Family Structure in Revolution and Post-Rev Times

[Alexander Hamilton]

You have a very well run forum here. I will now take a moment to ask some responses of the board regarding one of the topics of interest to me: the Family structure in post-capitalist times, based on the theories of Marx and other “founders” of communism. (By founders I mean that I am very interested in the theoretical construct of what has been written on the subject, as opposed to people’s modern, personal views. (Not that I can stop others from commenting along such lines.)

I really wish I could post in the Theory section of your board.

My general question is this:

Did any of the Nineteenth Century theorists of communism discuss the structure of the family? I have this (perhaps wrongful) Orwellian view that when such a Revolution occurs, it will require SOMETHING like the situation in 1960’s China, to truly transform the society, and children will be separated from their families in certain cases, where one’s political views don’t gel with Marxism. That is, if I’m one of the guys who needs to be “reeducated”, would my children attend some type of indoctrination where classless society would be part of the program.

I am not one who believes the world would look like that bad movie where high school kids fight off an invasion from Nicaraguan and Cuban troops (I think it was called, Red Dawn). That being the case, why are so many Marxists depicting themselves in this, “let’s brainwash all the children” way? But I do believe SOMETHING would happen to the family structure.

Was any of this discussed by the 1800’s philosophers? If so, what, in just a few sentences, did they have to say on the subject.

Thank you for taking my inquiry sincerely,


A. Hamilton

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by shittin' Aaron's lead
Orwellian view that when such a Revolution occurs, it will require SOMETHING like the situation in 1960’s China, to truly transform the society, and children will be separated from their families in certain cases, where one’s political views don’t gel with Marxism.

Let's start here.

Please don't associate Communist social predictions and theory with a writer of fiction novels. It's as lame as the nerds that base a "Communist future" on star Trek episodes.


I am not one who believes the world would look like that bad movie where high school kids fight off an invasion from Nicaraguan and Cuban troops (I think it was called, Red Dawn). That being the case, why are so many Marxists depicting themselves in this, “let’s brainwash all the children” way? But I do believe SOMETHING would happen to the family structure.


So, now we've moved from mediocre fiction right into bad Patrick Swayze films; that's just super.

What makes you think that the genetically psychological link with your offspring would somehow "change" due to a political shift within society? What you are suggesting is simply not possible within the human species and has been proven since the dawn of Homo Sapiens throughout history.

[Sentinel]

Hamilton, there were similar inquiries in the Learning forum recently, see this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56560) for a clarification on the 'traditional' communist view on family. I posted this exerpt from Friedrich Engels' The Principles of Communism in that thread:

— 21 —
What will be the influence of communist society on the family?

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

And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines against the “community of women”. Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.

It should shed some light on the matter.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Vinny Rafarino:

Orwell's fiction was not mediocre. It's a great book, and the man had a story to tell, and a point of view.

Also, remember that I wrote "I am not one who believes..." This means I DON'T think that an invasion from the south would be like the movie Red Dawn. (Obviously I believe the USA would successfully defeat such an invasion, unlike the movie, where the commies were successful.)

I'm not particularly big on Patrick Swayze, per se. (Though Road House was great. Nothing but meaningless violence and women stripping for no logical reason whatsoever.)

One more thing. You wrote an interesting comment:

What makes you think that the genetically psychological link with your offspring would somehow "change" due to a political shift within society? What you are suggesting is simply not possible within the human species and has been proven since the dawn of Homo Sapiens throughout history.

It is interesting because of your second sentence. The VERY nature of communism is to create something in the thoughts and actions which are CONTRA to the very nature of human beings. A cappie such as myself could easily use your sentence, "What you are suggesting is simply not possible within the human species and has been proven since the dawn of Homo Sapiens throughout history. (sic, ?)" as a thesis on why communism itself would never be possible.

But I did enjoy your style of writing. It gave me a laugh.


Sentinel:

Thank you. This is exactly what I was searching for, and I will use it as a spring board to study what Engels wrote about on the subject. Much thanks!


A. Hamilton

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Aaron's curse
Orwell's fiction was not mediocre. It's a great book, and the man had a story to tell, and a point of view.

That's a matter of taste of course; some cats have it, some don't.


The VERY nature of communism is to create something in the thoughts and actions which are CONTRA to the very nature of human beings

And precisely what is the human nature that you think Communism is "contra" to?


Also, remember that I wrote "I am not one who believes..." This means I DON'T think that an invasion from the south would be like the movie Red Dawn. (Obviously I believe the USA would successfully defeat such an invasion, unlike the movie, where the commies were successful.)

I never said you believed anything one way or the other. I merely commented on the fact you, for some odd reason, felt in necessary to bring up a film that "made" the career of such "A" list actors as C. Thomas Howell and little Chucky Sheen with no actual connection to the point of your post besides an obscure and misplaced reference to the "evil" nature of all those "pesky red bastards" who whack out high school kids for the fuck of it.

Don't get me wrong, I always got a chuckle out of watching the soldiers whack out that fat teacher in the beginning; I mean really, what the hell was that guy thinking.


(Though Road House was great. Nothing but meaningless violence and women stripping for no logical reason whatsoever.)

Perhaps you would also be interested in other Swayze cinematic masterpieces such as "Steel Dawn" and "Next of Kin".

Like I said: taste, some cats have it some don't.


(sic, ?)

Are you sure you know what this means?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Vinny, Vinny, Vinny,

What to do with you?

You imply I'm a cat with no taste, and example that is so by pointing out I enjoy watching films with fighting and women getting naked. Then you say you enjoy watching the teacher in the opening of Red Dawn get murdered. Some cats have logic and others don't I suppose.

I also love Casablance and the art of Ingres, but at the same time I like Playboys from the '60's, and movies by that Devil's Rejects guy. But it's possible you believe that would demonstrate poor taste as well. To each his own.

But I mentioned that a successful communist Revolution-Society are contra to human nature.

Is this concept the one which with you take issue?


A. Hamilton

[Vinny Rafarino]

Vinny, Vinny, Vinny,

What to do with you?

There's nothing you can do, or even would for that matter.


Some cats have logic and others don't I suppose.

Considering that "logic" is learned in college, it's fairly safe to say that you're barking up the wrong tree homes.


But I mentioned that a successful communist Revolution-Society are contra to human nature.

Since you conveniently forgotten, I will remind you of the questions posed in my previous post:


Originally posted by RAF+--> (RAF)And precisely what is the human nature that you think Communism is "contra" to? [/b]

and


RAF
Are you sure you know what this means?

Figured them out yet my boy?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Vinny,

To get this out of the way, I'm not "your boy", 'homes'. That would be some other guy.


Now,

There are two issues you raise.

You asked a question and forgot to include a question mark at the end of the question. As I cited your comment, and it was incorrectly written, I reminded others reading it that I quoted you exactly, including your punctuation error. It was of no real consequence, and I'm not sure why you continue to discuss it. I make plenty of errors as I write on the computer. No big deal.


A. Hamilton

P.S. Will discuss the more important issue the next time I write. Please do not feel offense that I will no longer discuss the issue above, even if it is important to you. A.H.

[Connolly]

One more thing. You wrote an interesting comment:

What makes you think that the genetically psychological link with your offspring would somehow "change" due to a political shift within society? What you are suggesting is simply not possible within the human species and has been proven since the dawn of Homo Sapiens throughout history.

Id like to know more about this "genetically psychological link" with offspring.

Does this only affect females?..........you are aware that in various societies, remote areas of Tibet/China for example, fathers cut off all linkage with their children completely (thats changing now with new means of communication)

I know its more common amongst males to abandon all linkage and responsibility for their children - but would this not be an example of an alternative family structure without this "genetically psychological link" amongst fathers?

Communism would not just change society politically.

IMO, much of the family structure presently has nothing to do with any "natural", in-built instinct, but with social and cultural conditions (which are presently changing and being eroded) - religion for example.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Vinny, here are SOME thoughts I have over the issue of "human nature".

A. H.

Generally speaking, the communism or socialism of which the “Revolutionary” Left struggles to achieve (or, for those who believe it, WAITS for capitalism to collapse, allowing the dictatorship of the party to organize and redistribute wealth, followed by some form of communism, etc…) has several “requirements” that are, themselves, contra to human nature.

After my nation was formed and finally accepted by Great Britain, and Britain signed the Peace of Paris Treaty, 1781 or ’83 (I cannot remember my eighth grade American history right now), while our original government was proving to be a joke (this was called the Articles of Confederation) very intelligent and bold thinkers, perhaps never before nor never again to assemble at the same time and in the same place, discussed the nature of power, and how human beings use power. They concluded that it is human nature to become obsessed over one’s personal sphere of interest. One’s family, friends, property, and goals and beliefs. That this was the normal human nature, and that where one contributed to society, it was only after they had created for themselves a secure base, or where they benefited society, they did so if that society’s achievement co-incided with their own interests.

Here is the first contradiction of socialism. For it to succeed the way revolutionary forces would want it to (as opposed to, let’s say, Sweden) it would require every person, or the vast majority of people, to view their interests to be nearly exactly as their neighbors, or see their neighbors as having the same needs as themselves. (Don’t argue the question, why is this so, as the radical left has always tried to convince workers of class-consciousness, and the similar interests of all workers in a society.)

Humans aren’t built that way, by nature. They are too free. They wish to remain so.

The second great problem with communism, and probably the greatest, is that the leaders of any so-called Revolution would be human beings. They will grab products for themselves, and the ones they love. Period. They will do this as sure as the sun sets over Alabama. They did this during every attempt at communism from the USSR experiment, to the Chinese one, to Cuba. I am well aware of how the socialist apologists argue there is no connection between these revolutionary attempts and Marxism. Of course there was. At one time. Lenin, Mao, Castro, and others, at one time, fought for a true classless society. But trying to do so in a world of property, and choice jobs to distribute, these leaders (perhaps I’m not being fair to Lenin, he didn’t get to live that long to ensure his ideal succeeded, but Stalin after him certainly feel into my view of things) can’t help abusing their power. That’s human nature. (This is why Americans who designed our constitution founded it upon the notion that power, by its nature corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely.) ANY LEFTIST REVOLTUION REQUIRES THE USE OF POWER, IF NOT NEAR ABSOLUTE POWER, TO ACHIEVE ITS ENDS. If you do not accept this, there is no point discussing this with you, or anyone else.

The Communist believes the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will be short, swift, and hard. It would have to be. But these believers also believe that the Party will be true to its vision, and not become corrupt. It is human nature to use power given to one for his/her own benefit. Our solution in the constitution was to divide power to several, competing interests. It is sheer genius, and far more accurately reflects human nature than Communism.

If I lived in a society where there was absolutely nothing to own, communism would be fine. But where there is ONE thing to own, there is greed and self interest. Much like the movie, “The Gods Must Be Crazy.”

[Alexander Hamilton]

Red Banner,

I didn't write what you are inquiring about, as that was Vinny. But I will say I wholly support what he wrote. There is a definate "genetically psychological link" with offspring. Every woman I know, and most of the men, who have babies love them deeply, don't run from them, and live for their love with them. It is one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.

There is a stone statue in Sweden, of a mother lifting up her child into the air. It defines motherhood, from my point of view.

To answer your question directly, perhaps it comes from the feeding of them by their mothers. Perhaps it comes from a father's obsession to provide for the mother and child after the baby is born. It is nature at her finest. And she is powerful beyond imagination. Compared to her, religion, culture, society, and politics, are nothing.


A. Hamilton

P.S. Sorry for agreeing with you Vinny. Don't hold it against me. Hee. A.H.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Vinny,

To get this out of the way, I'm not "your boy", 'homes'. That would be some other guy.

Don't like it son?

To fucking bad. those that act like children will be treated like children.


As I cited your comment, and it was incorrectly written, I reminded others reading it that I quoted you exactly, including your punctuation error.

You're confused.

There is no "punctuation error" in that sentence. As a holder of an undergraduate degree in English, the only critisism I could give is that it's a poorly structured.

That is the reason the literary world has these strange and wonderful individuals known as "editors".

They are used when a literary work is going to be "published"; unlike a comment on an internet forum.


P.S. Will discuss the more important issue the next time I write. Please do not feel offense that I will no longer discuss the issue above, even if it is important to you. A.H.

Of course you won't dear!

You had no intention of ever discussing these issues. As a matter of fact, I would lay 6 to 1 that you were shaking in your Ked's when you were called out.

No worries, at Revleft we are used to cowardice from capitalists. Good luck avoiding future questions, son.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Vinny,

At this point, there is no reason to continue any discussion with you whatsoever.


A. Hamilton

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 28 2006, 11:42 AM
Vinny,

At this point, there is no reason to continue any discussion with you whatsoever.


A. Hamilton
:lol:

You won't last long at all my boy.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by redbanner
Id like to know more about this "genetically psychological link" with offspring.

Does this only affect females?..........you are aware that in various societies, remote areas of Tibet/China for example, fathers cut off all linkage with their children completely (thats changing now with new means of communication)

It's safe to say that males have psychological links to their offspring to a lesser degree than females.

Evolotionary trends however do show that as our species has progressed, the pychological link between male and offspring has significantly increased over time.

As far as these "remote" asian areas you are referring to are concerned; you simply cannot say that what you are suggesting is a universal behaviour pattern among the vast majority of fathers in these areas.

I would even go so far as to say that what you are implying is definitely not the normal behaviour of the majority of the population of males that produce offspring.

What you can say however, is that in certain small periods of history, social coercion did in fact lead to parents willingly sacrificing their offspring. These periods were usually rather short and had no significance to evolutionary psychological behaviour patterns among humans.


I know its more common amongst males to abandon all linkage and responsibility for their children - but would this not be an example of an alternative family structure without this "genetically psychological link" amongst fathers?

I doubt the numbers of fathers that willingly decide to sever all contact with their offspring eternally are large enough to significantly qualify these cases as being subject to sociological categorization.


Communism would not just change society politically.

Who said it would?

This does not mean that some of the more asinine predictions of certain Communists
should be held as "gospel".


IMO, much of the family structure presently has nothing to do with any "natural", in-built instinct, but with social and cultural conditions (which are presently changing and being eroded) - religion for example.

All "styles" of family structure will be suited to the social environment in which they exist as the structure itself is not genetically related to the species; it is simply a social paradigm manifested from instinctual human behaviour patterns.

[D_Bokk]

Based on what I've read about Karl Marx's family life, he was very close to his children and wife. He was, based on my reading, a very good father. Although highly disliked amongst many people, his family loved him and he loved them back. Although he was living under the capitalist system, communism will not drastically change a family structure.

The idea that children will be stripped from their parents under communism is crazy. No one can forcibly remove a child from their parents. The main difference is that there will be no marriage, although I doubt that communism will breed polygamy. Many animals are naturally monogamous. Although neither has a concrete bond that they can't shed instantly, each are free to do as they will.

Another difference is that the child isn't dependent on their parents for survival. This means that if the parents became tyrants in the home - the child can simply leave and be accommodated by society. Also, I suspect many teenagers will leave their home before they're 18. Which would work out well since most parent-child conflict occurs in the teen years when the parent is consistently telling their kid what to do.

Overall, parental-child relationships will be greatly strengthened under communism.

Originally posted by The RedBanner
IMO, much of the family structure presently has nothing to do with any "natural", in-built instinct, but with social and cultural conditions (which are presently changing and being eroded) - religion for example.
Many different species "raise" their children... how can it not be natural?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 27 2006, 12:15 PM
My general question is this:

Did any of the Nineteenth Century theorists of communism discuss the structure of the family?
See, you start off good with this, and the topic title. I start to think: Finally, we have somebody serious in OI.

To answer that question, I'd refer you to "Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State" by Frederick Engels (coauthor of the Manifesto.)

Also of interest is Woman and Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1879/woman-socialism/ch27.htm) by Bebel, which makes some proposals from the future based on the analysis made by Marx and Engels.

The basic point is that society as a whole has to take responsibility for the burdens currently placed on each family, and especially on women. What is today done by women's unpaid domestic labor, has to be taken over by society.

The family, today, also serves as a means of passing down property to the next generation. That function will become obsolete.

And the family is the ultimate safety net against the uncertainties of the market economy, plus sickness, injury and old age. Society will take over this responsibility too...Social Security and so forth are a small step in that direction forced from capitalism.

Then you come in with:

I have this (perhaps wrongful) Orwellian view that when such a Revolution occurs, it will require SOMETHING like the situation in 1960’s China, to truly transform the society, and children will be separated from their families in certain cases, where one’s political views don’t gel with Marxism. That is, if I’m one of the guys who needs to be “reeducated”, would my children attend some type of indoctrination where classless society would be part of the program.
Which is not hugely serious. And neatly illustrates why we confine this kind of thing to OI, to keep serious theoretical discussion from being drowned in anticommunist cliches.

Of course tremendous changes in the rest of society and economy are going to result in tremendous changes in family structure. Every other major social change has been, throughout history. The "nuclear family" is not all that old...and is already dissolving in the U.S. today. That's an important subject to discuss.

The fantasies of paranoid anticommunists about the Big Bad Evil State grabbing children away from their parents...are not.

I might point out the most repressive pseudo-Communist regimes actually sought to reinforce traditional family relations. Stalin's, for example:

The triumphal rehabilitation of the family, taking place simultaneously—what a providential coincidence!—with the rehabilitation of the ruble, is caused by the material and cultural bankruptcy of the state. Instead of openly saying, “We have proven still too poor and ignorant for the creation of socialist relations among men, our children and grandchildren will realize this aim", the leaders are forcing people to glue together again the shell of the broken family, and not only that, but to consider it, under threat of extreme penalties, the sacred nucleus of triumphant socialism. It is hard to measure with the eye the scope of this retreat.
....
The retreat not only assumes forms of disgusting hypocrisy, but also is going infinitely farther than the iron economic necessity demands. To the objective causes producing this return to such bourgeois forms as the payment of alimony, there is added the social interest of the ruling stratum in the deepening of bourgeois law. The most compelling motive of the present cult of the family is undoubtedly the need of the bureaucracy for a stable hierarchy of relations, and for the disciplining of youth by means of 40,000,000 points of support for authority and power.
From "The Revolution Betrayed" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/ch07.htm)

[Alexander Hamilton]

D_Bokk raises some interesting questions in my mind. Amoung them are:


D_Bokk:
The main difference is that there will be no marriage,

My comment:
Yes and no. As there will be no property, there would be no need for the family code laws dealing with community property in case of disilution/divorce. However, that does not mean that marriage would be no more. Local communities might create ceremonies honoring a couple's commitment to one another. People love to party, and the marriage vows, promised to one another between each other might still be exchanged by a couple on their own.


D_Bokk:
Although neither has a concrete bond that they can't shed instantly, each are free to do as they will.

My comment:
That appears to be every state in the union that I know of.


D_Bokk:
Another difference is that the child isn't dependent on their parents for survival. This means that if the parents became tyrants in the home - the child can simply leave and be accommodated by society. Also, I suspect many teenagers will leave their home before they're 18. Which would work out well since most parent-child conflict occurs in the teen years when the parent is consistently telling their kid what to do.
Overall, parental-child relationships will be greatly strengthened under communism.

My comment:
This is an interesting point of view, because those parents of children, in America, for example, who believe in socialism/communism HAVE the power to raise their children exactly as D_Bokk suggests.
Parents who are socialists, or support revolutionary socialism can, on their own choosing:

1. Not be tyrants
2. Place food and clothing and other support available to their children in such a way that they would receive them whether they lived at home or not. Let's say your 16 year old doesn't like you. You can take the dinner, clothing, bed, or whatever, and place it where the kid wants it, so they never need to interact with you to receive it. You'ld be buying the stuff anyway, if you had a loving relationship, so why not give them what they want from your supply regardless of the status of your relationship.
3. Children could leave home and go wherever they want now. Socialist minded parents could simply not report them to the police (who, if I understand many here, are viewed as "pigs", or the enemy in the first place.)
4. Socialist minded parents could simply NOT TELL THEIR CHILDREN WHAT TO DO STARTING TODAY!!! You don't need the State to reenforce this notion. Avoid the rush. Start Now!!!

Actually, I personally have a near communist view of my property anyway. Everyone who wants to borrow my stuff, fine by me. "Socialist" parents could do the same with their "property" NOW.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Severian:

Thank you for your serious response.

First, I am VERY interested in the 19th C. discussions on these matters, because of the comments made SINCE their writings occurred.

I understood your tottering between "Is Hamilton going to be a real person with inquiry based in thesis and serious exploration?" versus "Is Hamilton going to be another "preacher" who will paint commies as Boris and Natasha from Rocky and Bowlwinkle Moose cartoons?"

I am very serious, and my allusion to what you refer to the rediculous anti-communist propaganda where children are turned into "spies", and parents are "re-educated" is a very real inquiry, based on more than mere U.S.A. fantasy and bad movies.

Communists themselves, and socialists who became pessimists (such as Orwell) have made comments about re-education, family destruction, and rehabilitation of former cappies. That's why I asked the question. I wanted to know if any of the stuff you say is nonsense fiction is actually discussed by Marx and Co.

I hope that made sense.

Thank you for your response. I'll take some time this weekend and read what there is to read on what you've cited.


A. Hamilton

P.S. How do you make the spider move up and down? A. H.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 28 2006, 03:51 PM
Communists themselves, and socialists who became pessimists (such as Orwell) have made comments about re-education, family destruction, and rehabilitation of former cappies.
I'd guess that most real examples would go more under political repression than restructuring of the family.

Political repression is part of many revolutions, of course; consider how the Tories were driven out during and after the American War of Independence. Some self-described communists, certainly, are big on advocating excessive and unnecessary amounts of repression; a few seem to love it for its own sake.

That certainly wasn't Marx's attitude - he saw revolutionary repression as a necessary evil.

When people go to jail in most countries, do they take their children with them?


P.S. How do you make the spider move up and down? A. H.

It's an animated .gif.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Alexander Hamilton
Yes and no. As there will be no property, there would be no need for the family code laws dealing with community property in case of disilution/divorce. However, that does not mean that marriage would be no more. Local communities might create ceremonies honoring a couple's commitment to one another. People love to party, and the marriage vows, promised to one another between each other might still be exchanged by a couple on their own.
What I meant is that without a state, there will be no legal recognition of the marriage.

That appears to be every state in the union that I know of.
Divorce requires extensive legal work and have a obligation to their ex regarding money.

This is an interesting point of view, because those parents of children, in America, for example, who believe in socialism/communism HAVE the power to raise their children exactly as D_Bokk suggests.
Parents who are socialists, or support revolutionary socialism can, on their own choosing:

1. Not be tyrants
2. Place food and clothing and other support available to their children in such a way that they would receive them whether they lived at home or not. Let's say your 16 year old doesn't like you. You can take the dinner, clothing, bed, or whatever, and place it where the kid wants it, so they never need to interact with you to receive it. You'ld be buying the stuff anyway, if you had a loving relationship, so why not give them what they want from your supply regardless of the status of your relationship.
3. Children could leave home and go wherever they want now. Socialist minded parents could simply not report them to the police (who, if I understand many here, are viewed as "pigs", or the enemy in the first place.)
4. Socialist minded parents could simply NOT TELL THEIR CHILDREN WHAT TO DO STARTING TODAY!!! You don't need the State to reenforce this notion. Avoid the rush. Start Now!!!

Actually, I personally have a near communist view of my property anyway. Everyone who wants to borrow my stuff, fine by me. "Socialist" parents could do the same with their "property" NOW.
Yes, they could. However in some situations, the family can barely afford to pay their own rent, let alone the rent of their kids. The problem with children leaving now is that they'll lack the economic security to get to where they want to be in life. Hence, they're prisoners in their own home in some cases.

I also suspect that many communist parents do raise their children in a "communist" fashion, but I don't have any first hand experience on this. I'd be interested to hear someone on this board who does have children though.

Keep in mind, communists being able to raise their children this way doesn't mean we should just stop urging for revolution. To us, the problem isn't the family unit, it's the class system.

[Alexander Hamilton]

D_Bokk,

One of the more interesting things about growing older, and this is probably true in any society and system, is that you become fond of the past, regardless of how bad it was. (I'm obviously talking about most people, and not people with horrible backgrounds.)

The world you knew is no longer. The wonder is replaced by a bunch of crap you can't relate to. It's true with all generations.

We had a popular TV show here I never watched: Family Ties, where hippie parents end up with a conservative son.

When I was younger I read Newsweek. Now I read TIME. One day, if I stay on track, I'll read U.S. News and World Report.

Ironically, many children in the U.S. who experience poverty do not grow up to become soldiers in the ranks of your revolution, but work very hard to never be hungry again, and become super-cappies. (Maybe not rich, but people who never want to see poverty again, and used the market to achieve this.)

I don't believe I "owe" kids some halfway house, where, when things become trouble for them at 11, 14, or 17, they can run away to, provided by the state, and where they never have to face up to difficult problems or deal with their parents, MOST of whom love them, but are imperfect and, along with their kids, make mistakes.

A.H.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Alexander Hamilton
One of the more interesting things about growing older, and this is probably true in any society and system, is that you become fond of the past, regardless of how bad it was. (I'm obviously talking about most people, and not people with horrible backgrounds.)

The world you knew is no longer. The wonder is replaced by a bunch of crap you can't relate to. It's true with all generations.

We had a popular TV show here I never watched: Family Ties, where hippie parents end up with a conservative son.
Nostalgia has to do with your connection with the social aspects of life; such as family, friends, high school, parties, ect. And in some cases entertainment. Geeks like me have nostalgia about games like James Bond: 007 for N64 even though I was blasting commies, I liked the game. When I played, it had nothing to do with the economic pretense of the game, just the enjoyment. In fact, I didn't even realize that I was killing communists until long after I stopped playing it. I was too young too.

The same goes for when people look back at other parts of their childhood, the good memories have nothing to do with capitalism.

When I was younger I read Newsweek. Now I read TIME. One day, if I stay on track, I'll read U.S. News and World Report.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, as I refuse to read those publications.

Ironically, many children in the U.S. who experience poverty do not grow up to become soldiers in the ranks of your revolution, but work very hard to never be hungry again, and become super-cappies. (Maybe not rich, but people who never want to see poverty again, and used the market to achieve this.)
This is due to imperialism and class bribery, but that's a whole different thread. I don't believe that the US will have a revolution for many years... probably not until most of the world is Socialist.

I don't believe I "owe" kids some halfway house, where, when things become trouble for them at 11, 14, or 17, they can run away to, provided by the state, and where they never have to face up to difficult problems or deal with their parents, MOST of whom love them, but are imperfect and, along with their kids, make mistakes.
Who said anything about half-way house? Or a state for that matter?

[Raj Radical]

Alexander Hamilton,


George Orwell was a Socialist


-Raj

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Raj Radical
George Orwell was a Socialist


No he wasn't. As a matter of fact not only was he not a Socialist, he actually aided the US government during the great "red scare".

I suggest you research this topic further.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Geeks like me have nostalgia about games like James Bond: 007 for N64 even though I was blasting commies, I liked the game.

There's hope for you yet.


A.H.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Alexander Hamilton,


George Orwell was a Socialist


-Raj


Yes, this is well known. He, however, never "got over" Trotsky's expulsion from the Soviet, and believed that more or less, all leftist revolutions would eventually betray their principles.

Something we cappies figured out in the 1780's.

The thesis of Animal Farm is based on this conclusion. The last lines of the novel define the current situation in the People's Republic of China.

He got depressed about the general future of mankind, and I certainly understand him for that.




QUOTE
Anyways, my favorite US president is Wlliam Harrison...this is because he did nothing in office and then died less than a month in. An excellent example of what an American president should do in office! - tragicClown


Nothing makes us cappies happier than when the radical left obssess over the United States and the Presidency. Makes us out to be far more important than we really are.

My favorite U.S. President is Abraham Lincoln. He set revolution back in the United States by about 200 years.


A. Hamilton

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Alexander Hamilton
There's hope for you yet.
Doubt it. Right now, I'm in college studying to be able to make video games of my own. When I'm done, I want to create a communist themed game. I've been itching to have the tables turned and the capitalists be in the cross-hairs.

[Alexander Hamilton]

When I'm done, I want to create a communist themed game. I've been itching to have the tables turned and the capitalists be in the cross-hairs.

Presuming there will still be anyone old enough to remember what a "communist themed" anything was like by the time you're done with it, I have an idea:

Give it away. It is harder to live by one's principles than to fight for them.

But, all kidding aside (from my first remark, which I couldn't resist), good luck with the game. Imagination is what fuels all achievement.


A. Hamilton

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Alexander Hamilton
I have an idea:

Give it away. It is harder to live by one's principles than to fight for them.
Naturally. I'd prefer it to be open source, like John Carmack's games... that guy owns even if his wife is a Ayn Rand nut. Although, depending on where I make it, I may not even have the rights to the game; some capitalist will...

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'd prefer it to be open source

Please send one to me when you're done with it. I can play a fantasy role play where I'm Shemes Bond, OO7. (a reference from Ian Fleming's "From Russia With Love")

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 29 2006, 04:14 AM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 29 2006, 04:14 AM)
Raj Radical
George Orwell was a Socialist


No he wasn't. As a matter of fact not only was he not a Socialist, he actually aided the US government during the great "red scare".

I suggest you research this topic further. [/b]
In Orwell's own words every woord he wrote was for the furtherance of Democratic Socialism.

By the time the Red Scare really got under way, Orwell was dead and in no position to actively aid anything.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 29 2006, 04:28 AM

Alexander Hamilton,


George Orwell was a Socialist


-Raj


Yes, this is well known. He, however, never "got over" Trotsky's expulsion from the Soviet, and believed that more or less, all leftist revolutions would eventually betray their principles.

Something we cappies figured out in the 1780's.

The thesis of Animal Farm is based on this conclusion. The last lines of the novel define the current situation in the People's Republic of China.

He got depressed about the general future of mankind, and I certainly understand him for that.




QUOTE
Anyways, my favorite US president is Wlliam Harrison...this is because he did nothing in office and then died less than a month in. An excellent example of what an American president should do in office! - tragicClown


Nothing makes us cappies happier than when the radical left obssess over the United States and the Presidency. Makes us out to be far more important than we really are.

My favorite U.S. President is Abraham Lincoln. He set revolution back in the United States by about 200 years.


A. Hamilton
Yes, we all know about Animal Farm- everyone is forced to read it sometime during high school and we get the exact same "all forms of socialism are GUNNA FAIL CUZ PEOPLE R GREEDY NOW WRITE AN ESSAY WHY PEOPLE R EVIL AND SELFISH" from our teachers.


I would strongly suggest you do yourself a favor and read any of his later work, more specifically Homage to Catalonia.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 29 2006, 04:14 AM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 29 2006, 04:14 AM)
Raj Radical
George Orwell was a Socialist


No he wasn't. As a matter of fact not only was he not a Socialist, he actually aided the US government during the great "red scare".

I suggest you research this topic further. [/b]


I don't think we are talking about the same man, if you are talking about when orwell gave that list of 39 suspected soviet sympathizers, well, that was more anti-Soviet than any reactionary McCarthy bullshit.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Raj Radical
I don't think we are talking about the same man, if you are talking about when orwell gave that list of 39 suspected soviet sympathizers, well, that was more anti-Soviet than any reactionary McCarthy bullshit.

Always nice when "leftists" support betrayal of fellow leftists. . .

[Severian]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 28 2006, 10:28 PM
My favorite U.S. President is Abraham Lincoln.
Marx praised him too. (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm) (The official U.S. diplomatic response to Marx's letter is also interesting.)


He set revolution back in the United States by about 200 years.

Now that's a strange assertion, considering that in reality Lincoln led a revolution. A much bigger revolution than Washington led.

A social and economic revolution. Which expropriated a huge value of property - slaves - and ruined a whole posessing class - their owners.

Cleared the way for the development of industrial capitalism - and thereby brought socialism closer.

And as Marx pointed out:

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

That's worth thinking about even today on the relation between race and class in U.S. history.

[Alexander Hamilton]

all forms of socialism are GUNNA FAIL CUZ PEOPLE R GREEDY NOW WRITE AN ESSAY WHY PEOPLE R EVIL AND SELFISH

Raj,

I know you might not believe this, but Americans CAN discuss the possibilities and pitfals of Revolutionary Socialism WITHOUT sounding like backward trailor trash.


Quoting myself and Severian's response:


QUOTE
He set revolution back in the United States by about 200 years.



Now that's a strange assertion, considering that in reality Lincoln led a revolution. A much bigger revolution than Washington led.



Here I'm being a bit esoteric and speculative:

The Revolutionary cause would be greatly assisted if it were possible for each of the United States to separate from the Union. Hell, Vermont's always on the edge of doing just that, and are pretty progressive. And it's an American joke that New York City and San Francisco would do so given the chance, but they are, of course, cities. Texas has always wanted the U.S. out of Texas, instead of Texas out of the U.S. (another of our local jokes).

In any case, in 1861, while our Constitution stated that Congress could incorporate new states, it was, and still is, silent on the issue of separation. So some of the states tried it, on what you might say was a "theoretical" basis.

And Lincoln sent in the troops.

Now, he has set a standard that one believes could not be unmatched. Were Hawaii to try and separate (they have two different movements to do just that, though no one takes them seriously) ANY U.S. President, even, let's say, Hillary Clinton, would have Lincoln's "standard" he set hanging over them to not allow such a thing.

(So much for this discussion remaining about the family structure. HA!)

Anyway, that's the point of why I believe Lincoln's actions harmed your movement here in the U.S. It requires an overall Revolution in the entire United States, rather than Vermont separating, becoming socialist, and having a positive effect on revolutionary forces in our other states.


A. Hamilton

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 29 2006, 06:21 AM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 29 2006, 06:21 AM)
Raj Radical
I don't think we are talking about the same man, if you are talking about when orwell gave that list of 39 suspected soviet sympathizers, well, that was more anti-Soviet than any reactionary McCarthy bullshit.

Always nice when "leftists" support betrayal of fellow leftists. . . [/b]
I'm confused about the quotations, are you suggesting that I'm being dishonest about my political convictions?

Perhaps I am Alex H. in disguise.










































Boo :ph34r:

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 29 2006, 01:34 PM

all forms of socialism are GUNNA FAIL CUZ PEOPLE R GREEDY NOW WRITE AN ESSAY WHY PEOPLE R EVIL AND SELFISH

Raj,

I know you might not believe this, but Americans CAN discuss the possibilities and pitfals of Revolutionary Socialism WITHOUT sounding like backward trailor trash.



I believe you.

The real question is, is it possible for capitalists to discuss any pitfalls of Revolutionary Socialism other than the tired and overused "human nature".

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Raj [email protected] 29 2006, 06:34 PM
The real question is, is it possible for capitalists to discuss any pitfalls of Revolutionary Socialism other than the tired and overused "human nature".
That'd be like discussion nuclear fission without talking about physics.

Human nature is specifically what makes communism impractical.

[KC]

That'd be like discussion nuclear fission without talking about physics.

Human nature is specifically what makes communism impractical.

What is human nature? How does it affect our thought process? Why does it make communist society impossible? Please back your statements up with some evidence. I will start by saying that "human nature" is just the recognition of patterns in the environment in which we live. This is supported by the following:


Originally posted by ComradeRed
Look up On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkings and Sandra Blakeslee, Kunihiko Fukushima's article NNeocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position In "Biological Cybernetics", Maximilian Resenhuber and Tomaso Pogio's Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex in "Nature Neuroscience" and so forth.

[Alexander Hamilton]

t_wolves_fan,

You're ALWAYS showboating!

I was reading Raj's comment, and decided to write back, "That would be like writing about the solar system and not discussing the word "sun".

Then I scrolled down and saw your comment.

Damn!


Seriously, Raj,

ditto what t_wolves_fan wrote. It's that basic an issue to communism.


A.H.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Alexander Hamilton+Sep 29 2006, 07:34 AM--> (Alexander Hamilton @ Sep 29 2006, 07:34 AM) (So much for this discussion remaining about the family structure. HA!) [/b]
I'd be interested to get back to that. I think the ball's in your court right now.


Twolvesfan

The real question is, is it possible for capitalists to discuss any pitfalls of Revolutionary Socialism other than the tired and overused "human nature".

That'd be like discussion nuclear fission without talking about physics.

Human nature is specifically what makes communism impractical. [/b][/quote]

Yes, we're all aware the argument from human nature is your main argument against communism.

But since it's been endlessly debated in the past, it's legitimate for Raj Radical to ask if you have any other arguments.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Raj Radical +--> (Raj Radical ) I'm confused about the quotations, are you suggesting that I'm being dishonest about my political convictions?[/b]
Yes. Whether you agree with the state or not; Marxists, Leninists and Stalinists are still leftists. Just because your faction didn't win in the revolution, doesn't mean you should join the ranks of the bourgeois and sabotage them.

t_wolves_fan
Human nature is specifically what makes communism impractical.
Communism adheres to human nature much better then capitalism.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Communism adheres to human nature much better then capitalism.

Yes, until someone invents something. Once someone creates something from their own ability, this notion of yours goes out the window.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Alexander Hamilton
Yes, until someone invents something. Once someone creates something from their own ability, this notion of yours goes out the window.
Huh?

Under capitalism, the person who creates something (ie. the proletariat) doesn't own their creation. The capitalist owns everything they produce. For example, in the video game industry, the company who publishes your game will have complete rights over it. The maker of the game doesn't own anything they create unless they're independent. In which case, they probably wont sell very many games because they don't have enough money to cover marketing or employ workers for long enough hours.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 29 2006, 10:47 PM

Communism adheres to human nature much better then capitalism.

Yes, until someone invents something. Once someone creates something from their own ability, this notion of yours goes out the window.
I guess it just comes down to wether you believe human 'nature' is some predisposition to evil and sin hardwired into all our brains at birth by pixies and god or if it is something formed around our current social relations and history.

The powers-that-be would rather have you believe the former (being nature) I suppose, AH.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 29 2006, 10:47 PM

Communism adheres to human nature much better then capitalism.

Yes, until someone invents something. Once someone creates something from their own ability, this notion of yours goes out the window.
Objective, empirical and trustworthy evidence that this is an aspect of 'human nature' while you're at it, a solid & watertight proof of an unchanging human nature which runs contrary to human nature - if it isn't too much bother.

Thanks.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Objective, empirical and trustworthy evidence that this is an aspect of 'human nature' while you're at it, a solid & watertight proof of an unchanging human nature which runs contrary to human nature - if it isn't too much bother.

If I pick up a rock, and then release it, it falls to the groud. But there may be that one time it does not,

A.H.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 30 2006, 02:04 PM

Objective, empirical and trustworthy evidence that this is an aspect of 'human nature' while you're at it, a solid & watertight proof of an unchanging human nature which runs contrary to human nature - if it isn't too much bother.

If I pick up a rock, and then release it, it falls to the groud. But there may be that one time it does not,

A.H.
Ah, so you DON'T have an answer or source. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Raj [email protected] 28 2006, 10:52 PM

I don't think we are talking about the same man, if you are talking about when orwell gave that list of 39 suspected soviet sympathizers, well, that was more anti-Soviet than any reactionary McCarthy bullshit.
Oh right, I must have gotten him confused with George Orwell the butcher from 86th street. :blink: