The Family

[Angry Young Man]

I am a tad confused... I, like I'm assuming many people will, agree that the Nuclear family is oudated, but how do you raise kids? I have thought you could do it in acollective, but the parent's instinct will always be that it will want to be the main influence.I feel like I have had this debate before, with someone I know who is a mother, and she said she would want to look after her son. Is it the same with all parents? Can you really raise a child in a collective house?

[Sentinel]

I think the 'nuclear family' is definitely a feature of the past. This is a natural, historical development, caused by the victory of rational thinking over superstition. Which shows that even those of Marx's and Engels' predictions considered most 'outrageous' by rectionaries at the time, are increasingly considered realistic options. :)

Redstar2000 has written some interesting stuff on this subject. What he is saying is that it's about the kids, not the parents, and I agree with him.

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

This one is about having children in the first place:

Parents and Children (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1144798240&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[drain.you]

Many argue that the industrial revolution brought the nuclear family (as opposed to the extended family) but its not exactly a solid fact. Its hard to tell whether its outdated or not but I would say that it will continue to exist until the end of capitalist society. Communism will definatel give us something different. Families are just how humans group together really and we adapt depending on the situation, like animals do in the wild. Think we are social creatures though, we're never going to all be living in isolation from one another.

I think that the majority of parents have a special bond with their children and it would be difficult to get rid of that. I can't understand how some parents can abandon their children. Guess no-one can really talk about this properly unless they have had children themselves and I think its hard to talk about collective houses and its effects without being in communism. Maybe I'm just a tad confused.

[VermontLeft]

the "nuclear family" is complete crap. :angry:

not only is a bullshit conservative moral, but its also historically crap. for most of history, people didnt live in little perfect "2 and a half kids" houses, they had extended complex families.

Convervatives just want to keep things the same (hence the name :P), it has nothing to do with any actually "values" or usefulness.

children just need to be raised in a loving environment. It doesnt matter how many people there are or whether they have penises or vaginas or neither. ;)

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:31 AM
I am a tad confused... I, like I'm assuming many people will, agree that the Nuclear family is oudated, but how do you raise kids? I have thought you could do it in acollective, but the parent's instinct will always be that it will want to be the main influence.I feel like I have had this debate before, with someone I know who is a mother, and she said she would want to look after her son. Is it the same with all parents? Can you really raise a child in a collective house?
In many places (even within the US) there already exist extended families.

As to the end stage of communism Marx sugggested (complete abolition of the family) and the emotional attachment of parents you mentioned, well mothers tend to have a strong natural bond with their kids (you would too if your kid was living in your belly for 9 months, then came out of your womb), but I think it would be easy enough to get fathers to abandon their paternity to society. Shit, we already got a "fuck 'em and flee", let the mom and the state pay for the kid, situation under modern capitalism, so we're halfway there :) Whaddya know, my dad was a proto-socialist! That must've been how he ended up servin 2 of a 7 year bid in the can. He was a political prisoner. And I always just thought he was a crook! :D


Convervatives just want to keep things the same (hence the name ), it has nothing to do with any actually "values" or usefulness.

In this country, the political leadership who call themselves "conservatives" are really reactionaries, they don't want things to stay the same, they want them to go backwards. It's the Liberal Democrats who are the true "conservatives" in 2006 America.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:27 AM
children just need to be raised in a loving environment. It doesnt matter how many people there are or whether they have penises or vaginas or neither. ;)
Good point.

I do however think that a slight disillusion of the family as it currently exists could be benificial. Whilst there is the posibilty for reationary parenting I don't see why society should not be more involved, society itself just has to improve first. I am not suggesting that children go to state sponsored camps, but perhaps something a little more like thaey had in "The Island"-by Huxley.

In some respects the family itself is largely a result of class society, it is certainly involved in the continuation of it. The idea that we all look out best the interests of ourselves and our families is a theme of laissez-faire capitalism, and involves us competing for the best for our little groups. Communism requires a group effort, and I don't see why this would be anything but benificial.

[Clarksist]

The nuclear family isn't "outdated"... I think in some cases its the best thing for the kids... but families have always existed as an economic clan.

I think it is a tad bit utopian to start predicting how families will change post-revolution. They may change in a big way, or they may not. It really does depend on what works, and what doesn't. The economic clan won't be needed, but emotional needs will still be around.

So I'd say... don't worry about it, because the change will be to better suit the new economic environment. And to predict it, is just hogwash.

[Purple]

The children will always need someone to support them, so I do agree with a sense of a strict structured family. The Extended family is an old concept that used to be very common in the US in the beginning of the massive immigration ages. The basis for the extended family in these years was that everyone relied on eachother for economical aid, so the grandmothers, grandchildren, etc had to live under the same roof in order to make the ends meet, which relates to the early classism in the US.
What was also kinda funny was how people actually thought that the streets were laid with gold... Anyway, an extended family would be horrible.. I dont think many people would enjoy living with all of your relatives..

I support the idea of Nuclear families, but I do not support that it should be the social norm. At the same time, marriages with multiple wives, etc, in the Western society, I think would lead to the further sexism of our society. And yes, that would be bad.

[midnight marauder]

As long as there are sufficient resources, why does it matter?

As long as these resources are in place, and as long as children (or other family members, for that matter) retain their ability to escape their situation as redstar describes, why decide the structure of a family? Why not just let it happen?

[drain.you]

I think its hard for us to concieve of raising children in a collective house because we are so brainwashed into society, from an early age we have been told how a family should be and its difficult to think of anything else.
But hey, you saw the shit Hitler was able to teach children so I'm sure if we move to collective raising of children then children will just accept it as the norm.

[Belladonna]

They tried this in Israel on the kibbutzim and it was quite successful, while it lasted. Maybe it was a bit premature and ahead of its time, but there'll be more in the future, it's inevitable. Less and less people are choosing to get married, and the nuclear family is dying out. Even when they do get married and have children, they usually pay someone else to look after them. :rolleyes: It's only a matter of time.

[EwokUtopia]

People will allways have parents and brothers and sisters as long as we continue to be people, and I would never want factory produced humans as per brave new world, but the definition of the family that supposedly exists now is obsolete. Personally, I would preffer an older way where you are raised by parents and a few close by people, be they uncles, neighbours, or whatever. Never would I want any party or system to raise children, despite whatever idealogy they claim to have, it is Nazism. I hate the suburban version of the family, short was its existance, and not yet short enough. Family will allways exist, but not the 2.5 children and fake smiles like it is now. I believe that mentors can be as important as parents, and would like to see tighter extended families, and closer friends. These things cannot be forgotten. Every persons definition of what a family is should vary, there should be difference between Urban and rural (myself preffering the latter) and the nuclear definition of a family, while it may, and will, work for some, will not work for all.

[Red Polak]

I like the Spartan aystem of raising children.

No don't worry - not the bit about everything for war! :P They took children from parents when they were young and the children were then raised communally with others their age.

Older Spartans, both adults and teenagers of a few years older, had influence on the childrens' upbringing and it seems to have worked, there was also a mentor style system.

After the Agoge the Spartans still lived in barracks with their comrades, of course they knew who their parents were but generally this doesn't seem to have made much impact on their lives.


Of course the whole idea of being geared for war is wrong, as is the ephors (elite council of elders) and the two kings - none of these would suit Communism obviously, but I think the communal upbringing of children could possibly work in such a way.


link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Education

[EwokUtopia]

At any rate, there should be no system that raises people. The last thing we want is a style of raising people that indoctrines beliefs into them at a young age. No matter what the belief is, it puts WAY too much power into the hands of a select few. No effort should be given to destroy or maintain the current system of raising people, it will naturally change into what it has to be. Premeditated efforts to raise the next generation are a symptom of fascism. The nuclear family no longer exists in anything but name, TV and teachers for the most part raise the youth of today. This is what needs to stop, as all my grade school teachers were absurdly ignorant catholics, and the TV shows I grew up on are all cancelled.....its like loosing a very entertaining uncle.

[RevSouth]

Aren't we overtheorizing a little bit? I know this is an accusation that is thrown around here but seriously? I don't think in an anarchist/communist leftist society people would be told what to do. People would just live with whoever the hell they wanted to live with. If you want to keep it nuclear, do so. Extended, go ahead. If you want to live with your friends, fuck, we're anarchists, go ahead.