The Importance of Close Parenting

[Capitalist Lawyer]

A number of studies have demonstrated that attachment to parents is predictive of a variety of adjustment indicators for college, including social, academic, and personal/psychological functioning (Hinderlie &Kenny, 2002; Lopez & Gormley, 2002; Rice,Fitzgerald, Whaley, & Gibbs, 1995)


Thus, attachment to romantic partners and peers in young adulthood is directly related to attachment to parents (Carnelley, Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1994; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), and peer relationships become a replacement for
the support earlier provided by the family (Hinderlie & Kenny, 2002). The quality of
these adult relationships has been shown to affect an individual’s methods of coping with the stresses of adult life (Lopez & Gormley, 2002).

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_co.../45.1hannum.pdf (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_college_student_development/v045/45.1hannum.pdf)

Attachement to parents and a close relationship with your family is the best predictor for success in school and in life? As opposed to "socio-economic status" which you guys say otherwise?

[violencia.Proletariat]

You have to subscribe. Tell me who funded the research too if you can. ;)

[bezdomni]

There is still a correlation.

It's harder for impoverished and working class parents to spend a lot of time with their children. They have to spend their time working in order to feed their family, when you are at work you aren't raising your children. This is actually a good example of alienation.

Also, people of low socio-economic status are more likely to have their children enter the workforce at a young age. Needless to say, when you are working a full-time job, it becomes a lot more difficult to do your homework and keep up with studies.

I'm not saying that working class people can't spend time with their children, or that bourgeois parents spend all of their time with their children - my point is that the potential for raising children is more available to the bourgeois class as opposed to the working class.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Attachment to parents and a close relationship with your family is the best predictor for success in school and in life? As opposed to "socio-economic status" which you guys say otherwise?

You need to give us a "working link" on this study before we can read it.

Many existing studies have shown that parental "socio-economic status" (class) is far and away the "best predictor" for success in higher education.

"Success" in "life" is much more problematic...unless defined as attained (or retained) "socio-economic status".

That is...

Moved "upwards" = "success"

Stayed the same = "success"

Moved "downwards" = "failure"

A study reported in The Economist demonstrated that "social mobility" in the United States is decreasing with the passage of time...so "close parenting" is not necessarily a "free ticket" to economic "success".

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayS...tory_id=3518560 (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560)

There have been many studies that demonstrate that growing up in a "traditional bourgeois family" (husband works, wife stays at home) is a pretty good predictor of economic success in life. Such people are less likely to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, less likely to use illegal drugs, less likely to come to the attention of the police, more likely to attend church, more likely to join the military, more likely to enjoy success in college, more likely to enjoy occupational success, more likely to marry and establish a new "traditional bourgeois family"...and, if all that weren't bad enough, the sanctimonious bastards live longer! :lol:

Fortunately for us, this traditional family structure is in "deep shit" and sinking deeper. Working class families need two (at least) full-time workers just to get by. And even in upper-class families, women are no longer content to "stay at home" and "take care of the kids". It's boring!

Thus "close parenting" is becoming "a thing of the past".

Of course, as in many things these days, the internet plays an increasingly important role in "social ties". Instead of being constrained by the number of people who happen to live in our immediate vicinity, we are free from the age of 8-10 or so to develop relations with an enormous number of individuals from all over the world.

That's got to make a difference...though I suppose it remains to be seen what sort of difference it will make.

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

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Let's hope this helps.

Journal of College Student Development, Jan/Feb 2004 by Hannum, James W, Dvorak, Dawn M

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...401/ai_n9360615 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3752/is_200401/ai_n9360615)



A study reported in The Economist demonstrated that "social mobility" in the United States is decreasing with the passage of time...so "close parenting" is not necessarily a "free ticket" to economic "success".

All your study states was that less people from the lower classes are becoming millionaires. There was nothing in that study about people starting from the bottom and working their way atleast into a comfortable, middle-class position. There are simply not enough wealth to go around to make more people millionaires.


Working class families need two (at least) full-time workers just to get by.

Then don't have kids if you don't have the resources nor the will! I always hear that from you leftists, "ohh, workers don't make enough to feed their families."

Shut up already and take responsiblity for yourself.


Of course, as in many things these days, the internet plays an increasingly important role in "social ties". Instead of being constrained by the number of people who happen to live in our immediate vicinity, we are free from the age of 8-10 or so to develop relations with an enormous number of individuals from all over the world.

But you'll never meet those people in person. Some will but many won't. And that can't be all good as with the advent of online predators and clever bastards who have an expertise in manipulating children's minds with their warped views.

Kind of like what you communists do. And there are other assholes out there as well that take advantage of this so-called "social progress".

"Oh look Johnny is into death metal and is infatuated with suicide and drugs...but nobody shares his views...the poor thing...oh wait...thanks to the internet he can find likeminded kinship..."

No child should use the internet for those purposes or any purpose fort that matter. When you turn 18, knock yourself out.

This is your idea of progress?


I suppose it remains to be seen what sort of difference it will make.

Not very good. I don't think it's a good idea that a nihilistic and alienated youth will be able to find someone as fucked up as he/she. I think the people who look towards the internet to find people like themselves are screwed up to begin with.

[cyu]

There are simply not enough wealth to go around to make more people millionaires.


The number of millionaires is increasing, but then again, if everyone were millionaires, you'd just get massive inflation, and everyone would be about the same as they were before. The real issue is whether there is enough wealth going around to support the millionaire life-style. Millionaires aren't as rich as they used to be simply because of inflation, but let's say the millionaire life-style includes butlers, limo drivers, housekeepers, stable hands, etc. Obviously there will never be enough wealth around to enable everyone to have butlers (will butlers ever have butlers?).

There's only so much human resources available to do labor. When there's a large gap between rich and poor, there's a greater percentage of people spending their time serving the rich. The result is less labor available to make sure the rest of population is adequately housed and has decent living conditions. That's the fatal flaw of allowing large spending disparities in an economy. It results in an economy that fails to provide for all its participants.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Then don't have kids if you don't have the resources nor the will! I always hear that from you leftists, "ohh, workers don't make enough to feed their families."
I don't know about any comrades, but such sentiments as the above are one of my major 'pet peeves' about the bourgeois 'mindset'.

To them, it seems perfectly reasonable to have one's life revolve around one's 'resources'. And the capitalist bastards call that freedom!

Capitalist feelings are amusing, yes, but it also pisses me off. :angry:

[bezdomni]

Then don't have kids if you don't have the resources nor the will! I always hear that from you leftists, "ohh, workers don't make enough to feed their families."

Shut up already and take responsiblity for yourself.

I won't even reply to this. You're obviously a social darwinist. See the thread on Ayn Rand - the cartoon was particularly good.

Here, I'll post it for you.

http://angryflower.com/atlass.gif

If the working class doesn't survive in capitalism (and if you can think of a better way than reproduction - I'd be interested), then where do commodities and wealth come from?

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:38 PM
There is still a correlation.

It's harder for impoverished and working class parents to spend a lot of time with their children. They have to spend their time working in order to feed their family, when you are at work you aren't raising your children. This is actually a good example of alienation.

Also, people of low socio-economic status are more likely to have their children enter the workforce at a young age. Needless to say, when you are working a full-time job, it becomes a lot more difficult to do your homework and keep up with studies.

I'm not saying that working class people can't spend time with their children, or that bourgeois parents spend all of their time with their children - my point is that the potential for raising children is more available to the bourgeois class as opposed to the working class.
I would agree in that the impoverished have less time to spend with their kids, not to mention that extreme poverty causes some to restort to crime to make a living. It is clear that even if we accept this capitalist "logic," that social-economic status plays a role in the strength of the family.



Close parenting also does not guarntee social mobility, as redstar2000 already pointed out.

From redstar2000:


Fortunately for us, this traditional family structure is in "deep shit" and sinking deeper. Working class families need two (at least) full-time workers just to get by. And even in upper-class families, women are no longer content to "stay at home" and "take care of the kids". It's boring!

Thus "close parenting" is becoming "a thing of the past".

This is definitely true these days. There seems to be more daycare involved these days, and there has even been an afterschool care program that has been set up in the school I work in. The two full-time jobs for barely getting by is also true these days. The afterschool programs are also showing that women are not content with being housewives anymore, and why should they? Who really wants to be subjected to domestic slavery?

A good point:

"In one way or another, all official and liberal science defends wage-slavery, whereas Marxism has declared relentless war on that slavery. To expect science to be impartial in a wage-slave society is as foolishly naive as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers’ wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital."

-Lenin, The Three Soures and Three Component Parts of Marxism

[red team]

Then don't have kids if you don't have the resources nor the will! I always hear that from you leftists, "ohh, workers don't make enough to feed their families."

Shut up already and take responsiblity for yourself.


People are not stupid. Birth rates are already declining. But this is contradictory because who would replace the older generation when they retire? It's no coincidence that the biggest generation in terms of population size is the so-called baby boomers. The post war boom when the "golden age" of American Capitalism was in effect made that happened.

But here's the contradiction. Capitalism needs replaceable workers that's why conservatives advocate the abolition of birth controls. It's not just simple morality they're preaching. There's nothing simple about the need for more workers.

[redstar2000]

Your link will only display the first page of the study. But that's ok, it gives me enough of an idea to see what they're getting at.

"Attachment theory" strikes me as a little on the "crude" side...but there may be something "to it".

But then...


Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Then don't have kids if you don't have the resources nor the will! I always hear that from you leftists, "ohh, workers don't make enough to feed their families."

You may find this thread of interest...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47212


But you'll never meet those people in person. Some will but many won't. And that can't be all good as with the advent of online predators and clever bastards who have an expertise in manipulating children's minds with their warped views.

Kind of like what you communists do. And there are other assholes out there as well that take advantage of this so-called "social progress".

"Oh look Johnny is into death metal and is infatuated with suicide and drugs...but nobody shares his views...the poor thing...oh wait...thanks to the internet he can find likeminded kinship..."

No child should use the internet for those purposes or any purpose for that matter. When you turn 18, knock yourself out.

This is your idea of progress?

Not very good. I don't think it's a good idea that a nihilistic and alienated youth will be able to find someone as fucked up as he/she. I think the people who look towards the internet to find people like themselves are screwed up to begin with. -- emphasis added.

Excellent rant, Mr. Ludd.

Even if it does impugn the contemporary relevance of "attachment theory". :lol:

The system that you admire continues to revolutionize the "human condition"...and you sound rather less than pleased with the results.

But it's "part of the package"...and if you imagine that you can keep your kids in pristine isolation from "internet corruption", you have a big surprise coming. :lol:

Have you heard the latest? Teens are making "big money" these days selling nude pictures of themselves over the internet...or so it has been reported.

Capitalism has led us into some very unexpected realms, that's for sure.

But Marx had it right all along: in capitalism, all human relations become commodity relations.

Good luck in trying to market "close parenting". :lol:

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

[Tungsten]

red team

Capitalism needs replaceable workers that's why conservatives advocate the abolition of birth controls.
They do it because they're bible thumpers, not because they "need workers".

[Capitalist Lawyer]

There have been many studies that demonstrate that growing up in a "traditional bourgeois family" (husband works, wife stays at home) is a pretty good predictor of economic success in life. Such people are less likely to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, less likely to use illegal drugs, less likely to come to the attention of the police, more likely to attend church, more likely to join the military, more likely to enjoy success in college, more likely to enjoy occupational success, more likely to marry and establish a new "traditional bourgeois family"...and, if all that weren't bad enough, the sanctimonious bastards live longer!


How is that a bad thing? Are you jealous or something?


Fortunately for us, this traditional family structure is in "deep shit" and sinking deeper.

Or so you say? Are you against all families or just ones where the parents abuse the kids (and each other) constantly?



Thus "close parenting" is becoming "a thing of the past".

No it's not...that just means they spend less time with them as they did in the past. You're making it sound like families are becoming extinct and virtually useless which clearly isn't the case.


Of course, as in many things these days, the internet plays an increasingly important role in "social ties".

So you'd rather have all kids be more close to total strangers on the internet rather than their parents and siblings?


But it's "part of the package"...and if you imagine that you can keep your kids in pristine isolation from "internet corruption", you have a big surprise coming.

Most kids know better and if parents did their job, they'd become less receptive to stupid ideas and people on the internet. If the children are, then it's more likely the parents are irresponsible to begin with and I could careless about their outcomes.


all human relations become commodity relations

I don't think I have a commidity relationship with my family nor friends. Maybe I do and just don't realize it. What exactly do you mean by this?


Teens are making "big money" these days selling nude pictures of themselves over the internet...or so it has been reported.

To who(m)? Each other or to 40 yr old pedophile scum? And I'll put my money on it that those kids who participate in that kind of activity probably grow up in households where the parents are neglectful and/or just don't give a crap.

And their kids will probably end up as strippers, a drug dealer, a bartender at some dive bar, or a prostitute. The police will catch up to them sooner or later and throw their worthless bodies in jail.

Boo-hoo....less scum that I have to worry about.

[TomRK1089]

CapitalistLawyer, I don't think you really grasp the effect being in the lower or lower-middle class has on family dynamics.

Now, I can't speak from experience--I'm upper-middle class, an anomaly you might say--but the people at the lower end of the spectrum precisely fit the picture redstar, red team, and axel mentioned.

As for not having kids if you can't support them--sounds like you're really just interested in having 'efficient' workers. If they're not wasting resources on children, they can turn you a better profit. Have you ever considered that some people don't view children in spreadsheet terms of profit/loss like you? Y'know, some people are capable of thinking in terms other than money!

[Capitalist Lawyer]

As for not having kids if you can't support them--sounds like you're really just interested in having 'efficient' workers.

No, I just don't want people to have their lives screwed over simply for taking on responsibilities that they cannot handle at the moment. Whether it's having a child, owning a home or running a business.



Have you ever considered that some people don't view children in spreadsheet terms of profit/loss like you? Y'know, some people are capable of thinking in terms other than money!

Newsflash: Things cost money! Even a child's well-being. You'll be doing a disservice to the kid(s) if you aren't equipped to handle it.

But your saying had a nice "Hallmark" ring to it but it totally ignores reality of our present day situation.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
How is that a bad thing? Are you jealous or something?

Well, to me it sounds pretty much like serfdom. A mental horizon so incredibly cramped and constrained that it's almost like being an animal in a cage for your whole life.

Evidently it looks that way to a lot of people...as the numbers of people who actively choose to live like that continue to decline.


Or so you say? Are you against all families or just ones where the parents abuse the kids (and each other) constantly?

It's not so much a matter of my opinion (or any individual's opinion)...it's more along the lines of what seems to be happening.

The more sophisticated we become, the more unsatisfactory we find the "traditional family".


You're making it sound like families are becoming extinct and virtually useless which clearly isn't the case.

They seem to be "on that road". I have no idea if they will eventually become entirely extinct or not...but it wouldn't surprise me if that happened.


So you'd rather have all kids be more close to total strangers on the internet rather than their parents and siblings?

Well, the point is that they don't stay "total strangers". They find people who "think like them"...which is very different from living with relatives who may not "think like you" at all.


I don't think I have a commodity relationship with my family nor friends. Maybe I do and just don't realize it. What exactly do you mean by this?

Marx meant, I think, that as capitalism matured, all human relations would tend to become a matter of calculated self-interest.

For example, mainstream popular magazines speak of "emotional investments" and "what kind of return are you getting". Children are often spoken of in terms of "investments in the future"...which will presumably "pay off big time" someday. :lol:

The "friendships" in the business world are usually bluntly spoken of in terms of "what can you do for me" and "what can I do for you".

We are even being taught to see ourselves as "something we invest in".

To be sure, there's evidently always been a kind of psychological "exchange mechanism" at work in human relations...but in modern capitalism it has "moved to the forefront". Even "holy matrimony" has become a business arrangement...like a corporate merger with everything down in writing.

Lots of people "don't like this"...but one must "protect oneself" against predation or risk being "taken advantage of".

Whenever you meet someone new, it's caveat emptor all the way. :o

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

[Loknar]

yes red star....life is so muhc better in a single parent enviornment than a loving family

And its always good for children to be left alone by their parents at all times to watch television.

Redstar. I think you are a teen. THis isnt communism or some liberal bulshit no matter how much you want it to be. Parenting is important and children should havesomehwere to turn to.

Someting tells me, when the shit hits the fan in your life, suddenly you are begging mommy. Other than that, shes a parent and should respect my privacy.

and btw,m just because pussywhiped men and disel dikes get an idea that the traditional family is 'opressive' it doesnt mean they are right. ANd i dont give a flying fuck if a parent is unhappy about staying home to raise their children. Dont have children if you cant do it.

[Axel1917]

You know, this whole "don't have kids if you can't afford them" mentality coming from the capitalist supporters does really hold any water; sometimes a family starts out, and they can afford to have the kids. Then sometimes bad things happen, like some kind of serious problem that puts them very far in debt (serious health problems making high hospital bills, a car's engine, transmission, etc. going to crap, natural disasters, etc.).

It is quite clear that the traditional Bourgeois family is in trouble. It is very burdensome for many people, and even though some want to have kids, they don't necessarily want to be stuck around the house taking care of them for most of the day. More and more people seem to rely on daycare as well. The costs of living keep getting higher, and after inflation, our wages don't rise with those costs. The only useful purposes of the Bourgeois family are of course, purposes in the interests of the Bourgeois. On one hand, the tracing of the family line through the male's surname allow owners of the means of production to pass the property down to their offspring (given that there is no t some kind of buyout from another corporation or large shareholder). On the other hand, it continues to produce future wage-slaves to replace the older ones when they die, retire, etc.

Capitalism must be destroyed if humanity is to go on. It is neglecting the world, and barbarism and the possibility of the destruction of the human race are what capitalism promises in the future if it is not overthrown. Socialism will introduce a family that is more communal, in that parents will not have to be burdened by taking care of children in all of their spare time. Kids will be able to interact and establish good relationships with many people in addition to their parents.

[Loknar]

It is quite clear that the traditional Bourgeois family is in trouble. It is very burdensome for many people, and even though some want to have kids, they don't necessarily want to be stuck around the house taking care of them for most of the day.

Actually, once you bring another life into the world, what you want is not relevant. And yes, daycare. This means dumping the kids off on somebody else because you don’t want to take any responsibility because of that career of yours. You should always place the child and its interests ahead of your own.

Socialism and the village raising concept I do like. But, there must also be a close link between children and their parents. The village friends or caretakers cant truly support you emotionally. But then this also reenforces refusals of people to take any responcibility.

I guess this is because i have first hand experience with this it bugs me. My mother was my primary caretaker. My father was never around. I can tell you, growing up, I am glad I always had somewhere to turn to. When personal issues come up, you don’t go talk to some person who is a member of this commune and doesn’t know you well enough.

IN either event, I don’t see how this champions communism. If you want to build real communes you need strong families.

[Axel1917]

From Loknar:


Actually, once you bring another life into the world, what you want is not relevant. And yes, daycare. This means dumping the kids off on somebody else because you don’t want to take any responsibility because of that career of yours. You should always place the child and its interests ahead of your own.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. The parent needs to work in order to support the kids, and the parents aren't around when they are at work, so they need to rely on daycare when they are gone. No one should have to be a domestic slave either. I thought that having kids was supposed to bring joy, not excessive burden.


Socialism and the village raising concept I do like. But, there must also be a close link between children and their parents. The village friends or caretakers cant truly support you emotionally. But then this also reenforces refusals of people to take any responcibility.

There is no basis for this. The Bourgeois family has not always existed, and before class society existed, parenting was more communal itself. There was no lack of responsibility because of the absence of a storng child-biological parent relationship. Kids today are learning more and more from daycare providers, teachers and others that they are around when their parents are gone.


I guess this is because i have first hand experience with this it bugs me. My mother was my primary caretaker. My father was never around. I can tell you, growing up, I am glad I always had somewhere to turn to. When personal issues come up, you don’t go talk to some person who is a member of this commune and doesn’t know you well enough.

Some kids talk to teachers and other such people instead of parents when things bother them. Personal experience is a pretty narrow thing. I can easily counter yours with mine, for example.


IN either event, I don’t see how this champions communism. If you want to build real communes you need strong families.

Communism will elminate the burdensome family unit of today. It will replace it with a more effective, communal one. People won't be so much as of strangers are they are today. They will end up to being able to trust more than just their parents. Communal parenting will also eliminate excessive burdens of looking after kids for most of one's spare time.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Loknar
Redstar. I think you are a teen.

Oh to be 15 again! :lol:


And I don't give a flying fuck if a parent is unhappy about staying home to raise their children.

And they don't give "a flying fuck" for your opinion about "how they should live".

Maybe you could pass a law... :lol:

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

[TomRK1089]

CapitalistLawyer you seem to think that all parents can determine ahead of time if a child will be an excessive burden. Not true; when I was born, my parents didn't know that they'd decide to put me into private school, that gas prices would skyrocket, that a car insurance company would screw us over...all these have caused us financial burdens at the time, but at no point have we said, "Damn, Tom was just a big mistake, eh?"

Some people are simply willing to sacrifice large amounts of time and money for children. Good for them; why do you want to discourage that? If you don't want a situation where parents can't adequately take care of their kids, go after the circumstances which cause economic problems, don't tell people they can't have kids.

Loknar it differs widely on how people view a stay-at-home mom/dad. Some parents see it as a burden, others an opportunity. Again, change the economics of the situation, don't say "You can't have a kid if you can't be there 24/7."

Redstar perhaps being fifteen was great for you, but as a teen myself I must say I prefered the naive ears of eight and nine. "Ignorance is bliss."

[violencia.Proletariat]

yes red star....life is so muhc better in a single parent enviornment than a loving family

Loving family? Most kids I know hate their parents but thats probably too subjective for you :lol: It's always the serious church goers who dont have family problems.

It's especially good to be with a single parent if the other was a religious fundi as in my case! I'm glad I'm not living on a kibbutz in Palestine at the moment! :lol:


And its always good for children to be left alone by their parents

Your right, they probably should be left alone most of the time :P


and btw,m just because pussywhiped men and disel dikes get an idea that the traditional family is 'opressive' it doesnt mean they are right.

And people who resort to sexist slogans to defend ideas that made sense in the 1800's are ALWAYS WRONG in this century.


ANd i dont give a flying fuck if a parent is unhappy about staying home to raise their children. Dont have children if you cant do it.

You took away their right to an abortion! :lol: Whats next, stop having sex?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I'll try to address your other points at another time...but I have to wonder...is it possible to be a misanthropist and also a communist?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 29 2006, 05:36 PM
I'll try to address your other points at another time...but I have to wonder...is it possible to be a misanthropist and also a communist?
Communists are always "haunted" by the abyss between "what could be" and "what is"...and this could indeed be interpreted as "misanthropy" by the unsophisticated.

Not much we can do about that...we just have to keep "calling things like we see them".

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

[Dean]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2006, 07:31 PM
Attachement to parents and a close relationship with your family is the best predictor for success in school and in life? As opposed to "socio-economic status" which you guys say otherwise?
Both are strong determinents of economic wealth, however you miss that interpersonal relationships are upset by capitalism - through alienation between people.

This study does much to support the argument that politics are psychological, and not as simple as you seem to think.

[Loknar]

Loving family? Most kids I know hate their parents but thats probably too subjective for you

Well of course kids resent their parents when they are teenagers, some more so than others. it doesn’t help when a parent is too afraid to discipline their own children and give em a good kick to the ass every now and then.


It's especially good to be with a single parent if the other was a religious fundi as in my case! I'm glad I'm not living on a kibbutz in Palestine at the moment! :lol:

Funny thing....a Kibbutz is one of the closest forms of communism in existence today. A real working Commune.

My mom didn’t become religious until I was in 6th grade. And you know what? I am not religious at all but I am thankful my mom did instill me with a certain code. Lying for example I find hard to do.


Your right, they probably should be left alone most of the time :P

Leave them alone so that their only real influence is other kids their age and TV.

IN case you dont know this, developing self discipline is important. Hell, some people have committed murder just because they didn’t have the discipline to control their own rage.

Are other teenagers really the greatest repositories of knowledge in the world? Believe it or not, they aren’t. You need a mature perspective and assuredly influence.

My mom smacked me when I was wrong and I am glad she did. When I failed in school I was grounded because she knew I was purposely fucking around. And you know what? It worked.


You took away their right to an abortion! :lol: Whats next, stop having sex?

Actually, it takes a license just to drive a car, but to have children it requires no license. Some times I think there should be some regulation in that area.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 08:24 AM




This makes absolutely no sense at all. The parent needs to work in order to support the kids, and the parents aren't around when they are at work, so they need to rely on daycare when they are gone. No one should have to be a domestic slave either. I thought that having kids was supposed to bring joy, not excessive burden.

Actually, there is a difference between a job and a career. Do both partners need a career?

I advocate lowering the cost of living. There was a time when even a poor family could have many children. My grandfather who grew up in the depression was 1 of 14 i believe (or was it 11?)

And what's a domestic slave? Is it so terrible if a mother wants to be a home maker?

You communists have no business getting into the home. This goes from political dictatorship to totalitarianism.


There is no basis for this. The Bourgeois family has not always existed, and before class society existed, parenting was more communal itself. There was no lack of responsibility because of the absence of a storng child-biological parent relationship. Kids today are learning more and more from daycare providers, teachers and others that they are around when their parents are gone.

Of course societies were more interconnected, communal than they are today/ but even then, you go to your own family for the important things not some other guy.

Kids are learning that parents have no time for them, that’s all they really learn and believe it or not sub consciously kids resent it.

Mommy or Daddy's big career is so important for your future. but what is the point when the kids grows up to despise you and you have such a bad relationship?



Some kids talk to teachers and other such people instead of parents when things bother them. Personal experience is a pretty narrow thing. I can easily counter yours with mine, for example.

Teachers? Teachers are useless. They are psudeo intellectuals who went to college then into teaching. What experience do they have? All they do is sit around and theorize and as it is many of those people wouldn’t even pass the standardized tests they must give to their own students.

I'll kick almost any teachers ass in history. And I am an armature.


Communism will elminate the burdensome family unit of today. It will replace it with a more effective, communal one. People won't be so much as of strangers are they are today. They will end up to being able to trust more than just their parents. Communal parenting will also eliminate excessive burdens of looking after kids for most of one's spare time.
I fail to understand this philosophy. You all want to concentrate on making things easier. What then? You want to make softies out of this world?

And of course family is burdensome.

What is wrong with some hardship? It builds you. Only pussies like the easy and soft road. Bleeding heart liberal minded weak people like the easy road.

And as I said, there was a time when having many children was no real problem for people. It happens when cost of living isn’t that high. That’s the area we need to work on.

[violencia.Proletariat]

give em a good kick to the ass every now and then.

Do you think it's ok for parents to beat there kids?


Funny thing....a Kibbutz is one of the closest forms of communism in existence today. A real working Commune.

Yeah right! Communism does not exist around bullshit idealogy (religion). Nor would any communist "commune" exist on land that is presently being being held through imperialist conquest.

Since when do communists hire the majorities of the work force to do wage labor? :lol: Since when do communists elect leaders to make everyday decisions? :huh:


I am not religious at all but I am thankful my mom did instill me with a certain code. Lying for example I find hard to do.

Religious morals are not a way you should live your life. You should do thinks based on the sense they do or do not make.


Leave them alone so that their only real influence is other kids their age and TV.

Whats wrong with tv? Its buisness, its capitalism it must be instilling great values on them! :lol:


Are other teenagers really the greatest repositories of knowledge in the world?

I wouldnt put it in that context but I would say young people are some of the few who will act on ideas when they are most needed, when no one else will.


And you know what? It worked.

Yes, she smacked you around and then you previously called someone "pussywhipped". She obviously didnt BEAT the SEXIST ideas out of your head. It's kind of ironic that your insult of "pussywhipped" could be applied to yourself :lol:

[TomRK1089]

Only pussies like the easy and soft road. Bleeding heart liberal minded weak people like the easy road.

So in your opinion, everything in life should be a struggle? An easy life isn't worth living? I bet if I wen tout of my way to make your life ten times harder you'd change your mind pretty quick.

You want harder? Let's say your paycheck is reduced to...oh, a dollar a day. And your Social Security is taken away. And your taxes go up. And...etc etc.

Things were pretty freakin' hard during the 17th and 18th century for most of the owlrd...do you see people who want to turn back the clock to those eras?

[cyu]

I advocate lowering the cost of living. There was a time when even a poor family could have many children. My grandfather who grew up in the depression was 1 of 14 i believe (or was it 11?)


I agree with you there. In order to lower the cost of living in a market economy, you need a larger supply of the things required for living (food, power, homes, health care, etc etc). Where would this supply come from? Well, currently, as the gap between rich and poor widens, a greater and greater share of resources are allocated to serving the wealthy. In order to increase the supply of goods related to the cost of living, the resources devoted to supplying the wealthy with their private jets and boats will have to be reallocated. If you still want to maintain a market economy, then you'll have to reduce the spending power of the wealthy.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:30 AM






Do you think it's ok for parents to beat there kids?

No it isnt.

but a spanking doesn’t hurt when needed.


Yeah right! Communism does not exist around bullshit idealogy (religion). Nor would any communist "commune" exist on land that is presently being being held through imperialist conquest.

Religion is what motivated them that is what must bug you. Something you secularists cant even accomplish no matter how hard you try.


Religious morals are not a way you should live your life. You should do thinks based on the sense they do or do not make.

I only said that the religion created a foundation for me. Yes things that do make sense, using your personal gut is important I agree.

But then again, to some sickos, there is nothing wrong with having sex with young children.


I wouldn’t put it in that context but I would say young people are some of the few who will act on ideas when they are most needed, when no one else will.

I agree with that. But, i'd say that the college students are the more mature and more suited.


Yes, she smacked you around and then you previously called someone "pussywhipped". She obviously didnt BEAT the SEXIST ideas out of your head. It's kind of ironic that your insult of "pussywhipped" could be applied to yourself :lol:
Do you know what pussy whipped is?
Pussywhipped means a man is too afraid to contradict his girlfriend/wife. Someone who listens to her every command and has no mind of his own.

In other words, he is not a man.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Loknar
You all want to concentrate on making things easier. What then? You want to make softies out of this world?...What is wrong with some hardship? It builds you...Bleeding heart liberal minded weak people like the easy road.

Mussolini couldn't have said it better. It's always useful when people's real views come out.

You've now been warned twice for referring to women as "pussies"...do it again and you will be banned.

Is that "hard enough" for you, tough guy?

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

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Loknar
You all want to concentrate on making things easier. What then? You want to make softies out of this world?...What is wrong with some hardship? It builds you...Bleeding heart liberal minded weak people like the easy road.

Beating up women and children does not make one "hard"... it shows one up for what they really are; a spineless coward!

You want some examples of "hardness"? It's catching a bullet for a dear friend or partner, flipping over a car in a mad rush of adrenaline because someone's trapped underneath, it's taking on someone bigger than you are to protect someone who can't defend themself.

That's real strength.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Religion is what motivated them that is what must bug you. Something you secularists cant even accomplish no matter how hard you try.

That's not what "bugs" me, because it isnt communism! It doesnt meet the deffinition of communism barring the religion anyways.


Do you know what pussy whipped is?

Yes your deffinition is the one I knew. But you are an advocate of strict parenting, and said yourself that your mom smacked you around when she needed. Does this not make you "pussywhipped" by your deffinition?

In other words, he is not a man.

What is a man? Someone who controls his wife, puts her in her place? Beats here when she acts up?

As Redstar said, you'd make a good fascist, you've got the sexism part down pat.

[Loknar]

Red star

when the hell did i refer to women in such away aside from an earlier post?

I only implied that people are wimps.

IN case you dont know this the 'P' word, denoted the fear of a cat. Not a womans vaginal area.

[Morag]

There are simply not enough wealth to go around to make more people millionaires.

Heh. I thought the basis of capitalism was that the economic pie would constantly grow, so everyone could get rich... Oh, wait.


Then don't have kids if you don't have the resources nor the will! I always hear that from you leftists, "ohh, workers don't make enough to feed their families."

Shut up already and take responsiblity for yourself.

That's what my working-class parents did. They had three kids in the late 70s and early 80s, when my father's income as a miner was more than enough to take care of us all. By the late 80s, my mother had to work part-time as well to keep the roof over our heads. By the early 90s, she was working full-time. By 1995, my dad had two jobs. By 1997, my two sisters had to get part-time jobs to help pay the mortgage, because my mother's wages had been slashed due to privatisation...

They took your advice, though. When they had their family, everything was fine. Now? Yeah, my sisters had to abandon their goals of nursing school and teaching (both university programs) because they couldn't afford it.

[Ultra-Violence]

Parenting does effect how a child will do but that is only 1 factor my freind their are many other one including Class,status and reace and ethinicity. these all contribute to were some one will usaully end up. For example those Born in the upper classes Usaully end up were they started and those born in the bottome usually end up were they started and very rarely is there upward or downward mobility and those are just the execptions.And those for example who are of a different race or ethinicity have a hard time moving up ussauly due to disscrimination and prejuduce. So basscialy what im saying is that You just cant blame the parents for succes and failure because its ussauly there class and status that determines were they end up and these factors are out of the individauls control.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

A study reported in The Economist demonstrated that "social mobility" in the United States is decreasing with the passage of time...so "close parenting" is not necessarily a "free ticket" to economic "success".

I never said it was a "free ticket" it just shows that SES isn't the sole determinant of how well someone will do in life. There are a lot of examples that prove my point and I am sure you are well aware of them.


And thanks for posting the link that PROVES that social mobility does take place and therefore the system is not keeping people down.


Well, the point is that they don't stay "total strangers". They find people who "think like them"...which is very different from living with relatives who may not "think like you" at all.

So you want kids to be completely isolated from those around them just because they aren't 100% compatible with the immediate members of their family?


For example, mainstream popular magazines speak of "emotional investments" and "what kind of return are you getting". Children are often spoken of in terms of "investments in the future"...which will presumably "pay off big time" someday.

It has always been like that...it just did take on the form of money.


Lots of people "don't like this"...but one must "protect oneself" against predation or risk being "taken advantage of".

So what's the alternative?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
So what's the alternative?

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

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

[Capitalist Lawyer]

That didn't really answer my question but it was interesting nonetheless. I always thought they had centers for runaway kids and there were willing volunteers to take care of them?

Anyway....

But, what would human relations look like in a communist society? How would it be any different than how they are right now?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
But, what would human relations look like in a communist society? How would it be any different than how they are right now?

We don't know.

Most of us spend our whole lives in an environment of "economic uncertainty"...which might be compared to having a heavy weight strapped to our backs throughout our entire lives.

What will life "be like" when that "weight" is removed? Will we gradually or rapidly start "walking taller"?

No one knows.

Bourgeois ideologues maintain that "carrying that weight" is a "fundamental part of human nature".

That is, in the absence of hierarchy and economic coercion, we will act to "re-establish it" because we "can't live without it".

It's "genetic". :lol:

The communist project presupposes that the bourgeois ideologues are wrong about that.

That when the "economic pressures" are removed, humans will relate to each other in ways that are markedly different than now.

But the details?

I think it's "too far" in the future to anticipate.

Except for certain outstandingly negative characteristics of the present epoch that will certainly be discarded.

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