Results 1 to 20 of 28
Urban communes as an alternative to families
Marx and Engels viewed Capitalism as the beginning of the end for the family and communism resulting in its eventual deconstruction as the institution that we know it. The personal may not be inherently political but political awareness can inform the range of personal choices.
Maybe I'm getting older (ha!) but I've been thinking lately about what kind of living and social arrangement would make me happy in the long term.
I can't imagine replicating a cookie cutter nuclear family that the bourgeois ideology promotes as ideal. The bourgeois love it because it reproduces the next generation of workers while helping to create the responsibilities required to enslave the current one. The patriarchy loves it because it makes some people (i.e. old men) 's lives relatively comfortable in a way they likely wouldn't be in an egalitarian living arrangement. I don't see the need to do something just because people think its something they ought to do to please their parents and meet social expectations without questioning them. This is of course to say that, hypothetically, some people might not be truly fulfilled by it, however the social conditions make it difficult to tell how much is due to expectation, fantasies fulfilled or not, social pressure and the desire to avoid cognitive dissonance by denying the shortcomings.
I don't see retreating from the world in a rural intentional community, or living on your own indefinitely, as particularly appealing alternatives though.
What I think seems like an appealing alternative formulation might be an 'urban commune.' An extended family of unrelated people, either with or without (I should think, without, for me) polyamorous relationships, either with or without children and shared child care (again, for me I'd say no but that might work for some people).
I've seen social centers whose residents have had a lifestyle that could be described that way. Grad student shared housing, artists collectives, and similar arrangements of young people in group living sometimes have characteristics like that, but they're rarely intended to be permanent or indefinite, and rarely seen as a new and alternative norm for the long term.
What do people think about the family and alternative equivolent arrangements for living and relating to people on an intimate social level. Whats emotionally appealing, whats politically appealing, what would you like if you had the option, what would you prefer politics aside? What do you see as your real options?
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
There are, as you point out, different possible arrangements, and it's likely that in a society without social pressures, there would be multiple arrangements in existence at any one time, as a reflection of the diversity of interests and preferences in a given community. However, one key feature that all of these arrangements would have to involve in order to be genuinely liberating, especially from a feminist point of view, is the socialization of household tasks, such that no individual or section of the community would be forced to engage in tasks which limit their ability to pursue wider and more meaningful projects. It is also likely that, when given the opportunity to enter into new social arrangements orientated towards individual freedom and wellbeing, individuals would choose to live alongside those who share the same interests as them, so as to maximize opportunities for personal development and self-realization, and this is something we can already see emerging under capitalism, albeit only in an embryonic form, as students generally choose to live with those who are doing the same subjects as them, or at least share similar interests. We also have to be aware of the ways in which the family is supported ideologically under capitalism. This occurs partly through the fact that almost all individuals are born into and raised within a nuclear family structure, which socializes us to believe that the family is a natural form of association, or the only way in which humans would ever be able to live happily together and provide a suitable environment for children, but in addition to these basic mechanisms, the family is also supported in the media, and through the ideological statements of politicians - in particular the increasing trend to identify single mothers and other individuals who defy the family structure as the source of social and economic problems, such as welfare dependency, juvenile crime, and so on. Homophobia is also a reflection of the need to reinforce the legitimacy of the family, because a key component of the family as a symbol is two adults of different sexes. These statements appeal to our understanding of what is natural despite the fact that the family is a relatively recent component of human societies, in that, prior to the emergence of class antagonisms, and the creation of patriarchy (which occurred first? Is there a causative relationship?) human societies exhibited a high degree of sexual freedom and fluid social arrangements.
Last edited by BobKKKindle$; 12th March 2009 at 19:13.
That is pretty much my ideal. I live in a long term monogamous sexual relationship but neither me nor my partner is interested in marriage and have often discussed how such an arrangement would be far more satisfying. Some adherents of polyamory have written interesting things on the topic but so much about intimate relationships rests on the material basis of society. I honestly have no idea how family and relationships will change under advanced capitalism but I am certain that under socialism, where every individual is both independent and responsible to the collective the family will ultimately wither away. For instance: there doesn't seem to be a fundamental need for children to be so attached to their mothers after they are weaned, they could just as easily be supervised and socialized under a more collectivized arrangement. When children are ultimately independent of their parents, when there is no physical need for both parents to necessarily even be together and when every persons physical welfare is separate from their intimate relationships I have trouble seeing how the family would not "wither away" just as the state. If anything we will probably see the end of the family under socialism long before the end of the state.
People talk about how the nuclear family is somehow natural or ingrained part of human nature, but I simply don't believe it. The extended family and/or tribe structures are far more ingrained into human beings and I feel that communist society will ultimately end up repeating them on a higher level. Some of the most mentally healthy people I know were raised mostly by their extended family, and some of my best experiences growing up were under the care of my grandparents, aunts and uncles.
Under the current mode of production of course, we do the best we can as always.
I found this work by Alexandra Kollontai to be fascinating and it really helped me articulate my ideas about family relations and human liberation:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/koll...s-morality.htm
people should live in whatever arrangements they want.
Formerly dada
[URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
The above, basically. You can't impose anything, people'll do what they want.
Also, I think its determined by whether or not emotional expectations in terms of family units are determined by society and socialisation or by humans naturally. I think the former has alot of relevancy (i.e. the nucleaer family is promoted by capitalism, as is patriarchy, and has existed as long as class society has), but I think alot of it natural, simply because of how other animals work and whats emotionally viable.
I think whatever suits you best is important but you have to remember that some things are just natural, i.e. any kid needs parents there to value them and give them worth, and its best to have both a positive role model in life (although single parents can raise their kids fine if they're good parents). That doesn't exclude gay couples obviously, because if you had two dads or two mums and they brought you up right, you're not gonna be messed up in the head like alot of (mainly dad) deprived children are. It'd be nice for everyone to have role models of both sexes though, because thats important, so you understand and respect both sexes. But as I said that could mean having a single male parent or a single female parent and then an storng role model uncle or aunt, and the same with having two male parents and two females parents and having a strong role model of the opposite sex, like an aunt or uncle or friend or something.
You have to be careful with deviant primary socialisation, i.e. changing peoples family relationships, because it fucks people up. I know I wouldn't want to have about 10 carers none of which are my actual all-loving parents.
Simply put, you need to bring children up stably and lovingly and I don't think a commune lifestlye with multiple parents is best for that, nor can I see things changing (as under communism we wont all live under one big roof, we'll just have different local adminstration) and theres no need to change. As long as there isn't partiarchy, domestic violence, abuse, etc, nuclear families are the ebst way to bring up a child.
Fundamentally: 2 parents, positive role models, doesn't matter if they're a gay couple or whatever as long as they're positive, good values and stability, positive role models from both sides.
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
As an side note to elaborate, I don't see how communism will do away with traditional families. It may happen eventually but I doubt it and don't really see the link to what the social/economic system is.
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
I really don't think communes can replace families.
This may have already been touched on, but I think the ideal family situation is somewhere between the nuclear family, and the communal family. A lot of early human tribes raised children as if it were just one big family, and I think that this style is extremely beneficial in that children are exposed to many different viewpoints and such (not to mention it also gives couples a little more time to themselves). But I can also see where parents would want more a direct hand in their kids' upbringing (at least in the early staged - kids ain't property, dammit).
The defeat of the revolutionary movement was not, as Stalinists always complain, due to its lack of unity. It was defeated because the civil war within its ranks was not worked out with enough force. The crippling effects of the systematic confusion between hostis and enemy are self-evident, whether it be the tragedy of the Soviet Union or the groupuscular comedy.
formerly Species Being
I believe it's been proven that children do just fine with only one guardian, and any negatives from doing so are mostly a product of having to live within a system where that parent is also responsible for their financial situation. Again, it goes back to the capitalist promotion of the nuclear family as being the "only acceptable" way of living.
I'll write more on my own family and my thoughts later.
Tru dat. My mom was single most of my life, and my dad wasn't there. And then I was at the other extreme: my dad came back into my life, got married to someone else, and my mom also married someone else. I went from one parent to four. I have a ton of problems due to this, but it's only because I was raised in a society that says that the two parent model is the only way.
The defeat of the revolutionary movement was not, as Stalinists always complain, due to its lack of unity. It was defeated because the civil war within its ranks was not worked out with enough force. The crippling effects of the systematic confusion between hostis and enemy are self-evident, whether it be the tragedy of the Soviet Union or the groupuscular comedy.
formerly Species Being
I think i would like to live in a nuclear family, as in one private unit (not as in i want to treat my partner like crap and make her cook me food etc). Like others have said, each to their own, as long as any minor is well cared for.
KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACERKILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACERKILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER
I am not going to make an argument of what is natural or not because those arguments reek of reaction and dubious pseudo-science. Ive been in all sorts of living arrangements, from hippie collecives that reek of pot, to average family life etc and I can tell you that while i find the whole youth collective thing really fun i see myself mostly living with a few people, i.e. my partner. the whole issue of elucidating about "radical" ways of living sounds really forced to be honest, and reminds me a little bit of lifestylism or at best, some sort of silly utopian thought. i do think however, that any sort of future socialist state must guarantee children a place in society if they do not want to live with their family.
Formerly dada
[URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
I dont know whether it is the future or not, but it is what I would like. An urban commune I mean. I just cant stand the nuclear family idea. I find it repulsive.
Maybe I'm a freak, I'd like to fall in love with someone and raise kids some day. FAR in the future, no doubt, but I'd still like to do it.
... To live – does it not mean to have indomitable faith in victory?
That's exactly what i want to do. Although we seem to be in something of a minority.
KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACERKILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACERKILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER
Not saying what form that would take and all, but I'd like to have an actual FAMILY, people I can have a deep personal connection with. I don't want to live on a commune with a bunch of smelly teenagers I don't like until I'm 90
... To live – does it not mean to have indomitable faith in victory?
I think some people take it too far and say that EVERYTHING has to be changed in a revolution, no matter it's actual relevance to anything. Sure, the NUCLEAR family concept is strange, but I'd still like to live with my actual flesh and blood (or adoptive kids perhaps), whether it's the form of a nuclear family or not (which would be up to whatever the course of events of my personal life dictated I guess) rather than some impersonal collective.
... To live – does it not mean to have indomitable faith in victory?
Nice going there, using a stereotype and a generalization.
Apart from the fact that those "teenagers" would stop being teenagers by the age of 20.
It's obvious to assume that if you don't get along in the "family" arrangement TC mentioned you'd obviously have the freedom to leave it and live alone.
"El ideal del P.S.O.E. es la completa emancipación de la clase trabajadora; Es decir, la abolición de todas las clases sociales y su declaración y conversión en una sola clase de trabajadores, dueños del fruto de su trabajo, libres, iguales, honrados e inteligentes." -Pablo Iglesias (founder of PSOE and UGT)
"Quienes contraponen liberalismo y socialismo, o no conocen el primero o no saben los verdaderos objetivos del segundo." -Pablo Iglesias
Art. 1.º España es una República democrática de trabajadores de toda clase, que se
organiza en régimen de Libertad y de Justicia.
Dudes, dont get me wrong!
I have no intention of enforcing communes on anyone. Its just a personal wish of mine. And even when living in a commune, you would still have personal space so you dont have to put up with arseholes if you dont want to.
My idea of a commune is like living in a (relatively) luxorious cell-apartment thingy. ( I have lived in some shitty cell-apartments) Except that the cells are flats or buildings instead of single rooms.
I was kinda joking, I am a teenager after all.
Chill out
... To live – does it not mean to have indomitable faith in victory?
