>>2427415I find the idea that communist should not have kids stupid. Why should I not want to have kids? I will raise them communist. I will raise them not according to bourgeois morality but as a means to get more communists. It's not that hard to raise kids, it's really fucking hard to fuck it up - once you know what your parents did wrong and once you don't put expectations of (petty-)bourgeois society on them, the only thing you have to do is treat them as people and raise them as communists. My father (or, let me put it more generally) - fathers and mothers - they have no moral standing, no system of values, they function in the swamp of 'traditionalist' inertia. No reflection of what's going on, just going with the flow of bourgeois society. What Marx meant by 'abolishing the family' already happened - the family constitutes alienated individuals which only pretend to like each other because of societal expectation. Tolstoy put it more bluntly - all happy families are happy in the same (
bourgeois) way, all unhappy families are unhappy in their own (
working class) way. (words in brackets mine)
The entire point of
why the proletariat is revolutionary class (or, what is necessary and sufficient condition for a class to be revolutionary) is that in the production schema M - C … P … C' - M' the part
… P … is the prole working on something, imbuing a product of labor with her own labor power, creating new value (value is something only makes sense under capitalism, where one can measure how much labor time went into it, value will not exist under socialism, abolishing value is consequence of abolishing capital, but this is different can of worms), something which no other class can do. It has nothing to do with proles 'should' own nothing, 'should' not have kids, 'should' be from XIX century etc. The proletariat is revolutionary because it is necessary part of society (you cannot reproduce capital without proles) and it is sufficient for proles to exist, for capitalism to exist (if there are proles, there is wage labor, there is capital, and there is bourgeoisie).
Any argument what constitutes 'real' proletariat is moralism in final instance. Even Stirner understood this more clearly than most do.
<The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing would withstand them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves here and there.<The state rests on the – slavery of labour. If labour becomes free, the state is lost.Of course, he argued for voluntarism (
became thoroughly conscious of it and used it) (being an egoist), but the rational kernel is there.
p.s. Marx had several kids. God know how many bastards Engels had. Mao too. Stalin was also a breeder. Lenin is the only exception; but then again, as a rule, Lenin is always an exception.