised by complete strangers.

[Comrade Samuel]

That is because you are a douche bag.

Well looks like I've been refuted, I guess I'll just crawl back into the cave I live in now.

Can you explain to me why these are bad ideas? Clearly I'm not advocating child abuse or driving them to the point of insanity with expectations or anything like that but why not bite the soap when they swear or spank them when they act out of line (yeah, I hate individualism *gasp!*). What exactly makes me "a douche bag" for fearing children will not want to be as good as they can be or even attempt to be productive members of society?

I was raised by a pair of strict conservative and while I disagree with alot of what they believe it's undeniable that some of their methods of parenting where very effective.

[Igor]

I honestly find the idea of all children being taken away from parents to some collective institution kinda creepy. Family is a concept that's pretty important to me and fuck armchair revolutionaries wanting to interfere with that shit.

[Pretty Flaco]

children should be raised with the iron fist of the people's will

[Rafiq]

One thing's for sure: The bourgeois family structure (or private paranting, even if they have a sociL life) is an unequivical failure that provides the internal basis for child abuse, rape, etc.

The problem with the Kibbutzum was not that it lacked family, on the contrary, the problem was that it was an obscure exemplification (or.mutation) of the bourgeois family structure. In other words, these closed communities possessed too much family and didn't provide a basis for macro social life.

[eliotn]

I honestly find the idea of all children being taken away from parents to some collective institution kinda creepy. Family is a concept that's pretty important to me and fuck armchair revolutionaries wanting to interfere with that shit.

I agree with this. Wouldn't it be better for people to chose how they want to raise their kids, instead of having to send them off to a collective institution? Wouldn't this be really helpful in promoting community?

[Ocean Seal]

Why don't we believe that the bourgeois (or rather class-society) family will live on? Perhaps people's attitudes towards abuse and rape will change enough that they will be bizarre relics of capitalism. Its not so much that I believe that it is too good to be abolished, but in general the family structure has lead to mostly happy children (as happy as children can grow up with alienation and exploitation).

[RedHammer]

How did kibbutzim impair child development, the only negative I read about was that children didn't marry other children from the same kibbutz later in life because they developed sibling attachments with them. There was no privacy in the kibbutz. People literally shared everything.

Children need to have adults that they feel particularly close to, and safe with; these are their parents, their guardians. They don't have to be biological, of course. When it comes to the home, though, I think children should have private parents, but public and social education.


That is because you are a douche bag.

No, you're just a moron. See?

How is he wrong? Please criticize his statement instead of resorting to calling him a "douche".

[Leftsolidarity]

Why do some think that bourgeois social relations and structures will continue to exist past the bourgeoisie? We can't really say exactly what would replace the bourgeois family structure but I doubt it would be the same since family structures come and go just like most other things with the mode of production.

[RedHammer]

Why do some think that bourgeois social relations and structures will continue to exist past the bourgeoisie? We can't really say exactly what would replace the bourgeois family structure but I doubt it would be the same since family structures come and go just like most other things with the mode of production.

I'm just not buying that the nuclear family structure is just a "bourgeois family structure". I mean, I get that marriage can be, and traditionally has been, an institution aimed at addressing property inheritance and family fortunes, but the nuclear family also has social significance in the rearing of children.

The nuclear family structure has existed long before capitalism, hasn't it?

[levyel]

How is he wrong? Please criticize his statement instead of resorting to calling him a "douche".

Aside from the possibility of an escalation of violence or desolating parent-child bond and subsequent relationship, some of us find it absolutely horrid to direct any violence whatsoever toward a grouping that is among the weakest and most helpless within our societies. Most of my economic leanings derive from my own strict moralism and adherence to such views though, at least somewhere along the line.

Then again, I wear condoms.

[cynicles]

I'm just not buying that the nuclear family structure is just a "bourgeois family structure". I mean, I get that marriage can be, and traditionally has been, an institution aimed at addressing property inheritance and family fortunes, but the nuclear family also has social significance in the rearing of children.

The nuclear family structure has existed long before capitalism, hasn't it?

No, a variety of family structures have existed historically, the definitions of what a sister or brother have changed drastically for example.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

It's ludicrous to say that the state can itself abolish the family. It's not the kind of thing that can be forced instead of coming naturally. I do think, however, that the nuclear family will continue to exist in some form. A great degree of communal parenting, however, is not contradictory to this.

It should not be so taboo for the non-biological parents of a child to engage in parenting for that child - this presupposes that the biological parent can raise their children perfectly. When other adults around (whether in a commune or whatever) engage in parenting of children besides their own, it roots out a lot of issues that tend to be passed down in the family.

For instance - think about racists you know. In the vast majority of these cases, they were predisposed to racist thinking at a young age, due to being predisposed to the ideas of their parents. Communal parenting would allow for greater development of independent thinking skills.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I honestly find the idea of all children being taken away from parents to some collective institution kinda creepy. Family is a concept that's pretty important to me and fuck armchair revolutionaries wanting to interfere with that shit.

Yes, i'm sure you find your collectivist indoctrination camp known as "school" very creepy... probably not between looking up girls skirts at break though.

[Silvr]

Ugh. One of my least-favorite subjects whenever it gets brought up. This thread will no doubt devolve into a bunch of 17 year olds with no kids or experience around children telling everyone that parents should have their children taken away from them at less than a year old and raised by complete strangers.

Actually, from reading this board in the past, it seems much more common for threads on this subject to devolve into a bunch of teenage boys moralizing about how important the existing family structure is to them, probably because their mothers cook their food and do their laundry and ferry them around everywhere, and that seems like a great arrangement to them (at the expense of a huge portion of their mothers life and time, but why should revleft teenage boys gives a fuck about that!)

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Communism will inevitably need to to enforce a culture of collectivism. If you find collectivism in the name of human freedom "creepy", what are sports teams, military, ping pong or chess clubs to you then? It is a fact that individuals in Capitalism, although they are made to work together on an increasingly small space, are increasingly lonely. Communism will only transmit the social productive stage of capitalist development into the fitting social organisation. Social life in the collectivist GDR was very good, people still talk about it today. A communal culture is merely fitting to the stage of capitalist social/material development. Children will still live with their parents until they are fully mentally and physically developed. Children will be more integrated into and participatory in communist society; while the family does not lose its emotional meaning, it merely its social importance.

[Igor]

Actually, from reading this board in the past, it seems much more common for threads on this subject to devolve into a bunch of teenage boys moralizing about how important the existing family structure is to them, probably because their mothers cook their food and do their laundry and ferry them around everywhere, and that seems like a great arrangement to them (at the expense of a huge portion of their mothers life and time, but why should revleft teenage boys gives a fuck about that!)

The existing family structure is important for me because I care for my family a lot and I want to be involved with kids of my brothers and I want my kids to know their uncles and grandparents. And I definitely want to raise my kids. There's a tie that's different than ties to people I just happen to live with or be friends with. I'm not expecting everybody to flow with the traditional family structure, but that's what I'd like to do, and I really don't believe in the state coming and interfering in this unless there's a good reason to assume something's going wrong.

(no, I don't live with my parents :rolleyes:)

I agree with the notion though yeah that maybe we could do with some more communal raising of kids, but as long as there are no reason to assume anything's wrong with the way the kid is being brought up, it should be based on parents' consent. Fuck those kinds of revolutionaries who aim to manage all aspects of society from the above.


Yes, i'm sure you find your collectivist indoctrination camp known as "school" very creepy... probably not between looking up girls skirts at break though.

What? We weren't talking about schools. I mean, public schooling for everybody is a given, but it's a different matter from communal upraising.

[theblackmask]

I think a more important question is "Should children be raised?"

[Igor]

I think a more important question is "Should children be raised?"

...yeah they should

[Silvr]

The existing family structure is important for me because I care for my family a lot and I want to be involved with kids of my brothers and I want my kids to know their uncles and grandparents.

I don't think the idea of collective child-rearing would in any way preclude people from being involved in the lives of biological children, if both parties desired it. It would simply mean that the biological parents would not be in a position of ownership and special or sole authority over the biological children.

And I definitely want to raise my kids. I think this is basically the mentality that goes along with a society in which children are the property of their parents, rather than individuals and full members of society.


There's a tie that's different than ties to people I just happen to live with or be friends with.This just seems like the usual mystical bullshit used to justify the bourgeois family. Do you think parents of biological children have this special tie with their kids that parents of adopted children don't and cant have? I don't see why biological parents should be any more entitled to have a meaningful influence in a child's life than others in a community who are not the child's blood relatives. There is nothing exceptional or special about blood relation outside of your mind, property relations, and ruling class mythology. It sounds like you had a great childhood and a loving family, and you should consider yourself lucky, and perhaps consider whether your experience may be the exception rather than the rule. Many people have a wildly different experience of the traditional family structure that damages them for the rest of their lives, and by its very nature, it enables and encourages those kinds of abusive and destructive relationships to exist.


I agree with the notion though yeah that maybe we could do with some more communal raising of kids, but as long as there are no reason to assume anything's wrong with the way the kid is being brought up, it should be based on parents' consent.Which again takes for granted that the children are the rightful property of the parents. I don't think human beings ought to be the private property of anyone, and in a communist society, I don't believe such an arrangement would even be possible.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Interesting this thread comes up. I've just been studying Critical Pedagogy as part of my choice education.


the whole "no physical punishment of any kind" and "no pushing them be better than what they are" ideas seem detrimental and in my opinion are going to ruin a whole generation of kids.

So you support beating kids if they don't co-operate with you?

[roy]

Yes, i'm sure you find your collectivist indoctrination camp known as "school" very creepy... probably not between looking up girls skirts at break though.

what?

[ВАЛТЕР]

Idk about you all but my kids will be fiercely loyal to me and refer to me as "Eternal Dear Leader Dad" and sing songs in my praise.

I think kids need to be disciplined appropriately, not violently just firmly at times. I like the way my parents raised me. I was pretty much allowed to do whatever I wanted, so long as it wasn't harmful to me. If I went and did something wrong I was spoken to directly and I usually didn't do it again. My parents figured that the more you try to forcefully prevent me from doing something the more I will try to do it. So when I did things that were unacceptable they told me so in a firm manner and I usually didn't do it again.

However, I was disciplined pretty cruelly at times too. I was scared of my father, even though he never really beat me. He was more into public humiliation which in my opinion is worse than any beating ever. Although he would always feel bad after and come and apologize and buy my chocolate or a toy or something.

I like to think I came out alright. Although the public humiliation thing is something I wouldn't do to my child ever. At least not on the scale my father did it.

[Comrade Samuel]

Interesting this thread comes up. I've just been studying Critical Pedagogy as part of my choice education.



So you support beating kids if they don't co-operate with you?

Not quite, I think there's a huge difference between a light slap for being an obnoxious little brat (pretty much what you wish to see at every restaurant in America) and senselessly beating a child in a drunken fit of rage or something along those lines.

Obviously there is a grey area here but the main point is that if we refuse to teach our kids that there are negative consequences for their negative actions then it is only logical that they could grow into horrible adults who lack discipline or any kind of respect for other people (please note that while that does not imply that physical punishment is the only option or even the first to use, merely that it should be on the table for extream cases and that definitely should not be anything that could cause long term emotional/ physical damage).

If I may shift gears for second it may be worth pointing out that none of us have our crystal balls on hand and therefor have no idea what will or will not be necessary in the future of child care so that means we are all arguing about what should be done right now, something that we sadly have absolutely no control over.

[Quail]

When they are out of the breast feeding age (6 months)
Actually breast feeding can go on quite a bit longer than 6 months if it is left up to the infant to wean itself naturally. I don't know whether in a communist society mothers would be more or less inclined to want to breastfeed their children for longer though. I didn't breastfeed my son much because he was in hospital for a while after birth and it was difficult to express enough milk, but if I had been able to I would have liked to have breastfed him for a good length of time. I suppose "work" in a communist society would allow much more flexibility though so it probably wouldn't be an issue.

I think most people would want to raise their own children, but I don't think that's incompatible with a more collective approach to child care. I imagine that collective childcare would involve everyone with children (and those without who wanted to help) volunteering to look after a certain number of children for a certain amount of time while their parents have a break, go to work or do something they enjoy, and then in return other people will have their children so they can also get some time off. Collective child care doesn't necessarily have to mean that children are taken away from their parents and raised in a herd. Children need stability and it's important for babies to have someone that they trust, who they always know will be there for them. I don't think it can do children any harm to have plenty of other familiar people that they trust though.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Ugh. One of my least-favorite subjects whenever it gets brought up. This thread will no doubt devolve into a bunch of 17 year olds with no kids or experience around children telling everyone that parents should have their children taken away from them at less than a year old and raised by complete strangers.

This.

However many studies and theories there may be to say it works or no matter how much it compliments our politics...I cannot imagine not raising my son myself. Not seeing him everyday and watching him grow, not being there to help him, protect him, try to raise him to be a good person..it makes me want to cry just imagining it.

(This is purely from my own personal stand point, there are arguments to be had i'm sure, but anyone who disagrees please try not to shit all over my point of view and get too personal; I want to raise my own child, forgive me)

[Quail]

Obviously there is a grey area here but the main point is that if we refuse to teach our kids that there are negative consequences for their negative actions then it is only logical that they could grow into horrible adults who lack discipline or any kind of respect for other people (please note that while that does not imply that physical punishment is the only option or even the first to use, merely that it should be on the table for extreme cases).

Don't you think it would make more sense to teach them the actual negative consequences of their actions (e.g. harm to themselves and/or others) rather than the negative consequences being a slap? Children should learn to act nicely because they understand the consequences of their actions, rather than because they're afraid of punishment.

Also, I think that it is hypocritical to tell children that it's not okay to hurt other people if you're going to hit them for misbehaving. By physically disciplining them you undermine your own rules.

[ComingUpForAir]

If anyone in this thread has not yet read Engels' Private Property, Family and State I would highly advise they do so...it's flawed, of course, but you'll realize that raising children communally is really the only natural way to do it -- various modes of production have in turn evolved the family structure -- families used to be totally incestuous, then people began breeding with other tribes to improve stock of children, then families began to follow maternal, not fraternal birth lines of inheritance. Once the Father became the head of the family you saw him take power away from the female head of the family, this owed again to the way the surplus was doled out according to property relations and the way agriculture produced an advantage for men over women (owning a tract of land and working it in families put men naturally in charge for obvious reasons).

The reason the nuclear family exists is because it furthers capitalism..all you have to do is look at what happens when you institute policies that threaten the nuclear family to begin to see the chink in the armour.. take abortion for one. It's been proven conclusively that the cure for poverty basically is family planning. Give a woman control over her rate of reproduction..she has less kids and more surplus and energy for each...she is less burdened and less of a fedual serf to her husband..within a generation you see the entire ceiling of poverty rise as there are less people who are essentially a burden on society. It's been done already in Spain and Italy and France ...when you have lots of kids they stay ignorant and poor and become loyal to the church..the nuclear family depends on the steady isolation and indoctrination of children.. raise them communally and tribal divisions between households disappear. I don't know where the rest of you live, but I live on a cul-du-sac where every house is basically a mini fortress...it produces a lot of hostility and I don't talk to any of my neighbors.

[Comrade #138672]

That is because you are a douche bag.Very respectful. Perhaps we should teach our children a similar mentality. Don't just disagree, tell them that they're douchebags.

[Buttress]

Children should be raised by their parents in a community of families. I see nothing inherently bourgeois about this. It needn't be patriarchal and it doesn't have that "mind your own children" mentality of the family unit.

[Regicollis]

The nuclear family is a rather new invention that arose during industrialisation when people moved from their traditional rural communities to work in the big cities. Previously more generations lived together so that there was somebody to take care of the elderly who in return contributed with the work they could manage to do.

I don't hope a revolution would mean that everyone should live in communes and share everything. Actually I don't like socialising that much and prefer to be able to shut my own door and just be with my family or myself.

I think the nuclear family will continue to exist in some form under communism with parents and children living together and with parents having the responsibility for raising the children. Actually I think communism will strengthen the family.

Communism will mean that people have more free time. People will most likely choose to spend a significant amount of free time with their family. Also under communism parents will not be pressured by economic reasons to put their children in daycare before they feel ready.

As for the communal upbringing I think it has a lot of benefits. When my father grew up in the 50's there was some degree of communal upbringing since all the mothers were housewives so the children could always go to somebody's mother. In the future communist society gender roles will loosen up significantly so the communal upbringing will be done by men as well as women.

A communist society will create material conditions that will allow community feeling to grow. When people are allowed to run their own communities they will have to work together and know each other. The removal of private property as well as class divisions will also further community solidarity. When people are closer to each other they will also be more inclined to take care of each other's children.

We actually have a lot of that spirit where I live. Officially it is a troubled area - a ghetto - but people look after each other and take care of each other's children. It is really nice to know that your neighbours will look after your children when you can't and I think it helps socialising children into accepting and understanding other ways of being a family than the one they experience at home. So despite all the bad rep we get I feel this area is a really good place for my daughter to grow up.

[wax]

Well looks like I've been refuted, I guess I'll just crawl back into the cave I live in now.

Can you explain to me why these are bad ideas? Clearly I'm not advocating child abuse or driving them to the point of insanity with expectations or anything like that but why not bite the soap when they swear or spank them when they act out of line (yeah, I hate individualism *gasp!*). What exactly makes me "a douche bag" for fearing children will not want to be as good as they can be or even attempt to be productive members of society?

I was raised by a pair of strict conservative and while I disagree with alot of what they believe it's undeniable that some of their methods of parenting where very effective.

Because it encourages the development of an authoritarian personality, which is exactly of what we would want under a free communist society. Communism requires free thinking, independent people, not people dependent on authorities for guidance and leadership. I'm not surprised that you have ended up with an authoritarian socialist ideology like marxist-lenninism when you were raised in a way that encourages authoritarianism.

[Philosophos]

From the one side I believe we should leave the family alone because most of the times it's one of the best things ever in the human history. On the other side we have stupid people. Stupid people are a great minority (even though I start to believe they became the majority long ago thanks to the capitalist propaganda). You can't deal with some stupid people. You show them the truth and they don't want to accept it.

To be clear about the truth part that I mentioned before I was once sitting in a bench at junior highschool and a proffesor was walking. He sees me and tells me: "Nice white shoes". My shoes were black. When I mentioned that he said: "No they're white" and he expeled me because he said that I insulted him in the repa. The other teachers believed him. His kids are ruined, because he was so stupid that even the enviromment they were raised or the public schools couldn't do something to beat his stupidity.

Anyway sorry if I'm off topic but whenever I hear the phrase"How to raise children" I have great ideas but at the same time there is this great stupidity in the world that you just CAN'T beat.

[Rafiq]

What's wrong with raising them in something like a public school?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

What's wrong with raising them in something like a public school?

I don't get it, do people not realize that children already spend a large part of their life in modern capitalist society in public institutions, school? The difference is that the capitalist institutions are not supposed to be social institutions since the family is (was) deemed perfect, historically a lot of things have been done to restrict interaction among pupils (dress codes, not talking without permission etc). Communism would only make all insitutions from schools to corporations, into social people's insitutions.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

...Hence when we say we want kids to be raised publicly, persons on RevLEft think we want to drag little children from their loving families to the gray anti-social institutions. No, all insitutions of society need to be transformed to become social pro-human institutions and the autocratic capitalist pro-family anti-social rules of institutions removed.

[Positivist]

Well looks like I've been refuted, I guess I'll just crawl back into the cave I live in now.

Can you explain to me why these are bad ideas? Clearly I'm not advocating child abuse or driving them to the point of insanity with expectations or anything like that but why not bite the soap when they swear or spank them when they act out of line (yeah, I hate individualism *gasp!*). What exactly makes me "a douche bag" for fearing children will not want to be as good as they can be or even attempt to be productive members of society?

I was raised by a pair of strict conservative and while I disagree with alot of what they believe it's undeniable that some of their methods of parenting where very effective.

Why is it a problem if children "swear"?

[Positivist]

I don't understand how some people here acknowledge that the "nuclear family" in its modern form is a product of industrialization and has developed as a property relation over time, but then defend it. That you have had a good experience with your family is not evidence that it is the optimal means of bringing up children, it means that your particular parents were nice people. The nuclear family has been responsible for the oppression of women, the abuse of children, the alienation of people of different biological inheritance and much more. I cannot for the life of me understand the attachment to the family.

[Comrade Samuel]

Why is it a problem if children "swear"?

I realize we are all for promoting the ability to think freely here and all but why rob some kid of his/her childhood innocence by explaining what "fucking" (or any other profanity for that matter) means at such a young age?


Don't you think it would make more sense to teach them the actual negative consequences of their actions (e.g. harm to themselves and/or others) rather than the negative consequences being a slap? Children should learn to act nicely because they understand the consequences of their actions, rather than because they're afraid of punishment.

Also, I think that it is hypocritical to tell children that it's not okay to hurt other people if you're going to hit them for misbehaving. By physically disciplining them you undermine your own rules.


Thank you, quail for your response as it is the only one thus far that has made me seriously reconsider my stance in any way. Still I have to wonder if very young children inherently care about the safety or well-being of others or if that only comes after years of experiencing the consequences of their actions personally.

As for the part about it being hypocritical, I guess I just haven't considered that in a very long time, figured it was just one of the benefits of being an adult but now I see that mindset is what makes society what it is today.

[Lynx]

I don't understand how some people here acknowledge that the "nuclear family" in its modern form is a product of industrialization and has developed as a property relation over time, but then defend it. That you have had a good experience with your family is not evidence that it is the optimal means of bringing up children, it means that your particular parents were nice people. The nuclear family has been responsible for the oppression of women, the abuse of children, the alienation of people of different biological inheritance and much more. I cannot for the life of me understand the attachment to the family.
It is natural to defend what you know. Plus all the horror stories about orphanages and foster homes.

[No_Leaders]

Careful, i recall a guy on here advocating beating kids and disliked as he called "bargaining" with children. I forget his username he was the same guy talking about joining the foreign legion. He was banned eventually. Anywho on topic, this is a good question how would children be raised? I definitely think schooling could happen in different ways, you could still have teachers in the sense you do now but raising kids based on libertarian principles (when i say libertarian i mean of the leftist tendency not the farce rightwing libertarian ideals). Parents could take the role of teaching as well, but definitely need to be raised knowing there are consequences, i mean you'd want to raise them to learn right from wrong, the things you normally teach your children. The main differences in now versus in our society would be you wouldn't have to worry about them being taught bullshit at school, how U.S.A. is number 1 and all the propaganda we're indoctrinated with in public schools and private schools. The notions shoved down childrens throats of competition wouldn't exist, they wouldn't be told "you wanna do better than the person next to you so you get a scholarship!" No they'd be taught about fundamentals of living a good life, of caring for your fellow human, that they can really do whatever they desire (i.e. become an artist, doctor, baker, musician etc.) They'd be taught that human happiness, relies in the true freedom we'd now be living under, they wouldn't have to fear the cops, the bosses, and politicians too, they wouldn't have to worry about their dreams being destroyed to find out at 18 you need to work to survive or die in the streets. Those days would be over.

[Rafiq]

I honestly find the idea of all children being taken away from parents to some collective institution kinda creepy. Family is a concept that's pretty important to me and fuck armchair revolutionaries wanting to interfere with that shit.

What I find creepier is throwing children in private, nonsurvalenced homes where parents can pretty much get away with whatever the fuck they want to, so long as the kid keeps his mouth shut.

But just to lay your shit, unsubstantiated concerns to rest, no, the structure of the family was never something that changed and evolved as an expression of the will of the state or anyone else, for that matter. The dynamics behind the change of the family structure occurred naturally over quite a period of time. Should bourgeois society be destroyed, nothing would necessitate the nuclear family, perhaps, and therefore it would slowly dissapear. If you deny the fact that the Nuclear family, it's structure, is a product and a variant of male domination, you're a moron and you haven't the slightest grasp of the origins of the family itself. What kind of Liberal pressupposions would drive someone to come to the conclusion that when we Communists express our opposition to the family, it means that in a position of state power, we would "take kids away from their parents" and throw them into camps. or something? Have you any idea what an unequivocal failure that would be?

But, yes, the family has taken the exact same form throughout it's whole existence and it doesn't exist in correlation with according mode of productions. As a matter of fact, the structure of the family is not a reflection of material conditions, it is a product of our Ideas on how the family should look. Right? Isn't that how the Bourgeois family structure came to be? Some guy simply came and said: "Hey, I have an Idea, let's organize our families this way, and use the state to enforce such organization!" or was it simply a product of productive relations furtherly necessitated (child labor, etc.)?

And to those who think that the destruction of the family structure is antithetical to proletarian class interests (since they're parents too), they're full of shit. The Bourgeois family structure is an enemy to any proletarian. Hell, if not for the power of the proletarian movement, in the 20th century, Parents would still be able to fucking beat their kids senseless. I say the struggle against child abuse can be categorized among the struggles against sexism and perhaps even racism.

[Rafiq]

I'm just not buying that the nuclear family structure is just a "bourgeois family structure". I mean, I get that marriage can be, and traditionally has been, an institution aimed at addressing property inheritance and family fortunes, but the nuclear family also has social significance in the rearing of children.

The nuclear family structure has existed long before capitalism, hasn't it?

No, it hasn't, it's a relatively new phenomena.

[Veovis]

Children should be locked into amniotic vats until the age of majority so they stay off my fucking lawn!

[Hermes]

I realize we are all for promoting the ability to think freely here and all but why rob some kid of his/her childhood innocence by explaining what "fucking" (or any other profanity for that matter) means at such a young age?

It's impossible for them to retain their 'innocence' anyway, unless they had downs syndrome or some other regrettable mental disorder. Attempting to keep them innocent is just an attempt to make sure they don't grow up at the rate which they are inclined to.

As for most of the responses, and it's been pointed out by others already, it honestly seems like a lot of you are treating your children as your own property. I can understand, to a certain extent, your desire to raise your children, but then again isn't that simply the desire to attempt to make them more yourself? Communal upbringing lets the child develop with a minimum of bias and stress, and he could still share emotional ties to blood, while recognizing that the entire community is his family rather than a select group of people based purely on blood.

[Crux]

Can you explain to me why these are bad ideas? Clearly I'm not advocating child abuse or driving them to the point of insanity with expectations or anything like that but why not bite the soap when they swear or spank them when they act out of line (yeah, I hate individualism *gasp!*). What exactly makes me "a douche bag" for fearing children will not want to be as good as they can be or even attempt to be productive members of society?

I was raised by a pair of strict conservative and while I disagree with alot of what they believe it's undeniable that some of their methods of parenting where very effective.
Quail went into it fairly nicely, but I have to say...washing a kids mouth out with soap for swearing? That's just abuse, straight up.

Indeed they were effective, in damaging perceptions and reproducing themselves. And this is not just something I am saying, I've seen this stuff close-up. I do not believe in physically punishing children.

[Rational Radical]

I actually prefer the current family structure, as most have said id like to have more free time with my son,daughter,brother,nephew,wife etc damn not everything that's private is bourgeois or evil chill out comrades lol

[Regicollis]

It is a small minority of families who are abusive. The vast majority do a fairly good job of raising their children - at least better than what some institution could do. Institutions will never be able to love children the way parents can.

I fail to see why the nuclear family structure with children and parents living together in one household is inherently oppressive to women. Who says it has to be authoritarian - why can't two people live together as equals?

[helot]

A communist society would be completely different to a capitalist one. Every aspect of society would undergo a fundamental change. How could a communal society in which the social bonds between people are far greater still have the nuclear family? I expect that children will be raised by but not limited to their biological relatives and their neighbours.

[Engels]

I actually prefer the current family structure, as most have said id like to have more free time with my son,daughter,brother,nephew,wife etc damn not everything that's private is bourgeois or evil chill out comrades lol

The nuclear family is a product of the conditions of class society, of capitalism. If capitalism is replaced with a classless society then the structure of the family will necessarily undergo change due to the complete change in the social relations of production, whether anyone wants it to or not. In other words, the nuclear family created by capitalism cannot endure independently of that mode of production.

That is of course, not to say that children must be taken forcefully from their parents and placed into a collective institution (which would be quite absurd).

[Zukunftsmusik]

I realize we are all for promoting the ability to think freely here and all but why rob some kid of his/her childhood innocence by explaining what "fucking" (or any other profanity for that matter) means at such a young age?

Why do you even think a child is born "innocent"? And why would you rob a child's "innocence" by simply explaining what "fucking" means and why it's not necessarily something one should walk around saying all the time? This is bullshit, sorry.


Still I have to wonder if very young children inherently care about the safety or well-being of others or if that only comes after years of experiencing the consequences of their actions personally.

You seriously think slapping or abusing your child would make them care more about other people? What you seem to forget, is that when you abuse your child (which slapping also is categorised as), they exactly don't learn the consequences of their actions personally. They learn that big bad papa can do what the hell he wants to you if you don't do as he says.

[Comrade Samuel]

Why do you even think a child is born "innocent"? And why would you rob a child's "innocence" by simply explaining what "fucking" means and why it's not necessarily something one should walk around saying all the time? This is bullshit, sorry.



You seriously think slapping or abusing your child would make them care more about other people? What you seem to forget, is that when you abuse your child (which slapping also is categorised as), they exactly don't learn the consequences of their actions personally. They learn that big bad papa can do what the hell he wants to you if you don't do as he says.

Point taken, forgive me if I've defended this position past when it seems logical whatsoever. I don't know if any of you have ever had an experience when in a short period of time you are exposed to overwhelming evidence that contradicts something you've believed for most of your life but to put it simply it makes your head spin a bit.

I'm going to need some time to think on this, I'd like to thank all of you who took some time to present the other side of the argument in a way that makes sense and I appreciate not being restricted/banned for being the one misinformed dissenting opinion of the bunch.

[X5N]

I like the kibbutz model.

I dislike the nuclear family. And I reject the notion that authoritarianism towards children is in any way necessary.

[RedHammer]

. Children will still live with their parents until they are fully mentally and physically developed. Children will be more integrated into and participatory in communist society; while the family does not lose its emotional meaning, it merely its social importance.

Fair enough. As long as children do have a private place to go. Privacy is as much a human need for some people as socialization is.

Whether or not the typical family structure as it exists today will persist, family itself needs to persist. I find it a horrible thought that children could be raised in herds, entirely collectively.



I think this is basically the mentality that goes along with a society in which children are the property of their parents, rather than individuals and full members of society. Children aren't "full members of society". They've not yet developed.

Where do you draw the line between an adult and a child? We establish suffrage laws that declare an 18 year old to be an adult, but think about it: how much more different were you at 18 than you were at 17 and 11 months?


Many people have a wildly different experience of the traditional family structure that damages them for the rest of their lives, and by its very nature, it enables and encourages those kinds of abusive and destructive relationships to exist.
To be fair, I don't think that it's the family structure, but capitalism that leads to all these abuses and cold childhoods. All members of a community can, of course, contribute as nurturing figures to children; but the child also has a set of parents, the ones he can most rely on; the ones who form the core of his daily routine.



Children need stability and it's important for babies to have someone that they trust, who they always know will be there for them. I don't think it can do children any harm to have plenty of other familiar people that they trust though.
This


Why is it a problem if children "swear"?
It's not a "problem", but it is vulgar and rather unnecessary. Call me a prude.

[Silvr]

Its pretty funny that people who fancy themselves Marxists pretend that the existing family structure exists in a vacuum, and can somehow be separated from the mode of production. The form that the family takes is inextricably linked to the overarching economic system. The idea that the complete transformation of society would, or could, leave the institution of the family untouched is absolutely ludicrous.

[Sea]

No, a variety of family structures have existed historically, the definitions of what a sister or brother have changed drastically for example.
The significance of family has changed, but families have existed in the mainstream since at least the hunter-gatherer days. Look at the family structures of the great apes for instance.

[Silvr]

The significance of family has changed, but families have existed in the mainstream since at least the hunter-gatherer days.
Except that the actual structure of the family has changed many times since the hunter gatherers. Do you actually believe that the form of the family that exists today has remained unchanged for the past ten thousand years?


Look at the family structures of the great apes for instance.What about them? Gorillas have different family structures than Chimpanzees, which have different family structures than bonobos, so on and so forth. I am not sure what the relevance of this is, though. Human society is just a tad more complex than the other great apes, you know...

[Rafiq]

It is a small minority of families who are abusive. The vast majority do a fairly good job of raising their children - at least better than what some institution could do. Institutions will never be able to love children the way parents can.

I fail to see why the nuclear family structure with children and parents living together in one household is inherently oppressive to women. Who says it has to be authoritarian - why can't two people live together as equals?

Well, firstly, a small minority? Really? And how can you even measure that? You do realize it's extremely under reported and majority of children in abused homes grow up without telling anyone, yes?

I'd say that around where I live, at the very least, 60-70% of children are abused in their homes.

And with that aside, there's the problem of indoctrination and setting the benchmark as to whether children can participate socially in external environments. Today, in the bourgeois family structure, children are nothing short of personal pets, no matter how well they're treated in your average home. And don't give me this disgusting nonsense. "Love"? What? If love amounts to beating a child senseless without having worry if anyone is to find out, I suppose you're right. The Bourgeois family is an unequivocal failure. In my own experience, the families who are "normal" are the ones who are the most talented in keeping secrets. I have yet to encounter a family that is not fucked up in some sort of way. The families that do the best, though, majority of the time (what a surprise) are Bourgeois families (as in, families of the capitalist class). And what does "good" even mean? Even those families are extremely oppressive, they just lack any resistance.

And the problem in regards to their sexism has absolutely nothing to do with "Authoritarianism" (We as Communists, for the last fucking time, oppose things on the basis of class interest, not some obscure ethical absolutism regarding 'Authoritarianism' which is subjective anyway). The problem in the Nuclear family is marriage, the selling of oneself to a man in return for shelter, clothing, food, etc.

Have you any idea how ridiculous it is, this concept of "cheating"? I could never grasp it. And of course, no matter how "equal" they appear to be, the Bourgeois family structure carries the necessary social mechanisms to create an environment of subconscious sexism, which it always does. No, are women beaten, locked into their own houses, and refused the right to leave? Of course not (even though a lot of the times, that certainly is the case). But it is already pressuposed that she is responsible for the kids, etc.

Apologia for the Bourgeois family structure is as conservative as apologia for the social relations of which it is necessitated.

[Rafiq]

What about them? Gorillas have different family structures than Chimpanzees, which have different family structures than bonobos, so on and so forth. I am not sure what the relevance of this is, though. Human society is just a tad more complex than the other great apes, you know...

And even at that, the family structures of the great apes exist in correlation with different environmental settings. This routine of Alpha male - Overthrown - New alpha male, the doing away with this routine was one of the chief distinctive behavioral tendencies displayed by humans.

It's also absurd to attribute to the family to "human nature", which is about as worthy in essence as attributing class society, and even capitalism as "human nature". There is a reason why several Communists, Marxist or otherwise, started to slowly do away with their Idealism.

[Sea]

Except that the actual structure of the family has changed many times since the hunter gatherers. Do you actually believe that the form of the family that exists today has remained unchanged for the past ten thousand years?
What about them? Gorillas have different family structures than Chimpanzees, which have different family structures than bonobos, so on and so forth. I am not sure what the relevance of this is, though. Human society is just a tad more complex than the other great apes, you know...I was speaking about the concept of family, not a specific part of family structure nor how it relates to human society. Parents raising their young, children feel a bond to their parents, siblings feel a bond towards one another, etc. My post was directed to supporters of kibbutz / communal parenting.


I am not sure what the relevance of this is, though. Human society is just a tad more complex than the other great apes, you know...The relevance is that family exists outside of capitalism. I think you're reading into it too much, my great ape example was just that, an example.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I'm no authority on child psychology by any means, but I'd like to call attention to the kibbutz model of child-rearing. In a kibbutz, a Jewish communitarian collective, the children are raised collectively, rather than by their individual parents. At least, this is the traditional method as I understand it. They may employ specialized professionals for rearing children for the most part, but in any case the children are exposed to the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of the entire community. I believe a similar model may be an effective method of raising children that they develop a stronger sense of community. They may also develop an appreciation for diverse opinion in this way, training them in the art of creative problem-solving and an expressive and fluid way of applying what is learned. That, and it may be easier on the caretakers, too, if they were to share the responsibility rather than assign it to one or two individuals.

[Questionable]

I know I'm late to this thread, but what are some works I can read involving the family? Particularly this idea of a collectivist family.