How would this work? Would all kids be raised in boarding schools from birth by federally employed nannies? Would the kids be able to visit their parents?
>>2303561You know how there are matriarchs and patriarchs? Like how every household is its own little oppressive regime? Marx an end to that.
>>2303563He meant it literally
>>2303567He says it in the manifesto
here is what marx writes regarding the family:
>The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007so, capitalism has already destroyed the family.
>Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.>The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmso, again, "abolition" here refers to "aufhebung" (sublation; negation of negation).
>>2303577>this is a misunderstanding of dialectic negation as logical negation.dialectic is a logical method of overcoming contradiction. or are you "illogical"?
>>2303627Marx has no interest in restoring any family relations to previous modes of production like feudalism that reactionaries fantasize about.
Let's see what Marx is saying in the quote:
<Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
<On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
<The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
<Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
<But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
<And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
<The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
<But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
<The bourgeois sees his wife as a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
<He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
<For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
<Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
<Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
<Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm https://www.marxists.org/admin/search/index.htmI challenge OP to cite a single work of Marx where he said "Abolish the family" as a commanding statement or slogan. My guess is there isn't one. Marx talked about how Capitalism upends "motley feudal ties." That is an observation, not a command or request.
We know that most English translations of Marx mistranslate the Hegelian term
aufheben (i.e. to "sublate," meaning to both overcome a contradiction while still maintaining certain compatible elements of the contradicting subjects in question) as "abolish" which simply means to eliminate a previous order without necessarily preserving anything of it.
>>2303735>Marx has no interest in restoring any family relations to previous modes of production like feudalism that reactionaries fantasize about.well, he might, in kind. if we read these statements in capital vol. 1 for example:
>What does the primitive accumulation of capital, i.e., its historical genesis, resolve itself into? In so far as it is not immediate transformation of slaves and serfs into wage labourers, and therefore a mere change of form, it only means the expropriation of the immediate producers, i.e., the dissolution of private property based on the labour of its owner. Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals.>Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labour of others, i.e., on wage labour.>As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the labourers are turned into proletarians, their means of labour into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialisation of labour and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form.>The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htmwhat marx seems to be implying is that the feudal relations of "self-earned" and communal properties (of free labour) are to be reproduced by the negation of capital's negation. if we take marx's initial comments on the family:
>The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007marx seems to be saying that the family has been corrupted by the bourgeoisie, who are its false defenders. if marx wanted the bonds of society to "melt into air", why would he show concern? maybe marx is more "reactionary" than you imagine.
>>2303746>I challenge OP to cite a single work of Marx where he said "Abolish the family" as a commanding statement or slogan. My guess is there isn't one. Marx talked about how Capitalism upends "motley feudal ties." That is an observation, not a command or request.I don't have the memory banks to pull up direct quotes from Marx and Engels, but we do have a lot of writings from Engels that suggested that the traditional monogamous nuclear family would eventually lose its material foundation, that there would be socialized child-rearing (you see that with universal public education), the end of the division of labor within the home, and marriage becoming voluntary partnerships without economic compulsion. The end of women's dependence on patriarchial male authority is a big one. But those were also tendencies and those guys didn't like to lay down "okay here's exactly how the family is going to look in socialism" because they didn't like utopian things.
>We know that most English translations of Marx mistranslate the Hegelian term aufheben (i.e. to "sublate," meaning to both overcome a contradiction while still maintaining certain compatible elements of the contradicting subjects in question) as "abolish" which simply means to eliminate a previous order without necessarily preserving anything of it.That is my understand of dialectical negation. To use the analogy of a person getting old. You go from youth to adulthood to old age. Adulthood is a negation of your youth, but old age can be a "negation of the negation" that both leads to a new stage but which contains elements of both. Like in your old age you have more maturity but you also stop caring what other people think so much (like you did when you were an career-striving adult) and you also rediscover childhood passions you once had. It's not simply about destroying what came before and it's not simply a retvrn either, but a development of a thing which is always in some stage of transition to its own opposite through contradiction.
Also at each stage, the seeds of the negation is contained within it.
How does this relate to the family? Hell if I know. But let's apply the logic here. There were traditional patriarchial families with husband/father as authority, wife/mother as caregiver, and children as dependents, with sharply defined gender roles. But within this structure are the seeds of negation because the mom and kids want chafe under these restrictions. That leads to the negation of the patriarchial male authority figure, and the nuclear family collapses. Women now have the right to divorce in most countries. There are now single-parent homes, LGBT couples with families with the right to adoption becoming legal in more places. But the seeds of opposition are within that too because it's confusing and unstable, and the traditional patriarchal authority did create some stability, so a potential futuristic synthesis could contain the freedom of the first negation (the negation of domination and rigid gender roles), while negating its instability (through new support functions).
So unfortunately for some anons, the family of the future is an intergenerational, mixed-race queer commune based on emotional affirmation and shared responsibility.
>>2303613>Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. oh so like to overcome while preserving and lifting up
i wonder how he says it happens
>intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed
>The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. sounds to me like he is saying the
bourgeois family withers away, like everything else supposedly "solid" it melts into air
maybe people are conflating abolishment as something you do or an end in itself rather than a necessary result or side effect
>>2303871thats basically how i see it too. the dialectics is kinda like "it's not the destination, but the journey" combined with "you cant step in the same river twice" the very process of doing the thing, the experience itself, fundamentally changes the subject of the investigation yet preserves it. its supposed to describe how matter in motion works as a sort of solution to zenos paradox
>>2304169>the dialectics is kinda like "it's not the destination, but the journey" combined with "you cant step in the same river twice" the very process of doing the thing, the experience itself, fundamentally changes the subject of the investigation yet preserves itYeah I think so. Like during the process of change, you're still "you" but also not the same "you" as you were before.
I thought another way of depicting this (by way of analogy) is to an imagine an "angel" and a "devil" standing on your shoulders. Then let's say someone steals your girlfriend. There's a conflict between the "angel" and "devil" about whether you let it slide or get revenge. You're angry but let's say the "angel" wins and says to let it slide. There's your thesis. But later, when you get drunk, the "devil" comes back and tells you to get revenge, so you go and shoot that guy (because you were still a little bit angry inside). That's the negation and turn to the opposite.
Then you get arrested and are sitting in jail, and the "angel" (your good side) returns and you feel sorry for yourself for being such an idiot and also hurting your ex-girlfriend's feelings. That is like the negation of the negation, but you're not the same person who originally decided to let it slide in the beginning. You're a new "good" person who was produced by contradictions within the bad which negated the good which was contradictory etc.
>>2303782So you want to invent that Marx secretly opposed public education for children out of some sympathy for the patriarchal relations of the family or are you just projecting this onto Marx because you feel it?
The costs of raising children will be a social responsibility and duty that will take away the control of men over women and parents over their children, this is not a melancholic nostalgia of longing to return to some past.
Let's take an example from Engels:
<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.
<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm >>2304624Marx shitting on philosophy needs to be put in the context that Marx, like every human that at least can practice introspection, obviously had a philosophy, and that Marxism, like all analytical methods of inquiry, including science and mathematics, is inherently philosophical in nature. Though to grasp this would require any level of academic literacy and thus nuanced understanding by “Marxists” themselves, a trait that is just extremely rare in the majority of aggressive anti-social autists that attach the title to themselves. There is a difference between the critique of the canon of philosophy, particularly as it has existed throughout all of western history as mostly a class-justifying framework, and genuinely being dumb and asshatted enough to try jettisoning the concept from your framework.
Then again “Marxists” have argued that “science” not only need not be falsifiable (these people don’t know what that term even means) but in fact, *should not be* falsifiable; ergo, effectively, magic is real
>>2304507>he wouldn't use hegalian jargon in the communist manifestouh yeah he would, and he does, as well as all over the rest of his work. sublate isn't really an accurate translation either which is why the original word is included in [] next to abolish on marxists.org
bottom of page 16
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben#Marx >>2304127This.
It is arguable that the modern nuclear family (2 parents 1 to 3 kids and a pet) is a capitalist invention of 50s America and can easily facilitate child abuse (go ask your friend group chat about their mommy/daddy issues and you'll surely get some sizable responses).
While I'm not a childcare expert by any means it seems pretty logical to me that children raised around a vast array of caretakers will probably have better social and mental development in the long run rather than having their sole guidance be from just two individuals (see the phrase 'sins of the father')
>>2305198This is just pseudery, considering dialectics is a mode of presentation, not a method to obtain knowledge. :)
>>2305199Philosophy of science is a waste of time too.
>>2305201Either way you don't need philosophy to do "marxism", which is not very different from regular scientific analysis.
>>2303735>Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.< A March 2018 Atlantic profile on Paul Manafort by Franklin Foer only very delicately alludes to the matter, commenting that, “after the exposure of his infidelity, his wife had begun to confess simmering marital issues to her daughters.”>That’s a rather dainty way to refer to over a decade of coercive and manipulative sexual behavior, in which Manafort allegedly forced his wife, vulnerable from having sustained brain damage after a near-death horseback riding accident years before, to engage in “gang bangs” with black men while he watched.https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/kompromat-or-revelations-from-the-unpublished-portions-of-andrea-manaforts-hacked-texts/I'm shocked that the neoliberal Zionist magazine The Atlantic would use euphemisms for their bourgeois rape culture!
and more recently:
https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/after-trump-and-bannon-musks-friendship-with-stephen-miller-turns-nasty-as-the-tesla-ceo-walks-away-with-his-wife/articleshow/121700148.cms >>2304507Just because Marx isn't a Hegelian doesn't mean he didn't borrow Hegelian terms and use them in his own work.
>I criticized the mystificatory side of the Hegelian dialectic nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just when I was working at the first volume of Capital, the ill-humored, arrogant, and mediocre epigones who now talk large in educated German circles began to take pleasure in treating Hegel in the same way as the good Moses Mendelssohn treated Spinoza in Lessing’s time, namely as a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which the dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general forms of motion in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be inverted, in order to discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell. (Capital, pgs. 102-103)Anyway nice distraction from "hey OP please cite where Marx says that"
>>2303871>I don't have the memory banks to pull up direct quotes from Marx and Engels, but we do have a lot of writings from Engels that suggested that the traditional monogamous nuclear family would eventually lose its material foundationWe're talking about Marx, the guy with a wife and 7 kids, not his friend with a life partner and 0 kids
yes the nuclear family will lose its material foundation but the "nuclear family" is not the same thing as "the family" is not the same thing as "the clan" is not the same thing as "the tribe". The family takes on different historical-material forms and people have always been bonded by proximity and relation. And just because the family might go away eventually doesn't mean Marx ever requested it to be abolished as part of some political project.
>So unfortunately for some anons, the family of the future is an intergenerational, mixed-race queer commune based on emotional affirmation and shared responsibility.yeah my family is already this
>>2304921>While I'm not a childcare expert by any means it seems pretty logical to me that children raised around a vast array of caretakers will probably have better social and mental development in the long run rather than having their sole guidance be from just two individualsplease even in a country that prides the "nuclear" family there is still a "vast army of caretakers". from the age of 2 onfwards you have daycare workers, teachers, friends, older peers, mentors coaches, congregation if you're religious, neighbors, etc.
And that's not even touching online stuff that we have now.
Very few people are isolated from everyone else by their parents. If they are that's a form of abuse but I think the more common form of abuse is parents ignoring their kids and not giving them any guidance and letting just about any scumbag influence them.
So there's a balance between ignoring your kids and letting the world raise them with none of your influence, and totally trying to control every aspect of their lives and being afraid to let the world into their lives.
>>2303561My understanding is that every member of the community needs to be a:
>soldier>worker>nurturer>leaderThis way, the traditional family structure — which highly facilitates the master-slave relationship — will be sublated into basic communal charity/benevolence. The erasure of rigid gender roles is a good start
If you read more of Marx and Engel's historical materialism works, especially Engels, they define the bourgeois family structure as a social relation born for accumulation via inheritance. This is why abolishing inheritance is one of the goals of the Communist party. This still exists even if liberals brag about women's rights and so on, because it ignores the primary operation of determining ownership of property. This is why Marx/Engels say the "family" only exists among the bourgeois, which I think is (at least now) inaccurate, but the principle remains unchanged. You could also read Marx's "On Suicide" where he goes through examples of this familial property relation strangling humanity.
Also, during the height of industrialization, proletariat families had to send their children out to factories to wage slave to get money for the family, as a whole. This is why eventually ending child labor was also one of the primary goals of the Communist party, along with guaranteeing education instead of how it was previously only guaranteed for the rich/aristocracy. Communists that take on the anti-intellectual, worker worship approach have completely missed the point and ironically become cartoonish representations of industrial capitalists.
So, "abolish the family" doesn't simply mean abolishing shitty dads, but it's the material relations existing among the broader social relations under capitalism. This isn't done by having open relationships or "boarding schools" (Marx explicitly ridiculed this idea as barracks communism), it would be destroyed when you destroy the private ownership of capital. Someone mentioned "aufhebung" and well the latin root of family is "familia" which roughly means "household servants" and decided where slaves go after their owner dies. The bourgeois family is the higher form of that.
>>2303561I guess Marx had imagined a world where your entire neighbourhood is your family, and your entire hometown is your extended family (something akin to this was familiar to primitive societies, and was not an alien idea even to pre-capitalist agrarian societies). Every kid with whom you grow up together is your sibling. Every adult with whom you grow up together is your parent or uncle or aunt (emotionally, socially, and legally) as long as they didn't abuse you.
Of course, whenever or not this would come to be in a real communist society is still an open question.
"– What was possible can be seen in the towns brought about by condensation and the erection of communal buildings for various definite purposes (prisons, barracks, etc.). That the abolition of individual economy is inseparable from the abolition of the family is self-evident. " - The German ideology
"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations,when we replace home education by social.And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour." - The Communist Manifesto
Still confused, OP? Is it not clear what is meant?
>>2337745 (me)
and the funny thing is that reactoids instinctively understand this contingent relationship between the nuclear family (and in general how society is organized) and material conditions. this is why they, correctly btw, assume that the realization of communism would be the end of social institutions they treasure, like the nuclear family.
>>2337653I'm a cishet parent and this kinda stuff:
> "le crotchdevil" of "le breeder Nazis" is literally just LGBT people hitting back at society because they feel alienated and demonized
Unique IPs: 48