The nuclear family

The nuclear family was fostered to unprecedented heights around the time of the industrial revolution and emergence of modern capitalism. This is because it serves as a powerful tool for bourgeois promulgation: woman are oppressed, sexual and gender minorities are oppressed, and it ensures that the capitalists have a reserve army of labor.

Youth liberation within this system is impossible. Such actions can only lead to a kind of "bourgeois liberation" which means as much freedom as possible within the larger capitalist framework;this precludes any chance for actual liberation under socialized lines which would grant a wider plethora of rights to youth.

I am of the advocacy that replacing the bourgeois family should be centered around communal raising of children, at least up until a certain age. Once they reach a certain threshold and understand the world to strike out on their own they should be allowed to do so when they feel ready. So in this way it isn't so much as a "extended family" but a support net; however, I believe communal living is what we need to strive for, under capitalism this is impossible, under socialism it is possible to build this alternative, yet it is only under communism that youth liberation-independent communal living-can be achieved.

To this extent I should rush to add that I do not believe we can simply "abolish" the nuclear family with the stroke of a pen. Just as the development of the bourgeois family owed its existence to laws and systems of governance which helped it flourish we, as revolutionaries who will someday erect a socialist state, must understand that we can only encourage youth participation in society and enact means by which youth can take advantage of such programs. We cannot force our will on something which needs the force of historical development and mass-participation to kill.

There are many different concepts of communal living and, to be honest, it is something which we will only ever truly see become a reality when we arrive at that historical period. But to give some vague outlines:

Communal cities: places where the working class interact with each other as a big string of interconnected workplaces and living places. Here we would see the development of homes which many people live comfortable existences. Children born into this place would learn from the community as a whole with no single set of "parents" dominating their lives. They would be under a sort of quasi-guardian protection until they are of sufficient knowledge to decide what they want to do, who they wish to live with, or where they wish to move. So in this sense as soon as they have the prerequisite information regarding health and the workforce they will be able to freely roam and settle down where they wish. People in this system would contribute what skills they can towards the majority, no-one would go without, and everyone would have companionship and labor fulfillment.

This is just a very brief outline though. To really talk about this subject would take a much more detailed article.

Okay thanks lovely picture, no parents is my dream too. However isn't communal living associated with the risk ofsomeone being put in "charge" of the kids? Like they would be put in charge of cleaning or other duties in the commune?

This is where the division of labor comes in: everyone would have the option of joining, at will, different committees responsible for different duties and chores around the commune. These committees, or associations, would in turn be run democratically by those within the commune. With people constantly changing their positions and no central leadership, the risk of someone taking complete control is void.