Results 1 to 20 of 117
Human Relations in Communism
As far as I've researched on the web, the nuclear family is broken up, because there wouldn't be family homes. If I have a child, what would my relationship with him be like, since homes wouldn't be the same? What about other relationships (intimate and non-intimate)? I just have this vibe that intimacy is a sort of ownership: my child, my girlfriend, etc. in particular, having a girlfriend/boyfriend means that you can do things with them that others can't, which, again, means ownership. I know I'm talking about people here, but it's still relevant.
It will be exactly the same, the only change about housing will be the property relations; houses will not be rented, etc. The aim of communism is not breaking basic human things which have been ongoing for 200,000 years in multiple forms. Whatever ideology or state of affairs that breaks basic human interaction is not even possible to realize.
What, because of "human nature"? Communism changes all social relations - this includes the death of the bourgeois family, that mechanism that presently ensures the reproduction of the proletariat. This will be accomplished, however, not by different housing - I think that question is best left to people who will live in the socialist society - but by socialising housework, abolishing gender and sexual roles, destroying all restrictions on human sexuality and bodily autonomy etc.
To the OP, intimacy often implies possession, but it need not - if someone is "your" friend, does that mean they can't hang out with anyone else? I suppose people in the socialist society will feel a very generalised sort of friendliness toward one another - as it is pleasant to make friends, to most people, and they will have sex as they please.
And exactly what does this have to do with parents being forced to not live with their children?
Who said anyone would be forced to do anything? The point is that, the material basis of the family having disappeared, there is no reason for the parents to want to live with "their" children over and above their desire to live with other people.
Correct. Yet the OP seems to have the idea that communism is some sort of nightmare in which some "revolutionaries" decided that a family can't be allowed to live together anymore, or that everyone is forced to live in immediate immediacy with everyone else, removing all notions of privacy, etc.
Exclusivity isn't the same thing as ownership-- it's a mutual decision where both parties have the same amount of power within the relationship. The biggest difference would probably be in the criteria by which you select your partner-- ie: finances wouldn't play such a large role.
I suppose this is a point of contention depending on how extreme you are, but I don't consider feeling protective of your family or taking responsibility for your children to be exploitation. They're not commodities.
I mean, isn't the point egalitarianism and empowerment, not blind adherence to state demands or some theory of how human relations need to be?
Oh, and hey-- first post!
In the transition toward socialism, I am in favour of breaking up the bourgeois family relatively forcefully by extending the mandatory school day (which would still require a majority of workers voting for extending the school day). I would imagine children would sleep in their parent's homes and spend some time awake there as well. In kibbutzim children spent more quality time with their parents than in Western countries despite collective child rearing.
I'm a little wary of you saying "my girlfriend" / "my child" signifying [individual] ownership though.
pew pew pew
I imagine in a communist society your relationship with your children would be pretty similar - you'd still care for them and support them in growing up - but child-rearing would be done more communally/collectively so that there would be less of an emphasis placed on blood relatives as "family" and a shift towards viewing family as the people you are close to and who will look after you (or vice-versa).
I think that intimate relationships in our current society are very much viewed in terms of ownership - I find that most of the language around partners tends to imply ownership of some kind. I think the important thing in intimate relationships is that they are (or should be) essentially a mutual agreement between partners. Whether that means both (or all) partners agree to see each other exclusively or have some other arrangement is up to the people involved.
"Her development, her freedom, her independence must come from and through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right to anyone over her body; by refusing to bear children unless she wants them; by refusing to become a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the family, etc. ... by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and public condemnation. Only that, and not the ballot, will set woman free, will make her a force hitherto unknown in the world, a force for real love, for peace, for harmony; a force of divine fire, of life-giving; a creator of free men and women."~ Emma Goldman
Support RevLeft!
No, really, it isn't. You can 'do things with them' because they let you.
That's not necessarily going to change under socialism.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
The "OP" doesn't think communism is a sort of nightmare; I'm simply new to communism, and may have interpreted something incorrectly. In fact, I am actually supportive of what communist ideologies I've learned. The way I interpreted it was that communism is when a society is essentially like a hive; everyone is treated roughly the same.
Anyway, my question has been answered; family and friends are on a similar level, and intimate relationships exist, but without the "restrictive" traits of most of today's relationships. Again, like a hive.
Er...
Hives are places, not just of social stratification, but of genetic one as well. Communism is the stateless society where the means of production are controlled by society itself, and employed on a rational, planned basis to satisfy the wants of the members of society. Members of the communist society will be far less restricted than people today are (I mention this as many people who talk about "hives" have a very, let's say despotic, notion of "communism").
As to what you're misinterpreting, it depends on who you listen to. If you start mentioning toothbrushes, we know you've been listening to insane anti-communists (who have a thing about toothbrushes).
There is no public power in a communist society separate from the people themselves. So there is no 'other' to come and take away 'your' kids. On the other hand, there's no necessity to see them as 'your' kids as opposed to 'everyone's' kids. Society will not force you to take care of them, nor will it force you not to take care of them. Society will take care of them. You're part of society. How much input you have into that care is a matter for you and the rest of the community to work out.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
In other words, the nuclear family and even monogamy itself are historically both products of the institution of private property. With the abolition of private wealth, the structure of society will transform in the absence of the conditions which make those structures necessary. Marriage, housing, child rearing, etc. will change, just as they have changed in the transition between feudalism and capitalism, for example.Originally Posted by Karl Marx
At least I fucking hope so. Monogamy drives me crazy. Get at me, comrades!
There will be family homes as long as individuals want to have a family. Some persons would probably want to experiment with new ways of living and organizing child care. The majority would probably be passive and cautious about making big changes in such sensitive issues. In the long run, the solution prevails which individuals find most pleasing. Possibly many different solutions will prevail, and no one solution becomes an overwhelmingly popular standard that nearly everyone adopts.
Sexual relations are based on biological competition, the fittest are more popular as mating partners than the average, not to say the least attractive end of the gaussian curve. I believe that sexual needs are approximately as important for an individual's happiness as material needs are. Therefore I see a need for regulating sexual relations, or creating commercial sexual services, to ensure that everyone gets as much sexual pleasure as he or she needs. Without regulation or services of this kind, the lower end of the gaussian curve would be left in sexual poverty, where they are already now in the current world order.
And the evidence for this is, what? And before you ask, no, evo-psych ad-hoc stories don't count. Leave that stuff for BAHFest.
...what.Originally Posted by GanzEgal
How would they be regulated? And who would regulate them, the Socialist Police?
Commercial services in communism?Originally Posted by GanzEgal
The same people who will enforce late term abortion restrictions and other limitations on our bodily autonomy. Duh.
"We should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time's carcass." Karl Marx
Sometimes I get the impression that a lot of RevLeft users don't want to abolish the pigs, they want to be chief pig. Anyway, this is all ever so slightly creepy and reminiscent of all sorts of MRE nonsense.
I have some ideas for solving the sexual inequality problem:
-instead of actual sex the sexually undesirable could use drugs, or even VR devices that simulate sex in an extremely realistic manner. Probably not an option because it isn't real sex, and has less value.
-scientists could rig an assembly line that produces a class of humans whose purpose is the sexual fulfillment of others.
-we could find the most universally sexually desirable human beings, kill the rest and then clone them over and over.
-we could use the media to condition people to be attracted to anyone who wears a special hat. Then we could all take turns wearing the hat.
cry me a river. You can't demand or claim sexuality, especially not by another person to share it with you. No one has to ensure that you have sex every other day (or ensure it even only once a month or whatever), this is not how sexual mutuality, lust and sexual self-determination work. You don't NEED sex the way you need water or food. You can go without sex for a very, very long time. This may not always be pleasant, but who the fuck are you to think that you are entitled to sex with anyone?
Liberal Dudes are guys who will jump up and down to tell you that they’re all about equality and prosperity for everyone, but then tell you about the strip club they were at the night before or about the awesome anal porn site they last jerked off to. Liberal Dudes are ready to welcome us into the boardroom, provided we’re still willing to dance on the conference table at the employee party. Liberal Dudes love “sex-positive” “feminists” because Liberal Dudes support women’s freedom and “rights,” up to and including our “right” to strip and to suck dicks for money. Liberal Dudes love to see women embracing pornorific behavior like pole dancing, pube waxing, porn watching, thong wearing, chick kissing, and boob flashing as a means to “empowerment,” because that’s exactly the kind of power they want us to have: the power to give them boners.
