What place does the "family unit" have in

[*Hippie*]

Personally I think the Patriarchal "family unit" does not really have a place.
I think state recognized marriage should be abolished. The state has no business in the bedrooms or personal relations of the people.
I think society puts much pressure on people to get married and have children. The vow to be with one person for your whole life and to raise children should be a very personal decision, and not enforced by the state.

In today's two income world, many couples struggle to raise children and to work and it leaves little time for individual growth.

This may sound radical, but I also think everyone in an imperialist country has no business to be having children of their own, it would be a much more unselfish act to adopt a child from a third world country. We have a responsibilty first of all as citizens of the world, to help the children who are already born, not to be having more and overpopulating the world.

I also have heard statistics that most of the childcare burden falls on the female in the relationships, this will change under communism ~ I think children should be raised communally and with support from the community, both males and females will be equally involved.

Interested in hearing your thoughts. I was just brainstorming here, I am open to different theories. ;)

['Discourse Unlimited']

"Abolition of the Family!" Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.


(The Communist Manifesto) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

There are many issues with the family - for instance, the traditional rights of inheritance. I mean, if private property is abolished, then inheritance vanishes. Also, the exploitation inherent in the family unit (Fathers over sons and daughters; husbands over wives - 'Partiarchy') disappears.



I think children should be raised communally and with support from the community, both males and females will be equally involved.


Read 'The Dispossessed', by Ursula K. LeGuin - it's about an Anarchist community living on a moon (!), and she discusses familial relationships in some detail. This community has no recognised word for "biological father" or "biological mother"... Instead, they have "dominant male influence" (or something like that), and so on. Children are raised and educated communally, and everyone can play a role in the upbringing of a child. It's a marvellous book.

[*Hippie*]

Thanks, I will check out that book. It is good to hear my views aren't too off base.
I agree about the inheritance issue. Under socialism, the abolishment of inheritance will be key. Any accumulated wealth and assets should be given back to the state for the collective good of the people upon death. I think it should be this way under capitalism as well, but of course that breaks down the very foundation of capitalism. It would be nice to see the whole structure fall apart under even one leftist legislation. :)

[redstar2000]

I think you might like this one...

Children's Liberation & Communist Society (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082768760&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redwinter]

I imagine that the commodification that occurs under capitalism, wherein "everything holy is profaned" as Marx and Engels put it, will continue to run its course, and the destruction of the family as an organizational unit of society will continue. In the US and other imperialist countries, a growing number of people choose to live alone (sometimes after a divorce) -- due to increased living standards and the slow equalization of pay for women, some of whom are starting to be able to pay the bills with their jobs (now it's $.75 for every $1 a man makes on the same job). Raising children alone is an injust burden often put on the mother if the parents don't cohabitate. Women often only marry men for an income, both in the imperialist and the oppressed countries.

I can imagine a socialism where children will eventually be born in hospitals, then immediately after the procedure be whisked away to day care centers where trained staff and/or machines will nurse them and raise them until they are ready to attend school, which would be something like boarding schools today with dormitories and everything. Having children will become a surgical operation.

Perhaps eventually humanity would be able to have some kind of central repository like a sperm bank where each man could deposit a sample of his or her sperm, and then be given a vasectomy to prevent unexpected pregnancy. Such institutions could also be established for women to store their eggs in, but if the men are being vasectomized, which is the gender for which the procedure is the easiest and least painful, then there would be little reason to do so to the women as well. Most importantly, women might be led to do this because after further scientific developments, pregnancy might happen entirely outside of the womb. Sperm and eggs found to be possessing genetic defects/disorders could be automatically flushed by the machines that run the reproductive programs. It could be rigged to produce a person every time someone dies to keep the population at a sustainable level.

Or maybe I've just watched The Matrix one too many times...

[workersunity]

read, family,private property and the state by engels

[apathy maybe]

I see no reason why the family would not exist. That is not to say that the community would not take a much bigger role in the upbringing of the child. In any post capitalist egalitarian society I think that just like we would share goods, we would also share responsibilities. It is easier to raise a child with help.

What might happen is that a couple stay together long enough to raise a child, then split. Or one might run before the child is very old. But it doesn't matter 'cause the community is taking on a great role, thus lessening the strain on the other parent.

I don't think that you can force people not to value their own child over someone elses. Nor to stop them wanting to have a large say in how they are brought up.

[Donnie]

The family unit and values would and should be destroyed in an anarchic communist society. As Kropotkin said "All children are our children".

Children would be raised by the community; it would benefit the children because they would be brought up in a very open minded view instead of a biased view given by the family (if you get me).

Also I would like to destroy the whole idea of "biological father and mother" I hate it when parents have a fit because another parent gives a critique of the other parents parenting and the parent goes "how dare you tell me how to raise my child" urgh.

Also raising children communally would be very liberating for the children.
Also the community should be symmetrical in which both male and female look after the children/child.

[JC1]

I agree we must smash Patriarchy and Childrens Oppression. I love my family, but in general its a horid system. Why should we allow children to be brutalizied by two quite possibly irratinale individuals just becuase there the product of there loins ?

[*Hippie*]

I think there will always and should be couples who love each other. I think when people are liberated from the idea of the "family unit", they will see everyone can be a member of the family. I don't think it would be uncommon to see 3 couples sharing a house and raising their children collectively. Think of how many people in society don't even have family. Many elderly and widowed people live alone. Even myself, I only have my father and he is in his late 70s so I don't know how much longer I will have with him. What I envision is someone who wants to be part of a family can freely join or leave a "family" as they wish and it wouldn't be dictated by biology.

[Roses in the Hospital]

The emphasis put on the 'traditional functional family' in bourgois society just screws people up, as in reality there's no such thing as a truely functional family. Almost by definition all families have their own problems and differences from other families, it's just natural. The most fundemental problem being that , in my view, humans are not naturally monogomous (unlike, say swans) and the freedoms we now enjoy in regards divorce etc. highlight how unususal it is for a person to be satified by only one other for there whole lives...
In a communist society I imagine a looser conception of family: If people want to get married and raise their own children then they should be allowed, equally however, if somone wants to have their children raised collectivly then that too should be catered for. Basically, anything (within reason) goes. Maximum freedom of the interpretation of 'family'...

[Che NJ]

I think in the ideal society, children would be mostly raised in the community, but still have some kind of parent figure. Whether the parent is the child's actual mother or father makes no difference to the child, they just need somebody to care for them. I would support the idea of state nurseries and boarding schools, but the child still needs somebody in addition to the state to support them emotionally.
As for humans being unnaturally monogomous, I totally agree with roses. humans' bodies and minds are created for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, in which the clan had to constantly increase its numbers to survive. Such societies had no reason to become monogomous.

[Ifoughtthelawandiwon]

I think Red winter has watched matrix too many times. What he suggests would be to much of an infringement of human liberties. Parents will always want to be a dominating influence in thier childrens lives, it is the nurturing instinct. I think parents should be allowed to raie theier child alone if they so wish but have the oppertunity to have them take part in communal creches or community care. With all these options available to a young family im sure they will opt to take advantage of them while still having a relationship with thier offspring. The additional contact with trained carers would also increase the childs experience with people at an early age so mental development would be improved and also the parents would have free time to work or relax.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ifoughtthelawandiwon
Parents will always want to be a dominating influence in their children's lives...

But is that "a good idea"? Has it "worked out for the best" over the centuries?

What about the parents who want to fill up their kids' heads with bullshit?

You know...racism, sexism, homophobia, patriotism, religion, etc.

Perhaps you should reconsider.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[comrade_mufasa]

Are there any parents here? I would think they would have a more in depth idea then us with no kids. You can all say how you want children to be raised but if you dont have kids then what the hell do you really know.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 12:03 AM
Are there any parents here? I would think they would have a more in depth idea then us with no kids. You can all say how you want children to be raised but if you dont have kids then what the hell do you really know.
True Story.


Part of the reason I support families is that. Your children are your flesh and blood they came from your seed. Then to deprive a husband and wife of the most beutiful thing a child is like being shanked with a knife.


Edit: Oh and scientologists already tryed the communal parenting. :(

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by comrade_mufasa+--> (comrade_mufasa)You can all say how you want children to be raised but if you don't have kids then what the hell do you really know.[/b]

We know what it's like to be a kid.

Who is more qualified to speak on the issue?


Anarchist Freedom
Part of the reason I support families is that your children are your flesh and blood; they came from your seed. Then to deprive a husband and wife of the most beautiful thing, a child, is like being shanked with a knife.

Notice all those possessives in your brief statement?

Like "your children", "your flesh and blood", and "your seed".

And a child is a "beautiful THING". :o

You see, you have (perhaps unintentionally) put your finger squarely on the problem with the biological family.

Children are not the property of their parents.

You cannot "do with your own kids whatever you please".

Even now, you can't...much less after any kind of genuine revolution.

I do think that any form of compulsory collectivism is probably not a good idea...some parents are, after all, really great with their kids and it would be stupid and self-defeating to interfere with that.

But let's be honest here: a lot of parents treat their kids very badly...including the ones who try to indoctrinate their kids with bullshit ideas.

I think we need some serious alternative institutions to deal with that problem.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[romanm]

For once I can say "Redstar is right". I haven't said that since his reply to "the anarchic free"..

marxleninmao.proboards43.com

[Taiga]

Perhaps eventually humanity would be able to have some kind of central repository like a sperm bank where each man could deposit a sample of his or her sperm, and then be given a vasectomy to prevent unexpected pregnancy.

Shit .... where is mine?
:lol: