No.582322[Last 50 Posts]
This seems to be the biggest hurdle I've come across when talking to working-class conservatives. Many of them seem fairly sympathetic to the idea of socialism in an economic sense, i.e. they like the idea of workers' self-management, central planning, free healthcare, housing for all, a "government of action", etc. Yet they refuse to fall behind socialism because they believe that 1. communists want to abolish marriage, 2. communists want to abolish the nuclear family as an institution, 3. communists want to take children away and put them all in communes where they have no clue who their bio parents are, 4. communists support abortion (this is THE biggest issue for a lot of right-wingers, even trumping economics), and 5. communists want to see non-attachment relationships and polyamory (especially queer relationships) be the norm to replace marriage and family.
How do we counter this? I've thought about bringing up the fact that socialist countries that exist today are quite conservative when it comes to issues of marriage and family but I can't give any details to show how.
No.582323
>>582322 (OP)
the communist manifesto's bit about this is as relevant as always, and the original marxist take remains the correct one.
"But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams
the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife 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 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, communist manifesto
No.582325
>>582322I've become less and less interested in providing "answers" as trying to think about the right questions. I'll leave the answers to others. But what's interesting about that guy in the video, Paul Kengor, is that he's a huuuuuge Ronald Reagan fan and has written a bunch of books practically sanctifying him.
He's also the executive director of the "Institute for Faith and Freedom" which sponsors three conferences. One is called the "American Founders" series, about the "founding fathers." The second is the "Annual Ronald Reagan Lecture" series held on Reagan's birthday, and is all about his messiah, Ronald Reagan. And the last one is called the "Austrian Student Scholar's Conference" which focuses on the "Austrian School intellectuals such as Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Hans Sennholz."
Can anyone say with confidence that Reagan's economic policies and those advocated by the Austrian school of economics been good for the stability of the traditional American family structure?
No.582326
>>582323Correct. Marx and Engels were mocking those who accused the communists of wanting to abolish the family.
No.582327
>This seems to be the biggest hurdle I've come across when talking to working-class conservatives. Many of them seem fairly sympathetic to the idea of socialism in an economic sense, i.e. they like the idea of workers' self-management, central planning, free healthcare, housing for all, a "government of action", etc. Yet they refuse to fall behind socialism because they believe that
Stop trying to water down your Marxism by attempting to "appeal" to people, it never works in the long run. Be frank about what Marxism is, inform them about how the system itself operates, and if they still reject it, so be it. Don't sacrifice what Marxism is an analysis to satisfy what people wish it was.
>1. communists want to abolish marriage,
Yes, the institution of marriage. This should be clarified as such, no communist want to end monogamous relationships or whatever ceremonial "rituals" you wish to do in order to make it know you are committed to your partner.
>2. communists want to abolish the nuclear family as an institution,
Yes, but its more like the nuclear family itself will cease in general terms due to the radical shift in the base of society that socialism entails, which comes with its own changes to the superstructure and thus the family. Most likely, families will become more akin to the extended family, as opposed to the atomized conception of the family in capitalism.
>3. communists want to take children away and put them all in communes where they have no clue who their bio parents are,
This has never been the case, and I would dare said people who make such an accusation to name where Marx states this.
>4. communists support abortion (this is THE biggest issue for a lot of right-wingers, even trumping economics),
Yes, in the sense that prohibiting abortion does not solve any issues whatsoever, that allowing abortion allows for the collecting of data regarding the reasons why and permits woman to safely acquire one instead of seeking out "alternative" methods anyway that cannot be proven, and that if abortion was an actual issue to said people, they would support the development of a society in which the reasons for abortion, which are largely related to the economy and education, were more sufficiently addressed. As of right now, most of the same people who complain about abortion do not care for what actually happens to the parent or child afterwords in regards to their economic status, or the countless many who perish in the system as it is now. Abortion, out of all of the things to focus on, should be the least of their concerns in regards to "life", and perhaps they should instead question how their society in many way creates the reasons for abortion in the first place.
>and 5. communists want to see non-attachment relationships and polyamory (especially queer relationships) be the norm to replace marriage and family.
Again, where is the source for this in the first place?
>How do we counter this? I've thought about bringing up the fact that socialist countries that exist today are quite conservative when it comes to issues of marriage and family but I can't give any details to show how.
No. Again, do not pander, do not appeal. Inform, state your principles and views, and if they still disagree despite being given full context, then so be it. Most socialist countries are not "conservative", unless you define "conservative" purely in retarded modern burger terms, and if you tell them this, you give them an incorrect conception of what socialism is, and it will instead become a box in which they stuff all their already held beliefs into.
No.582329
>>582327>This has never been the case, and I would dare said people who make such an accusation to name where Marx states this. I think that would almost be a kind of "barracks communism" that Marx criticized, sarcastically (referring to Nechayev):
"What a beautiful model of barrack-room communism! Here you have it all: communal eating, communal sleeping, assessors and offices regulating education, production, consumption, in a word, all social activity, and to crown all, ᴏᴜʀ ᴄᴏᴍᴍɪᴛᴛᴇᴇ, anonymous and unknown to anyone, as the supreme director. This is indeed the purest anti-authoritarianism."
No.582330
>>582327You can't really have socialism without appealing to the broad masses of people.
No.582331
>>582322>leftists seek to "abolish" the family and romance? we do
No.582333
>>582330You also can't have a revolution without changing structures, which is difficult to do if you that doesn't require anyone change their behavior. The bourgeoisie realize this, of course, which is why they invest a lot of resources in propaganda and coercion to not only keep people in line, but to get people to identify with them, not us, so people continue to cooperate with the rulers in words, deed and thought.
No.582334
That's the disease of "populism," I think, in which you mirror what the masses have to say back without attempting to win them over to a socialist position. People believe lots of things, some of it correct, some of it incorrect, and also many things as the result of their subjective capacities being distorted by all that propaganda I just mentioned. But if you take it all, put it in a box, call it "socialism" and then come into power on the back of that, what you might end up getting is a change in administration of the same basic regime, not a revolutionary overthrow of that regime for a different one with different class character.
No.582335
>>582334Most left populism ends in class-collaboration.
No.582336
>>582330>The broad masses of people support institutional marriageThis is false
No.582337
>>582336t. never been to the American midwest or south
No.582338
>>582322Peep the handbook (Read the manifesto)
>I've thought about bringing up the fact that socialist countries that exist today are quite conservative when it comes to issues of marriage and family but I can't give any detailsDon't do this. Are you going to end up defending wage labor too? Maybe instead of regurgitating talking points that you think correspond to an acceptable perspective try thinking for yourself (preferably from a materialist basis).
No.582339
You can't counter it, they're not truthful in what they mean, about "family" or "romance" or "communism". It's all a pretense.
You either oppress homosexuals as they want you to, or you don't, and they will oppose you no matter what you say or do.
It's as simple as that and you likely can not change them.
No.582340
>>582338That's a good point.
No.582341
>>582339Not sure I agree.
No.582343
>>582322The bourgeois family is inherently reactionary and must be destroyed.
No.582344
>>582322>How do we refute the right-wing claim that leftists seek to "abolish" the family and romance? I'm in the middle of Engels' Origin of the Family, so this seems extraordinarily heinous to me. Anyone who takes this claim seriously has no idea what Marx and Engels thought about the family.
No.582345
>>582344You’re responding to wither an idiot or a chinlet.
No.582346
>>582322I can tell Kengor pees sitting down.
No.582347
>>582322>How do we refute the right-wing claim that leftists seek to "abolish" the family and romance? We tell them, we don't. Want want to expand families and romances.
No.582348
1. Yes. Marriage is a bourgeois contrivance. It is merely a way to secure property rights for your offspring. it has no function in a society without property.
2. Absolutely. Kollontai was correct on this. Child-rearing should be socialised, ie, not a function performed in the home anymore.
3. Yes
4.Yes
5.Yes, absolutely. Communism is free love. Anyone who disagrees is either an incel or a cryptofascist.
"Socialist" countries today are anything but. They have red flags and oppose Western imperialism. That's it. They still produce commodities (in fact three of them have terrible working conditions for the proletariat), they still pay wages, their economics are governed by capitalist realism. They will undergo as radical a change as britain or anywhere else after the revolution.
No.582349
>>582348>KollontaiRead more of her son
No.582351
>>582328At 12:07, how common was abortion among old school CPUSA members anyway? I keep hearing this shit but can't find any source for it.
No.582352
>>582348>>582349Kollontai was actually pretty based.
No.582354
>communists want to abolish marriage
Absolutely no, in fact marriages = more children = continuing socialism. It was on the age of your children that a communist society is born (yours is still in socialism or transition).
>communists want to abolish the nuclear family as an institution
They may be collectivist but shake my fucking head, socialists still respect their nuclear family. Are these rightoids insane or into something?
>communists want to take children away and put them all in communes where they have no clue who their bio parents are
Shake my fucking head. Socialists and communists aren't that inhumane.
>communists support abortion
No, even if the Soviets legalized abortion, doesn't mean that communists support abortion. This is a very divisive issue even amongst those accused to be supporting.
>communists want to see non-attachment relationships and polyamory (especially queer relationships) be the norm to replace marriage and family
They must have mistook liberals for communists and socialists.
tldr:
American logic is flawed as fuck.
No.582355
>>582322>How do we counter this?There is nothing to counter. Its all more or less correct.
> 1. communists want to abolish marriageAbsolutely. Both Marx and Engels wrote in favour of abolishing marriage. Marriage is an economic institution invented to resolve disputes over inheritance of private property. Obviously when private property is gone, marriage will become a useless vestige that will wither away.
>2. communists want to abolish the nuclear family as an institutionCorrect. Engels correctly explained that nuclear family is bourgeois creation and after anticapitalist revolution will return back to children being raised by extended family or local community, like in the precapitalist past.
>3. communists want to take children away and put them all in communes where they have no clue who their bio parents areThats more of an ancom thing but is popular among leftists. Personally im ambivalent.
>4. communists support abortion (this is THE biggest issue for a lot of right-wingers, even trumping economics)99% of leftists support abortion. Argument against it is only religious so naturally not applicable among communists.
>5. communists want to see non-attachment relationships and polyamory (especially queer relationships) be the norm to replace marriage and family.Yes. People in all socialist organizations i worked with commonly practiced polyamory, altough it wasnt the norm. In anarchist circles, cuckolding is seen as liberating and there is no stigma around it.
No.582356
>>582354Read
>>582327, you're wrong on half of this stuff. When communists refer to marriage we are referring to the institution of marriage, not monogamous relationships that you commit to. When communists discuss the "abolishment" of the family, we are referring to the bourgeoisie conception of such, of which the nuclear family is. Not to say people will be forced to abandon the nuclear family, but with any change to the base society, so to comes a change in superstructure, and this is especially true for the family. The nuclear family is itself a rather modern form of the family, with the extended family being the dominant form for most of the world and for most of history. And you're just incorrect on abortion. We of course aren't celebrating it, but in the sense of supporting its legalization? Its a proper and practical policy to permit.
The rest you are fine in.
No.582357
>>582355Gee, I wonder who could be behind this post?
Put me in the screencap.
No.582358
>>582357Wat
Which part is untrue? Go on.
No.582359
>>582348>Communism is free love. Anyone who disagrees is either an incel or a cryptofascist. I think this place is very much male dominated and as such less influenced by socialist-feminist theory.
Emma Goldman wrote extensively for abolishment of monogamic relationships as the social norm. It is in most cases a posessive relationship of man over woman permitted by his relative economic power, even if the woman would never say this as she is conditioned to see it as perfectly fine and normal.
Thats not to say that socialists want to abolish mono relationships themselves of course, but instead abolish them being soft-enforced by peer shaming, emotional or economic blackmail from the partner etc. That they should be result only of pure desire of that one person, not pushed into it by economic base or cultural superstructure.
No.582360
>>582354>Socialists and communists aren't that inhumane.Yes, we are actually.
No.582361
>>582351WZF advocate the birth strike when he was an an-syn, so that could be why.
No.582362
>>582355>Thats more of an ancom thing but is popular among leftists. Personally im ambivalent.This isn't a Marxist thing, of which I'm imagining OP is referring to.
>Yes. People in all socialist organizations i worked with commonly practiced polyamory, altough it wasnt the norm. In anarchist circles, cuckolding is seen as liberating and there is no stigma around it.No. I highly doubt all of this, and in my view, there is nothing "liberating" about relations which have individuals treating ones partner(s) as merely accessories to their sexual proclivities where they maintain a "relationship" merely to have such thing on demand. That isn't "liberation", at least not in the sense liberatory love. It's not caring or someone as they are and all they are, its only caring for said individuals for specific qualities, and attempting to "make-up the difference" with others so as to have no need for the sacrifice of "freedom" actual "love" involves. It also has nothing to do with communist policy or theory itself.
No.582363
>>582355I've never seen a healthy polyamorous relationship. At all. It always ends in either some kind of polygamy, whereby an anarcho-bro accumulates more female lovers and holds them all on a proverbial leash, or it turns into two people becoming very close with the others being left out in the cold. Also, as soon as shit happens and kids come in the picture, it's always the case that the two bio parents decide they want to be together and raise that kid in a nuclear family model because that's the most stable.
No.582364
>>582322Can we turn Paul Kengor into our own personal lolcow?
No.582365
>>582348>Anyone who disagrees is either an incel or a cryptofascist. By that logic Marx and Lenin were crypto-fascists for being monogamous.
No.582366
>>582359>I think this place is very much male dominated and as such less influenced by socialist-feminist theory.>Emma Goldman wrote extensively for abolishment of monogamic relationships as the social norm. It is in most cases a posessive relationship of man over woman permitted by his relative economic power, even if the woman would never say this as she is conditioned to see it as perfectly fine and normal.Read Engels.
<Full freedom of marriage can therefore only be generally established when the abolition of capitalist production and of the property relations created by it has removed all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriage partner. For then there is no other motive left except mutual inclination.<And as sexual love is by its nature exclusive – although at present this exclusiveness is fully realized only in the woman – the marriage based on sexual love is by its nature individual marriage. We have seen how right Bachofen was in regarding the advance from group marriage to individual marriage as primarily due to the women. Only the step from pairing marriage to monogamy can be put down to the credit of the men, and historically the essence of this was to make the position of the women worse and the infidelities of the men easier. If now the economic considerations also disappear which made women put up with the habitual infidelity of their husbands – concern for their own means of existence and still more for their children’s future – then, according to all previous experience, the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrous.<But what will quite certainly disappear from monogamy are all the features stamped upon it through its origin in property relations; these are, in the first place, supremacy of the man, and, secondly, indissolubility. The supremacy of the man in marriage is the simple consequence of his economic supremacy, and with the abolition of the latter will disappear of itself. The indissolubility of marriage is partly a consequence of the economic situation in which monogamy arose, partly tradition from the period when the connection between this economic situation and monogamy was not yet fully understood and was carried to extremes under a religious form. Today it is already broken through at a thousand points. If only the marriage based on love is moral, then also only the marriage in which love continues. But the intense emotion of individual sex-love varies very much in duration from one individual to another, especially among men, and if affection definitely comes to an end or is supplanted by a new passionate love, separation is a benefit for both partners as well as for society – only people will then be spared having to wade through the useless mire of a divorce case.<What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it.<Let us, however, return to Morgan, from whom we have moved a considerable distance. The historical investigation of the social institutions developed during the period of civilization goes beyond the limits of his book. How monogamy fares during this epoch, therefore, only occupies him very briefly. He, too, sees in the further development of the monogamous family a step forward, an approach to complete equality of the sexes, though he does not regard this goal as attained. But, he says:<When the fact is accepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and is now in a fifth, the question at once arises whether this form can be permanent in the future. The only answer that can be given is that it must advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the creature of the social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved greatly since the commencement of civilization, and very sensibly in modern times, it is at least supposable that it is capable of still further improvement until the equality of the sexes is attained. Should the monogamian family in the distant future fail to answer the requirements of society … it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor. tl;dr, the end of said capitalist economic relations does not conclude in a ceasing of monogamous relationships being the norm, but rather more likely results in true monogamous sex-love relationship being the dominant kind of relationship. It is in fact the emancipation of woman in regards to economic affairs that results in sex-love being more exclusive in comparison to the infidelity of male dominated relationships of the past, or really any relationship which had one party exercising economic dominance over the other.
>Thats not to say that socialists want to abolish mono relationships themselves of course, but instead abolish them being soft-enforced by peer shaming, emotional or economic blackmail from the partner etc. That they should be result only of pure desire of that one person, not pushed into it by economic base or cultural superstructure.What the fuck does "soft enforcement" mean in the context of socialism? If a person is not fine with their partner sleeping around, they are under no requirement to stay with them, regardless of what think they should tolerate.
No.582367
>>582366Post this Engels quote in the comments section of the video OP linked.
No.582368
>>582366>And as sexual love is by its nature exclusive<Le human nature argument.Funny hearing this from Engels out of all people.
No.582370
>How do we refute the right-wing claim that leftists seek to "abolish" the family and romance?
Right wingers are pedophile bug people.
No.582371
>>582353He is anti-abortion and has said on livestream he thinks American abortion laws need to be more restrictive because "abortion divides the working class". What a fucking clown.
No.582372
>>582322We cant refute the family part because it's true. The family must be abolished and you shouldnt feel ashamed to say it. Most families are dysfunctional.
No.582373
>>582322>How do we refute the right-wing claim that leftists seek to "abolish" the familyWe don't. We do want to abolish the family. Read Marx, you reactionary twat.
No.582374
>>582373Marx never explicitly called for the family to be abolished.
No.582375
>>582358The weird sex stuff. If you guys make it work for you, assuming you’re legit, that’s fine and well, but don’t even think about putting this on the entire left movement.
I’m not a communist because I’m horny and want to fuck. I ‘ve got actual material needs to tend to, that capitalism won’t fix.
No.582376
>>582374The idea is more to abolish the oppressive normativity of the nuclear family, basically making it so that all types of family unit have equal legitimacy.
No.582378
>>582364I've been seeing him shilled on 4chan a bit so might have risen to the status of getting his own wojack. Le Paulface. He's pretty plain looking though.
No.582379
>>582371Abortion should be safe, free and freely available when people don't have to abort for economic reasons
Until that time it's a grey area
No.582380
>>582378He has that dead-eyed stare that's for sure.
No.582382
>>582381TBH I doubt Maupin has ever had sex. His wife is 44-years old and looks like the maid from Family Guy.
No.582383
>>582381why do we always get stuck with the annoying autists who try to follow typical social norms but in a
wrong way rather than the cool autists who come up with byzantine schemes and theories for things normal people don't notice, care about, or even conceptualize?
the left needs less sex guys and more monorail guys.
No.582384
>>582368It isn't a human nature argument though, at best its a statement on the "nature" or substance of "love".
No.582385
>>582374>These interpretations of Marx's and Engels' position on the family, while oftenraising important points, tend to obscure somewhat the radicalism of their views.
Marx's and Engels' critique of the family consisted of three main elements:
(1) a depiction of the hypocrisy and inhumanity of the contemporary bourgeois
family; (2) the historicisation of the family, i.e. a historical account of the origins
and development of the family in the past; and (3) a vision of the future 'family' in
communist society. While Marx once alluded to a higher form of the family in
communist society, he and Engels usually wrote about the destruction,
dissolution, and abolition of the family. The relationships they envisaged for
communist society would have little or no resemblance to the family as it existed
in nineteenth-century Europe or indeed anywhere else. Thus it is certainly
appropriate to define their position as the abolition of the family. Only by
making the term family almost infinitely elastic can they be said to have
embraced merely a reformulation of the family.
No.582386
>>582381Maupin has this weird aversion to sex. Like he thinks left adventurism is a result of sexual urges or something. Guy is off his rocker.
No.582387
>>582386maupin looks like the definition of asexual
No.582388
>>582387Why else do you think he's always ranting against "release of impulses"? He doesn't understand the place of sexuality in liberation politics, why sexual liberation has always been a huge part of the radical left, etc. For him, "socialism" just means "a strong central government mobilizing the population to build more stuff".
No.582389
>>582385>a vision of the future 'family' in communist society. While Marx once alluded to a higher form of the family in communist society, he and Engels usually wrote about the destruction, dissolution, and abolition of the family. The relationships they envisaged for communist society would have little or no resemblance to the family as it existed in nineteenth-century Europe or indeed anywhere else. Thus it is certainly appropriate to define their position as the abolition of the family. Only by making the term family almost infinitely elastic can they be said to have embraced merely a reformulation of the family.I think it should be clarified in regards to the modern day, because the term "family" has become elastic. For Marx and Engels, a man and a woman living monogamously together and sending their child to be raised in daycare or having them attend public school while they are busy for the day is an "abolition" or superseding of family. But to anyone else today, this would still constitute a family. I read the whole paper, and even the author concedes by the end that Marx and Engels conception of this for their time still has what could in all ways be defined as a family being a possibility, just not institutional legal "life-long" marriage. They were not Owens or Fourier, who wished to actually act to end any relation which even resembled our conception of one.
Also,
>RICHARD WEIKARTWeeeew, you really didn't research the background for this one, did you? You can tell in multiple places hints of the narrative trying to laid out subtly in the background and the how the information is given a certain bent to it, but it doesn't become fully clear until you realize who the author is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_WeikartResearch your sources better.
No.582390
>>582389>I read the whole paper, and even the author concedes by the end that Marx and Engels conception of this for their time still has what could in all ways be defined as a family being a possibility, just not institutional legal "life-long" marriage.Marx and Engels aren't saying people will be prevented from forming monogamous "marriages", just that the whole idea if marriage as a capitalist institution will cease to be. Like another anon said, other forms of human social relationships will be just as valid. For example, it is only until recently (30 years maybe) that people stopped looking down on children born out of "wedlock" and calling them "bastards"; as if that child is less valuable just because its parents didn't get a piece of paper from the church or magistrate.
>Weeeew, you really didn't research the background for this one, did you?Can you point out where he's wrong or makes a mistake, rather than committing a genetic fallacy?
No.582391
>>582386>>582387>>582388Next time he goes live drop him a superchat about the last time he's had sex.
No.582392
>>582381>more children is more better is incel logicHow the fuck can you think like such?
Would you rather have children to
CONTINUE the legacy of communism or
>hurr durr not following incel ideologyAND SURRENDERING THE WORLD TO LIB IDEOLOGY, THEREBY THE LAST PIECES OF LEFTISM IS GONE BY 2100?
Vid is for you.
No.582393
>>582392Correct. The more children under communism the better.
No.582394
>>582322>but I can't give any details to show how.I wonder why, fuckface.
No.582395
>>582390>Marx and Engels aren't saying people will be prevented from forming monogamous "marriages", just that the whole idea if marriage as a capitalist institution will cease to be. Yes, that is what I earlier said.
>Can you point out where he's wrong or makes a mistake, rather than committing a genetic fallacy?Its less about how its wrong, but how he twists some parts to suit a narrative, especially in his mentions of naturalism and Darwinism, and thereby taints the paper and leads one to question perhaps the purpose of it, with such a large grain of salt leading to the necessity of going into the sources to ensure the whole "story" is being given on other theorists besides just Marx.
No.582396
>>582337the divorce rates speak for themselves anon, marriage as a lasting institution can't even survive with capitalism due to the material stresses of modern living. its a dying institution even now, and taking up some social chauvinist cause and pretending it is communist is not going to resurrect marriage as an institution.
t. southerner
No.582397
>>5823221. Based
2. Based
3. kinda weird
4. Based
5. kinda weird
No.582398
>>582396Adding, Divorce is a new thing in society and it has become ubiquitous. Even 30 years ago, a divorce was social suicide. It feels like divorce was always on the table, but it really wasn't for 95% of the time since Marx and still isn't for many people because of economic dependency.
No.582399
>>582322Ask a right-winger if they support paid family leave.
If they say yes, ask them to name Republican politicians in federal office who support paid family leave.
No.582400
>>582324God I want my gf to commit socialism with me.
No.582401
>>582332>clearly overweight>healthyNo.
No.582402
>>582392>>582393There will be plenty of children. All you can say is that socialism will allocate resources more efficiently and flexibly so that people will be able to maintain some desired level of reproduction through climate change and beyond. That doesn't mean that you freaks have a "duty to populate the earth with as many children as possible" or whatever horny shit the mauptist said.
No.582404
>>582365Lenin wasn't monogamous. He died from syphilis from all the whores he slept with.
No.582405
>>582403>rootless cosmopolitansis this the new dog whistle for "jews"?
No.582407
>>582404Back that shit up with proof
No.582408
>>582405No the phrase "rootless cosmopolitans" was just a retort to snobbish people of elevated class calling proles and peasants "provincial" because they could not afford to travel.
No.582409
Point out it is capitalism, not socialism, that is destroying the family.
No.582410
>>582322A good start would be to abolish the romance around family and biological parents.
>>582327>>582355>>582376What makes you guys think that the extended family will be any better than the nuclear family, other than economic stability? While on one hand nuclear families suffer from cult-like atomization which can lead to concealed abuse, Extended families tend to suffer from things like lack of privacy or personal property, and with even more elders to scrutinize, supervise and control the young and enforce the parent's rules, kids are going to grow hyper-neurotic and paranoid.
Has anyone on this fucking website actually ever spent a single day in their lives living in a communal environment?
No.582411
>>582408And it was used as a dogwhistle for jews. you could literally pick something else like jetplane society.
No.582412
>>582411>And it was used as a dogwhistle for jews.Even Wikipedia, propaganda as it is, says that term doesn't necessarily apply to jews.
No.582414
>>582355>Thats more of an ancom thing but is popular among leftistsI have never heard this. Where are these ideas popular and who's propagating them?
No.582415
>>582363>'ve never seen a healthy polyamorous relationship. At all.I've seen many healthy ones but I see it go wrong a lot when people are young and the type of people who are big in to all the weird online poly terminology.
No.582417
>>582398>Divorce is a new thing in societyFalse.
No.582418
>>582363you've only seen polyamory under capitalism
No.582419
>>582418so it clearly is a side effect of late capitalism and will likely be swept away with the abolition of capitalism
No.582421
>>582419Could just as easily be a new positive development that has not finished developing
No.582422
>>582418Does it matter? Those kinds of social dynamics probably won't change much under socialism given that most of them have to do with things like need for emotional (not financial) security and stability.
No.582424
>>582423Well I don't think the government could do much to ensure poly relationships remain intact. About 90% of the poly people I know are comrades who do it for ideological (not romantic) reasons. It becomes more about living a "subversive" lifestyle than it does about emotional care of others.
No.582425
>>582351>>582361Protip: if abortion had truly been rampant in the CPUSA that would have been one of the first things the feds would have used to demonize the Party. There's nothing about this in any document aside from stuff about a few back alley abortionists having Party connections.
No.582428
>>582322You can't argue with these types of people. You're better off solely discussing economics rather than culture.
No.582429
are you a boomer, OP? only boomers would be reject traditional marriage (despite their high divorce rate)
>>582398there's stipulations and policy surrounding divorce in the Code of Hammurabi, the oldest legal document in the world.
No.582430
>>582429would reject arguments against traditional marriage*
No.582431
>>582398I grew up in the 90s (born in 1988) and I knew far more kids with divorced parents than with married parents.
My neighborhood was middle-class.
No.582432
>>582322>3. communists want to take children away and put them all in communes where they have no clue who their bio parents are,Just asking, but is there ANY pragmatic reason to do something like this?
The only thing I can think of is some ultra-leftists who read way too much PoMo shit wanting to do away with the distinction between bio relatives and "chosen" relatives, but even that seems ridiculous. Blood ties are always going to be stronger. There's a reason why every utopian socialist experiment which involved raising children in common without any distinction between whose kids were biologically whose always ended up with birth mothers taking their bio kids out of the system. That's not because those women were selfish, but because it's your natural instinct as a mother to want to care for your own flesh and blood.
If your bio kid needed a kidney to survive, you'd immediately donate yours, but if someone else's kid needed a kidney to survive, you'd tell them to fuck off. See what I mean?
No.582433
>>582432You’re right how that kibbitz shit is weird, but this is idealism.
No.582434
>>582433Leftism always goes down the toilet when it becomes less about class and economics and more about cultural experimentation. Marxism isn't hard to understand. What makes it confusing is when petit-bourgeois intellectuals and hipsters turn it into something more than economics and property relations and replace those things with notions of which revolutionary subject is the most pure, fetishization of the lumpen and underdeveloped third world cultures, weird spiritual apocalyptism, obsession with violence and tearing shit down, belief that white people can't be "true" socialists, belief that you have to be transgender in order to be a "real" revolutionary, demand for all distinctions between friends and lovers to be done away with, etc. A lot of this junk comes out of French philosophy and the French are just weird, but Americans and others willingly buy into this stuff without realizing it has nothing to do with actual Marxism.
No.582435
>>582433It can't be idealism if it's based in biological instincts.
No.582436
>>582434>What makes it confusing is when petit-bourgeois intellectuals and hipsters turn it into something more than economics and property relations and replace those things with notions of which revolutionary subject is the most pure, fetishization of the lumpen and underdeveloped third world cultures, weird spiritual apocalyptism, obsession with violence and tearing shit down, belief that white people can't be "true" socialists, belief that you have to be transgender in order to be a "real" revolutionary, demand for all distinctions between friends and lovers to be done away with, etcYet you're totally not fetishising the mythical white working class right?
No.582437
>>582436No. I'm saying that Marxism is primarily about economics, and turning it into all of this cultural nonsense is what makes it unnecessarily complicated.
"Communism is about transcending the laws of physics" – that kind of stuff has zero place on the left.
No.582439
>>582437Culture is downstream of the economics, you must address it.
No.582440
>>582439Not to the point where it becomes ridiculously absurd.
No.582441
>>582437>I'm saying that Marxism is primarily about economicsThat really doesn't give enough credit to Marxism. It's about much more than just economics.
But you can say that economic substructure determines the political superstructure. And political superstructure reinforces economic substructure. Economic substructure and political superstructure are in a dialectical unity.
The political superstructure will protect and enhance its economic substructure with financial policy, fiscal policy, constitutions, laws, protests, debates, the use of violence and oppression, propaganda… any means necessary to ensure that the element of the ownership/influence to the means of production and other constituents of relations of production is either unchanged or only partly changed in order to save others.
Theory and practice are also dialectically united. You can modify the theory through obtaining feedback from practice and then use the modified theory to guide the practice and then so on and so forth. Marxism's elements are not separate, still, or absolute… but dialectical, developing, and transforming. Marxism is (or at least intends to become) the dialectical unity of natural science and philosophy.
I also think part of Marxism is about collectively changing the world for the better.
And if a theory can't change the world, then its millions of pages of writing are as useless as toilet papers no matter how logical and self-consistent it may sound.
No.582444
>>582437Yes, there are certain spooky ideas that some leftists espouse that we shouldn't consider leftist, but it's hardly like you're immune to that, stop acting as if muh woke sjews are in any way representative of actual Marxists. You're just crying about what liberals do and using that as a stick to beat progressive leftists with. And even the worst liberals don't demand that everyone become transgender so stop crying about Ben Shapiro strawmen.
No.582445
>>466946
Go love someone that shares your brainworms then and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing then, not that hard.
No.582446
>>582432>Just asking, but is there ANY pragmatic reason to do something like this?Not really. It's less about "destroying blood relations/categorizations" and much more about getting rid of the divide between domestic labour.
No.582447
>>582322Anyone got any info on this Paul Kengor guy?
No.582449
>>582396yeah go to Joe Blow and tell him you want to abolish marriage, see which side he supports when the fascists are knocking down your door
No.582451
Anti-family is anti-Marxist. Plain and simple.
The working class wants stability. That's why they put so much value in marriage and family. Taking that away from them will not only cause them to turn against communism but will also make the revolutionary society deeply unstable.
As communists, we want to see a strong society, and that entails strong families with many healthy children.
No.582452
>>582451If you're going to make so many claims about the preferences of the working class then cite some anthropology studies.
No.582454
>>582451So bored of seeing retards talk of us like we're an alien species with a verified TRUST ME BRO, IM A MARXIST citation.
No.582457
>>582449>yeah go to Joe Blow and tell him you want to abolish marriage, see which side he supports when the fascists are knocking down your doorHe's not going to suddenly support you if you don't say this. Why are so many people here this naive about politics? It's not like said person is some secret commie in waiting, that if you only never said such words to him, then he would have defended you when fascists kicked down your door. If that's all it took for him to be ok with fascists killing you, then he already was practically ok with them killing you, and only really needed any reason at all to do it. If it wasn't family, it would be religion. If it wasn't religion, it would just be because your a communist as opposed to a capitalist. For the most liberals, you are already a write off.
No.582458
>>582451>that entails strong families with many healthy children.No chin, no right to speak.
No.582459
Romance is shit, we should abolish it. It's not love, it's infatuation cranked up to 11.
No.582460
>>582451as caballo says, there are no /pol/acks just larping as leftists and they don't shit up the board
this is a legitimate take on leftypol
being retarded to the max and showing you not only did not read theory but contradict it because of your /pol/ beliefs is fundamental to be part of this board
No.582461
>>582460silly me, i forgot this faggot is just one good faith argument away to change his mind and stop pretending that his shit is marxist
it's totally not on purpose and he is just "confused"
have faith comrades, the /pol/acks are our future! caballo is leading the way
No.582462
>>582461???? The split happened because the leftychan mods thought that Caballo among others were "moderating like reddit" and they wanted less moderation for right wing memers.
What fucking psyop shit are you guys pushing now? Get your story straight for once.
No.582464
>How do we refute the right-wing claim that leftists seek to "abolish" the family and romance?
Irrelevant misinformation and propaganda that's plain as day. It confuses inpol with a genuine materialist platform for solving real class-based problems.
The pioneering and seminal work of communist anthropology that addresses these kinds of relationships was Engel's The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. It is a descriptive, scientific work that analyzes the historical evidence in an attempt to illuminate these questions.Notably it is considered one of the first works of feminist economics because it analyzes the property relations between the sexes and how these evolved with the development of capital. What it does lead to however are results which put into doubt the origins of patrilineal and male-centered power and property relations which under the conservative ideology have been rendered "traditional" or even "natural" and whose logical byproduct is the subjugation of women. Earlier in the development of civilization primitive societies were matrilineal and communal and over the course of history changed. Nowhere does Engels make a normative, proscriptive judgement that this order should be "abolished", unlike he and Marx elsewhere state for bourgeois economic structures. He merely describes what happened.
Indeed a proper reading is that once the bourgeois order is properly abolished, these family relations would naturally readjust as the property relations instructing them and scaffolding their shape would disappear . In contrast to the bourgeois relations, in which love and sex are instructed by the considerations of property and inheritance, the proletariat is the only group who displays authentic relations to marriage because, being dispossessed, chose marriage and family based solely on natural affections .
No.582465
>>582322This video is asinine.
No.582466
>>582322I unironically wish I was raised in an orphanage. A quality one though, not one where I'd get raped daily. If I was raised in a half-decent orphanage I think I would have turned out a lot better.
No.582468
>>582427Like always Maupin has no fucking clue as to what he’s talking about.
No.582471
>>467962
They have less of everything there.
No.582472
>>582468He isn't wrong though. Syndies did push Malthusianism for those exact reasons, although the "dedicated fanatics" stuff is a bit exaggerated.
No.582473
>>468459
Out-of-context.
No.582475
>>468472
Those things have fuck all to do with Marxism, silly.
No.582476
>>582371Or, because he sees the prevalence of abortion as a sign of pessimism.
No.582477
>>582410>no repliesUpper middle class kids LARPing as always
No.582479
>>582477attacking biological parenthood might be the prelude to something much more sinister: turning children into commodities.
No.582481
>>582478Why is the typical poly "couple" always couple male incels and one fat woman?
No.582482
>>582481Desperation. It is repulsive in everyone.
No.582483
>>582479This.
Again, I've never understood this weird concept of trying to do away with distinctions between biological parents and children. What purpose does it really serve?
No.582484
>>582481>>582482>Why are people different than me 😡😡😡Cringe.
No.582485
>>582484An ugly incel is no different than me.
But some people are desperate to have their smelly organs touched. The hamplanet gets to feel like a stacy giving up her rotten coochie up to ratfaced nerds. The sniveling orbiters get to have their noodle peepees touched by her clammy hooves.
No.582486
>>582481just watch the video, not the thumbnail
>>582483>Again, I've never understood this weird concept of trying to do away with distinctions between biological parents and children. What purpose does it really serve?Liberalism has a very dark premise: rich people get to buy or rent the bodies of poor people. This is extremely unpalatable (to put it mildly) to most people, and therefore they are trying to disguise it ideologically.
No.582487
>>582485and what is wrong with that, shit-for-brains? are you jealous or something? lmao.
No.582488
>>582486Just look at how the vast majority of adoptions are done: babies-on-demand for rich white yuppies, coming to them via the wombs of prole women.
No.582489
>>582483Who is trying to do away with this exactly?
No.582490
>>582489sounds like boomer conspiracy shit. "they're taking away our shit" scare.
No.582491
>>582487Oh no. Youre like that description, yes?
No.582492
>>582491No, and if I was, how the fuck does that affect you? It's so childish… please fix yourself.
No.582493
>>582322What do you if they meet the people with these opinions in this thread?
No.582494
>>582483>concept of trying to do away with distinctions between biological parents and children.What did he mean by this?
No.582495
>>582479…As if parents don't already treat their biological spawn like commodities and property?
No.582496
>>582476>the prevalence of abortion as a sign of pessimism.Why would this be the case? Controlling your body isn’t a sign of pessimism.
No.582497
>>582496It, like everything else, depends on context. It depends on whether you want to eventually have children or not.
No.582498
>>582325Liberalism and marxism are two sides of the same materialistic anti-human coin.
No.582499
>>582498>materialistic I don't think you understand what materialism is philosophically if you think this to be an issue. And liberalism can barely be called materialist in many of it's assumptions.
>anti-humanExplain. Marxism is an analysis of human society and it's economic development, it's as "human" as it gets.
No.582500
>>582497What do you mean?
No.582501
>>582483This is much more of an anarchist thing, not a Marxist one.
Funny how the "worst" aspects of leftism ALWAYS come from anarchists.
No.582502
>>582322Kengor has a very punchable face.
No.582504
>>582322I'd assume the only reason why communists would discourage others from having children and starting families is because taking care of kids takes attention away from the struggle.
No.582507
>>582322Paul Kengor has to be the worst anti-Marxist on YouTube. Sowell is a better anti-communist than he is.
No.582508
>>582507Sowell is probably the only good American anti-communist to exist, solely because he actually read Marx. Most anti-communists rely almost entirely on propaganda and ignorance.
No.582509
>>582322LeFtIsTs have families yet they exist!11!!
iphone Vuvuzela 100 Zillion Dead!!!!11!!
They do not argue sincerely. Therefore there is no evidence, no argument, no experience that would be accepted to 'refute' rightist 'argumentation' as it is fundamentally designed to be a gish gallop stalling tactic to frustrate. It is rhetoric and sophistry intended to exhaust, not logical argumentation aimed at empowerment or improving future decision making for the listener(s).
The best thing you can do as a leftist is fight for polices and to provide mutual aide to families directly, without means testing or prejudice. When the unconvinced people see their own day to day concerns are helped by 'the left', the rightist's 'argument' will fall apart. The 'left' is unnecessary to the left, the policies and real material empowerment of people are all. To the right the 'right' is all and they will both sacrifice and torture their own people to save a brand.
No.582510
>>582505You forgot your flag ThingNoticer.
No.582514
>>582512as young KJU is I'd be weirded out by a nation calling me daddy.
No.582515
>ignores entirety of the thread so far and posts a worthless reply
every time
No.582516
>the left paying the price for ultra anarkiddy cultural opinions again
No.582517
>>582322Remember that bill that right wing Democrats like Manchin and Republicans won't vote for? Pass the damn thing.
The far left hates familes, that's why we want to subsidize children.
>Rightwing Deathcult Intensifies No.582519
>>582322by pointing to the fact that the nuclear family still existed in the soviet union, communist china, communist cuba and pretty much most existing socialist places
and that these places tend to have normal family dynamics that we see in the capitalist countries
No.582520
>>582518Schizophrenia the article.
No.582523
>>582322Simple: stop associating with or promoting degenerates
No.582524
>>582510ThingNoticer posts about gays and liberals, not this kinda shit.
No.582525
>>582451>>582453>>582452>>582458not that anon but yes, The People have historically fought and struggled for something that is nigh-instinctual (as part of evolution) the improvement of their lives and the lives of their…. can you guess it? Yes, their FAMILIES. Back in the days of Pinkertons, American and European strikebreakers focused on threatening the families of those leading Unions and on killing Union leaders, the reason being that the fear of self-preservation and the preservation of FAMILY influenced people to back off, but conditions got so bad that the proletariat had nothing to lose and threats ceased to matter, your family could die either from starvation or a mercenary, the difference became nil. That's the reason modern capitalism has what Konstanin Syemin called, "nonhungry poverty" People live like shit, but they have just enough to lose that they don't get motivated to go full-revolution without the CIA controlling the direction.
How do I know this? Besides literature on Unions, that's the current reality in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and other former Soviet Asian countries - we have strike breakers murder and rape family members of leaders (who get imprisoned) just to continue the oligarchy.
So yes, the average worker cares about maintaining their family and their family is a major concern. It is in fact CAPITALISM that acts against family interests and we see this in the 70s and 80s as the market changed and wages lost value forcing wives and mothers to work full jobs as well leaving them limited time to interact with family, alienating them from their husbands, parents and children, and the same applies for men too. This serves porky, and this is something Paul Robeson noted back in the mid 60s.
No.582526
>>582500 Not that anon but:
People usually do abortions because they don't want or can't afford to have children, born out of the pessimism of "life sucks, no need for kids to be in it too"
No.582527
>>582525>People live like shit, but they have just enough to lose that they don't get motivated to go full-revolution without the CIA controlling the direction. Isn’t this an argument for why socialists shouldn’t have families?
No.582528
>>582506The USSR also had documents that registered you as part of a family, hell unlike American Passports, Soviet ones also listed your spouse and children in ID information meaning that you didn't need to carry a separate birth certificate for a child if you crossed a border (like Canada and the USA often require).
The reason for documents of marriage and the like is because in a complex organized society, documents help make sure that, in the case of, say, a need to resettle a family because an apartment building is condemned, they don't send different family members to live in different places and the family can prove that they live together.
Marx and Engels criticized the traditionalism of capitalist family structures because they based themselves on purely symbolic ideas and had nothing to do with loving relationships or the like, it was pure bureaucratic symbolism. That has nothing to do with dissolving the family in and of itself.
> families were very common and important in the USSR and in china they are very important too, way more than in the degenerate soulless west where you can shit on your parents and boomers, that would get you a big slap in China. Absolutely based, same in the USSR, until the 90s and 2000s respect for elders remained pretty high up, and kids that didn't do so got no respect from other kids.
t.Rusanon
No.582529
>>582527>Isn’t this an argument for why socialists shouldn’t have familiesUnironically any person that seeks to be a Revolutionary should not have a family, because they'd be essentially setting them up to suffer. If your spouse is ready for a revolution like you and doesn't have children that might come under fire (literal or figurative) then you're good to go but otherwise being a "revolutionary" while your family is not, is a scummy thing to do.
The Bolsheviks and the communists of 1917 fought and struggled because they sought to defend their families, but otherwise kept a loe profile and for more than just their safety.
No.582530
>>582529Addendum: After a revolution, having a family is of course possible, but before then you'd be literally painting a target on their backs unless you literally had nothing else to lose.
No.582531
>>582528>The USSR also had documents that registered you as part of a family, hell unlike American Passports, Soviet ones also listed your spouse and children in ID information meaning that you didn't need to carry a separate birth certificate for a child if you crossed a border (like Canada and the USA often require). The USSR was still a socialist state which still had to operate in the confines of the limitations set by such circumstances. For a communist society, there is really no use for such legal institutions, a family is simply a family.
>The reason for documents of marriage and the like is because in a complex organized society, documents help make sure that, in the case of, say, a need to resettle a family because an apartment building is condemned, they don't send different family members to live in different places and the family can prove that they live together. This is not really an issue if people are given the choice to select if where they wish to live and who they wish to live with. I don't get this need to "prove" you live together. If you want to live together, you live together. If you don't want to live together, you don't live together. The documents involved should be no more complicated then submiting a change in address.
>Marx and Engels criticized the traditionalism of capitalist family structures because they based themselves on purely symbolic ideas and had nothing to do with loving relationships or the like, it was pure bureaucratic symbolism. That has nothing to do with dissolving the family in and of itself. Nobody ever argued in this thread in regards to actually dissolving "families", or at least the more "flexible" interpretation of such that now exists (that is to say, no one is interested in ending couples having children, those couples being involved in their children's lives, and all of those people operating together as a self declared unit).
No.582532
>>582529Che had family, kids and a wife and he loved them a lot, he made sure they were in good hands (Cuba) when he went to fight in Congo and Bolivia.
The kids were sad ofc, but at least his daughter Aleida understands why he had to go, she still lives in Cuba.
No.582533
You simply abolish the family and then there will be no right wingers
No.582534
>>582531>there is really no use for such legal institutions, a family is simply a family. <simply given a choiceUtopian rubbish that has no material basis.
>Nobody ever argued in this thread in regards to actually dissolving "families" Mmmm no there have been a couple that did.
>>582525To add on some more - a repost
The OPSEC for organization
>>>/hobby/12845 Try discussing problems subtly when talking with people, slowly ease them in to the problems of society from a class conscious view but make sure they don't jump off into idpol. For example when I was once talking with some Black folk that were not really happy with "crackers". I appealed to their better nature - I brought up the fact that regardless of skin color we are both human, we bleed, we feel happiness and suffering and in that all are equal, the differences between us are things that the rich divided us with. It's not whitey oppressing them or some other racial issue, it's an issue of all people, and that they try to divide us with hate - come together as one and put aside your differences to build a better world for ourselves and our future kin. Those are the most basic and intrinsic of interests of any good faith working class person that unites all proletarians.
No.582535
>>582525That’s great and all, but the abolitionism of family is more about shattering the need for such a model, not it’s preservation.
I am getting tired of saying this, but socialism is the abolition of so many things, including the role of the proletariat. Not to preserve it, or worse romanticze and essentialise it. Does that mean that socialists want to get rid of these things? No, it means socialists want to move beyond these things. A caterpillar cannot become a butterfly until it leaves the cocoon.
No.582536
>>582535>the need for such a model, not it’s preservation.Good fucking luck convincing people to be socialist then.
>socialism is the abolition of so many things, including the role of the proletariat Excuse me? The role of the proletariat is to work the means of production. Obviously socialism seeks to make it owned by the people and not exploited labour, but it does not abolish labour in and of itself and that idea is pure utopian bullshit.
>move beyondBeyond to what? Half the things I hear that people expect or wish to move on to in communism is inane and frankly frighteningly selfish and ignorant. Various socialist ideologies have wildly differing visions of the future. That's the reason I stick to ML, it doesn't play at fantasies and it doesn't attack the main core things people seek and want.
No.582537
>>582536No retard, the role proletariat is defined by their relationship to the MoP. Ultimately socialism/communism means a new relation to it, thereby shattering the initial role of the proletariat. Also even Marx talked about abolition of the division of work.
I am not even justifying most of the socialist visions of the future, but commitment to the abolition of things within capitalism has to be its cornerstone. Anything less just makes you a closeted and edgier socdem.
No.582538
>>582532>Che had family, kids and a wifeHe also had them safe and hidden away from the countries he acted in, other people do not have this luxury. That's my point. Most people are not like Che, they do not have safe places so that they can freely act and fight and not have their families used as leverage against them.
No.582539
Not that anon
>>582536>Good fucking luck convincing people to be socialist then. As a communist, your goal is not to opportunistically appeal to people, but rather fundamentally change their way of thinking, Any bourgeoisie party can "convince" and "appeal" to the people.
>Excuse me? The role of the proletariat is to work the means of production. Obviously socialism seeks to make it owned by the people and not exploited labour, but it does not abolish labour in and of itself and that idea is pure utopian bullshit. Anon, what the fuck are you talking about? Socialism inevitably concludes with the literal abolition of class itself, including the proletarian class. The role of the proletariat is to be "abolished" (superseded), and not to be preserved. That doesn't mean people wont labour, but that anon never mentioned such a thing.
>That's the reason I stick to ML, it doesn't play at fantasies and it doesn't attack the main core things people seek and want.Then you're a rather poor ML, as ML isn't specifically concerned with what people themselves "want", because this can lead to all kinds of issues in regards to opportunistically "tailing" behind them as opposed to walking forward with them. What they "want", even on a core level, is socially contingent. Rather, ML is concerned mainly with what is necessary to supersede the very mechanisms of capitalism itself by means of first waging war against capitalism by means of established centers of revolution, centers which that require first development and then later on revolutionary export.
No.582540
>>582534>Utopian rubbish that has no material basis. Explain, why do families require such legal institutions?
>Mmmm no there have been a couple that did. Point to where.
No.582541
>>582537>the role proletariat is defined by their relationship to the MoP.<literally repeats the thing I said >Marx talked about abolition of the division of work Context? Because that is incredibly inane, you do realize that industrial production lines got made precisely because division of labor = more efficient use of labor. Moreover Marx is not gospel so you're ignoring that he is not infallible, something that he also was aware of.
>commitment to the abolition of things within capitalism has to be its cornerstone. True, but that doesn't mean "everything under capitalism must be changed or removed" because many things that exit under capitalism are only part of capitalism because they are intrinsic parts of human society, family being among them.
>nything less just makes you a closeted and edgier socdem. *laughs in ML* Ok then.
No.582542
>>582540>Point to wherescroll the thread, it's right there. I;m not spoonfeeding you
>require legal institutions I don't require documents to tell me who my family is. But a government cannot be expected to know who you or your family is without legal documentations and said institutions defining familial relations, any claim otherwise is pure utopian fantasy.
No.582543
>>582541> Because that is incredibly inane, you do realize that industrial production lines got made precisely because division of labor And? A new economic system (especially with automation) will redefine how work is allocated to the people. Just like capitalism that came before. Marx is well aware of that possibility, he just didn’t want to predict too much about beyond saying that abolition of it is possible.
> only part of capitalism because they are intrinsic parts of human society, family being among them. Spookiest shit I ever heard in my life. Do you even want to ruthlessly criticize all that exist or just want a redder capitalism?
No.582544
>>582539>our goal is not to opportunistically appeal to people<change their way of thinking Telling them that their entire way of life is wrong and that their priorities and values are wholly meaningless is only going to set them against you, not change their thinking, this is basic psychological cause and effect. I have talked down literal neo-nazis into becoming genuine socialists, not by saying everything you believe is bad but that that they aren't seeing the full picture and so their understandings are wrong because they lack information that I then provide. You have to appeal to people to reconsider their positions on things, not tell them to. TL;DR: Talk TO people not AT them.
>Any bourgeoisie party can "convince" and "appeal" to the people<appealing to people is bourg because bourgs do it too And you wonder why so many proles have reactionary mindsets? Kek.
>Socialism inevitably concludes with the literal abolition of class itself, including the proletarian class But people and the need for LABOUR and PRODUCTION does not disappear. They are still proletarians, they are still a group but since there is no hierarchy of classes they aren't a class anymore either.
>that anon never mentioned such a thing. That anon is being ambiguous as fuck IMO. Such big phrases and yet the problem is theory needs precise examples to act upon to make sure it gets put into practice.
>ML isn't specifically concerned with what people themselves "want"Yes it does, because in practise you don not get the proletariat to fight a revolution appealing to some nebulous ideas of "abolishing the proletariat as a class - the idea goes over the heads of the average layman, especially those living in a reactionary capitalist system and so often not class conscious. ML ideology underestand this and so it seeks to appeal to people using things they understand and keep them while abolishing superfluous things that people don't feel heavily attached to.
>to opportunistically "tailing" behind them as opposed to walking forward with themBud, you're expecting too much.
>centers which that require first development and then later on revolutionary export. Yes, but to do this in the first place you have to be accepted by the masses as an ideology to be a part of.
No.582545
>>582543>A new economic system (especially with automation) 1) Marx had no idea about these things because they didn't exist in his time.
2) Automation is over-rated and a human factor is often needed
3) Work isn't bad, wageslavery is
>didn’t want to predict too much about beyond saying that abolition of it is possible. And that's the reason I cannot be fully behind this approach to socialism - if MARX held unsurity to his prediction, then it is logical that one shouldn't believe it unquestioningly.
>red capitalism<Capitalism is when you have family Yeaah you clearly didn't read Marx carefully given that he literally states that socialism will retain parts of social structure present under capitalist superstructure because
A) Some things aren't intrinsically capitalist just because they exist under capitalism
B) You cannot feasibly expect to abolish capitalist structures all at once, that goes against dialectical materialism.
No.582546
>>582545Automation is just machinery but in 21st century. Marx was right that productivity will and can grow in levels not seen before. I am not saying automation will render all work obsolete, but increase productivity that justifies reduction of hours and resources.
> And that's the reason I cannot be fully behind this approach to socialism But no one is saying what the new family model will be, only that the current one will end.
> he literally states that socialism will retain parts of social structure present under capitalist superstructure And the current family structure isn’t one of them retard.
No.582547
>>582542>scroll the thread, it's right there. I;m not spoonfeeding youNot an answer.
>I don't require documents to tell me who my family is. But a government cannot be expected to know who you or your family is without legal documentations and said institutions defining familial relations, any claim otherwise is pure utopian fantasy.And? We're discussing communism, for what reason would the family require any kind of established institution defining familial relations?
>>582544>Telling them that their entire way of life is wrong and that their priorities and values are wholly meaningless is only going to set them against you, not change their thinking, this is basic psychological cause and effect. I have talked down literal neo-nazis into becoming genuine socialists, not by saying everything you believe is bad but that that they aren't seeing the full picture and so their understandings are wrong because they lack information that I then provide. You have to appeal to people to reconsider their positions on things, not tell them to. TL;DR: Talk TO people not AT them.No, and I say this as one of those who intially came from being previously immersed in the far-right. Not once did my views change because someone on the left tried to opportunistically "appeal" to my sensibilities, as if to try and warp their socialism to try to fit into the confines of my already held views like some kind of used car salesmen. Every socialist who did so reeked of the same dishonesty, shallowness, and spinelessness which I had grown to despise the far-right over. You aren't being forward with me, you're just being condescending the worst possible way, that pitiable way that implicilty assumes another to be lesser and incapable.
>And you wonder why so many proles have reactionary mindsets? Kek. Because every day they live in world where such things are sold to them in order to "appeal" to them, rather then attempting to actually permit them to change their way of thinking. Your way is the way of a person who thinks of the workers as lesser, as those who need to be talked to like children and bribed into socialism. At no point is there a shred of respect in the sense that you know what is true, and wish to inform them because they are deserving of it.
>But people and the need for LABOUR and PRODUCTION does not disappear. They are still proletarians, they are still a group but since there is no hierarchy of classes they aren't a class anymore either.No you idiot, have you even read Marx? They are not proletarian, as a proletarian is something which only exists in the context of the larger existence of the mechanisms of capitalism and the bourgeoisie. To be a proletarian is to be a class.
>That anon is being ambiguous as fuck IMO. Such big phrases and yet the problem is theory needs precise examples to act upon to make sure it gets put into practice.Again, he never stared what you said.
>Yes it does, because in practise you don not get the proletariat to fight a revolution appealing to some nebulous ideas of "abolishing the proletariat as a class - the idea goes over the heads of the average layman, especially those living in a reactionary capitalist system and so often not class conscious. ML ideology underestand this and so it seeks to appeal to people using things they understand and keep them while abolishing superfluous things that people don't feel heavily attached to.Again, you don't view the workers as a people actually capable of understanding the necessity of the revolution itself, rather you condescendingly look down on them as pitiable creatures that can truely be no better, who need to be bribed and cajoled into socialism to be of any "use". No, they cannot actually be expected to better themselves or have any knowledge of thing, rather they must be flattered like a child. You're the one in this thread who needs to read actual Marxist Leninist theory, because Lenin explicitly rejected this view of the workers.
>Bud, you're expecting too much.I don't think I am at all. I'm expecting what I would actually expect of those I hold to have the capacity for improvement.
>Yes, but to do this in the first place you have to be accepted by the masses as an ideology to be a part of.That isn't done by just playing to their perceived sensibilities and warping your actual views as if they are incapable and pitiable.
No.582548
>>582545automation is overrated you say?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing)Existing "lights-out factories"
FANUC, a Japanese robotics company, has been operating as a lights-out factory since 2001.[6] Robots are building other robots at a rate of about 50 per 24-hour shift and can run unsupervised for as long as 30 days at a time. "Not only is it lights-out," says Fanuc vice president Gary Zywiol, "we turn off the air conditioning and heat too."[7]
In the Netherlands, Philips uses lights-out manufacturing to produce electric razors, with 128 robots made by Adept Technology. There are only nine human quality assurance workers who oversee the end of the manufacturing process.[8]
In the manufacturing of integrated circuits using 300 mm wafers, the entire manufacturing process is completely automated, with workers only making sure that the process runs without problems and repairing any faulty machinery.
No.582549
>>582548tho this still requires a human factor but given enough time well things will change
No.582550
>>582546> am not saying automation will render all work obsolete, but increase productivity that justifies reduction of hours and resources. that's obvious enough
>o one is saying what the new family model will be, only that the current one will end THAT'S THE PROBLEM, you're telling people that "yeah get rid of this but replacing it? ah that'll come up after, there is no replacement to that planned. People qill take the dark qolf they know to the dark wolf they know not, is a proverb I've red from holocaust victims speaking of those that refused to escape a camp because the risk of death was higher from fleeing than in staying. People need to have some sort of guarantee that the life they are throwing away is worth something better, that's why so many revolutions happen after people are pushed to the brink of having noting to lose, something capitalism recognized and took steps to avoid repeating.
>the current family structureWhich one? The one in Russia, in the USA in India? You keep saying these things like every family is the exact same shit, as if people are not individuals that have individual family dynamics and family units. And frankly Marx's own attitude about family (especially his own) is so clinical and cold that it scarcely surprises me that he didn't take that into account, especially given the conditions of family in 1890s capitalism and today differ greatly, hell, family units have changed repeatedly and rapidly in the past 70 years alone, so imprecise claims of abolishment is just grand statements that have no substance.
The proletariat needs something to grasp in a revolution and ideological platitudes about "abolishing x and y" don't resonate among people. That's the reason liberals get so much support, they're dead wrong on almost everything, but they appeal to identity and so emotional attachments of the people and so rally them around bourg ideas, because people hope to improve shit for themselves this way (or at least feel better).
>>582547>not an answer blow it out your ass then lazy
>for what reason would the family require any kind of established institution defining familial relations?<communism has no government or organization This is the reason I say you are an idealist utopian
No.582551
>>582548>AI is gooooood<junkepedia<muh robots!!!! Did NOBODY learn from Tesla's garbage attempt?
Machine learning is very useful for certain tasks, like design optimization. On a technical level this is solving problems by a brute force computational method. Obviously that's not going to work for every problem, but can work for SOME problems. Eliminating a human factor entirely is dumb as fuck. Nobody is saying "robot bad" but this kind of fantasy is the kind of shit that is driving humanity into an unironic cyberpunk dystopia, not your idealist concept of communism.
No.582552
>>582550>blow it out your ass then lazyAgain, not an answer.
>communism has no government or organization Communism has no state, I never said it lacked organization. You still didn't give a reason for an established institution being necessary.
>This is the reason I say you are an idealist utopianRead Marx already you faggot, nothing I stated was idealist or utopian, and I don't think you understand what these mean in the context of discussing communism.
No.582553
>>582547>ou're just being condescending the worst possible way, that pitiable way that implicilty assumes another to be lesser and incapable.Yeah no, showing compassion and appealing to a persons common sense and intelligence is the exact opposite of that, and your experiences are called not APPEALING to a person but PANDERING to them.
>our way is the way of a person who thinks of the workers as lesseYou're projecting your own subconscious attitude about workers. I am a prole, I'm from a prole family, I live below the poverty line, so don't tell me that I'm being condescending about the class of people I know and live around. As I stated before, the proletariat in capitalist countries is not class conscious and rejects communism if they're just said to "accept it" because that's telling them to surrender their agency because someone else told them to, why the fuck would they listen? Capitalism doesn't do that, because the experience of Union Strikes, the rise of the USSR and the vehement fight against openly repressive fascism indicated that forcing an ideology without support of the proles is impossible. Why do you think Lenin called for participation in bourg elections? Because he recognized that the true purpose of this qould be to get their message out to the people, promising Land, Peace and Bread, not some generic waffling about some grandiose dialectical progression that people barely care about.
>such things are sold to them in order to "appeal" to themNo, it's spammed to them and TOLD to them that it is good, see They Live for an intertextual allegory of this. Obviously to make sure it organically gets continued by the people it has to appeal to something, such as greed, or laziness or any other vice that capitalism thrives on. And to double down, there is no method of ethically consuming under capitalism, so people are forced to make do.
>talaked to like childrenAh yes, because the average Joe understands the intricacies of Base-Superstructure, or Capitalism's exploitation of worker through profit. There is a reason that EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL MOVEMENT TO EXIST has SLOGANS, because people easily identify with that and often do not know to look deeper. So yes, talking to nonclass conscious people is like talking to a child - you have to walk them through things and make them palatable to an uninitiated mind.
This reminds me of my Chemistry professor in College, she expected us all to have a certain level of understanding on the subject because that's the point of Highschool, and over 50% of the class consistently failed her "Beginner" level class because she refused to change her teaching methods and account for people coming in to a BEGINNER CLASS utterly ignorant of anything because high schools didn't have any standardization and quality control on the material they taught. The connection? People that are NOT class conscious are like those 50% that failed that class, preaching philosophy that they were taught to hate in a knee-jerk reaction is not going to get through to them, because they see a incomprehensible enemy in it.
>Did you read Marx<not proletariat Proletarian is another termin for worker, if they are still doing work, then they are proles.
>he never stared what you said. Literally states abolition of family, yet provides no explanation as to the structure after. You're being intentionally obtuse.
>you don't view the workers as a people actually capable of understandingNo YOU don't view them as PEOPLE at all, you view them the way a programmer views a computer, something you can just upload a program into. People understand the necessity of a REVOLUTION because revolutions have NEVER been initiated by someone preaching some ambiguous shit, that'd be RELIGION, and even religion starts off by appealing to people. I believe people can be better, but to believe that they can be better I must also understand that they need to be made AWARE of the true problems in socio-economic terms AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THEM PERSONALLY, because most people aren't going to risk everything on a revolution unless they already have something threatening their most important things or if they have nothing to lose anymore. This is seen in every historical revolution.
>flattered like a childThe fuck are you talking about, stop using big words that you don't understand.
>Lenin explicitly rejected this view of the workers Lenin is the one that marched under a banner of "Land, Peace, Bread" Lenin's efforts in the USSR included introducing literacy and educating people because, guess what, they ALL were ignorant as fuck and thus followed the Bolsheviks because of a hope for betterment from the horrific conditions of the Czardom, not because Lenin spouted "Marx said capitalism gets abolished on page X of book Y". That kind of discussion came AFTER the revolution, qhen people had fought for their freedom and needed to be more in depth in their understanding of communism so that the Soviet plans could proceed collectivization and the like.
>'m expecting what I would actually expect of those I hold to have the capacity for improvement. No, you're expecting people to be at a level they are not at and refuse to stoop down and uplift these people from their ignorance. They won't spontaneously become communists because you talk over their head about things.
>"ust playing to their perceived sensibilities and warping your actual views as if they are incapable and pitiable." he repeated like a broken recordI'm ick and tired of your hogwash, you are exactly the kind of condescending idealist ideologue that plagues leftism today.
No.582554
>>582322We are not for "nuclear families". "family structures" have been changing on its own for a while now around the world.
No.582555
>>582552>Waaaaaaaah SPOOONFEEEED MEEEEEE!!!!!You can repeat "not an answer" til the cows come home, I'm not doing your work for you.
>Communism has no state, I never said it lacked organizationI keep hearing this rubbish yet people never fucking expand on how the fuck that is supposed to function. And How is that organization going to be organized, by whom? And inb4 "the people" The people are not some amorphous being, they are individuals, organization results in a state, deal with it.
>y is it necesaryYou're just being bad faith at this point. Do you understand the scope of what organization implies? A system of organization is not a person, if you are not registered in that system you do not exist to that system legally speaking. This doesn't matter on an individual level, but that isn't the question here, is it.
>Read MarxNO U ULTRA FAGLORD, and read LENIN while you're at it.
>nothing I stated was idealist or utopiaLenin and Marx both point out idealism and utopianism as negatives/problems and your nebulous statements are exactly that kind of ideological tripe. You keep repeating things that you heard/read but do not comprehend the meaning or lack of meaning in those things, and so you essentially end up saying "it'll work out" like a lib.
No.582556
>>582550I am not going around telling people that I am abolishing the family unit to get rid of capitalism, I just won’t lie or pretend that with socialism comes the elimination of the present family unit.
> Which one? The one in Russia, in the USA in India?The nuclear family in the West.
I am not here to offer the proletariat temporary fixes and measures to make their lives easier. I am here to offer the proletariat a permanent solution to their problems with the temporary measures as a way to get them to listen to me. Fixating too much on things that exist will only lead to reforms or revolutions to redder capitalism. The proletariat has to imagine a better world to build socialism, and they can’t or won’t do it with full stomachs alone.
No.582557
>>582556>m, I just won’t lie or pretend that with socialism comes the elimination of the present family uninobody is saying lie you imbecile
>I am not here to offer the proletariat temporary fixes and measures to make their lives easier. You cannot make change in an instant, it is a gradual process and the people have a right to their own decisions.
No.582558
>>582555>Waaaaaaaah SPOOONFEEEED MEEEEEE!!!!!>You can repeat "not an answer" til the cows come home, I'm not doing your work for you<I don't have to back up my claim, it's just true ok? It's would be really easy for me to quote on this thread, but apparently not easy enough for me to actually do it. Again, not an answer.
>I keep hearing this rubbish yet people never fucking expand on how the fuck that is supposed to function. And How is that organization going to be organized, by whom? And inb4 "the people" The people are not some amorphous being, they are individuals, organization results in a state, deal withOrganization isn't what a state is you faggot, a state id a very particular thing which is historically contingent. You keep going on and on about being an ML, yet it seems you haven't even read the basics of Engels.
>You're just being bad faith at this point. No, I'm not. You can disagree with me, but nowhere have I argued in bad faith.
>Do you understand the scope of what organization implies? A system of organization is not a person, if you are not registered in that system you do not exist to that system legally speaking.Again, what does it matter in a non-property based society that such a thing does exist legally?
>This doesn't matter on an individual level, but that isn't the question here, is it.No, the question is why the concept of family requires legal institution, something which would only have any merit in property based relations.
>NO U ULTRA FAGLORD, and read LENIN while you're at it.I have you faggot.
>Lenin and Marx both point out idealism and utopianism as negatives/problems and your nebulous statements are exactly that kind of ideological tripe. No, it isn't. Again, I don't think you understand these terms as Marx and Lenin use them. Nothing I have stated is idealism or utopianism, unless you find Marx and Lenin to be idealist and utopian.
>You keep repeating things that you heard/read but do not comprehend the meaning or lack of meaning in those things, and so you essentially end up saying "it'll work out" like a lib.In what way do I not comprehend the meaning in what I am saying you pretentious faggot? I am not saying "It'll work out", I'm stating the fucking reality of how the material base of society determines even the existence of the state itself and how the existence of the state is something which becomes superfluous in communism, itself dying out as what class relation which make it in any way necessary dissipate and it's institutions made redundant. As Engels puts it:
<Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organisation of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour). The state was the official representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase "a free people's state", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency [117]; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand. No.582559
>>582558>back up my claimYou are the one that made a claim about qhat I said and I told you to scroll up and read posts, you disengenous faggot
>Not an ansqer it is an answer, look up the definition of answer and stop spewing your word-salad diatribes
>More idealism more bullshit, more nonsenseYeah I'm done, I'm not going to qaste time arguing with an ideologue that literally just repeate the same dogmatic statements and ignores what is being said.
No.582560
>>582558Also
>Engels<I'm not saying It'll work out, but I'm saying [it'll work out] You have provided NOTHING CLOSE to framing a basic feasible concept or plan in regards to socialism and how it moves forward. Marx and Engels made long term predictions for the distant future and did not expect to be leading Revolutions or planning any concrete details, but those that take their ideas and seek to go by them, are REQUIRED to have such planning or reap the consequences, as did every single anarchist movement.
>basics of EngelsLike I said, repeating dogmatic statements does not mean you comprehend them, just as a Myna Bird does not comprehend that swearwords are curses but repeats them anyway because it likes the sound of them.
>nowhere have I argued in bad faith. Then you're just Uranium-tier dense.
>merit in property based relations <personal property doesn't exist <Housing, water supplies, judicial decisions and healthcare don't require documentation to make sure that the right people get them. You're like those people that conflate wage labor and work as th exact same thing.
No.582561
>>582559>You are the one that made a claim about qhat I said and I told you to scroll up and read posts, you disengenous faggotI asked you where you faggot. The vast, vast majority seem to simply clarify what abolishment of the family means.
>it is an answer, look up the definition of answer and stop spewing your word-salad diatribesIt's not an answer, it's a dodge. You could easily have linked me to them if they were as commonly stated as you implied. In no way am I using word salad either you fag.
>Yeah I'm done, I'm not going to qaste time arguing with an ideologue that literally just repeate the same dogmatic statements and ignores what is being said.Cna you make even a single argument you faggot without devolving into Twitter-esc handwaves that don't actually address any of what I have stated?
>>582560>You have provided NOTHING CLOSE to framing a basic feasible concept or plan in regards to socialism and how it moves forward. Marx and Engels made long term predictions for the distant future and did not expect to be leading Revolutions or planning any concrete details, but those that take their ideas and seek to go by them, are REQUIRED to have such planning or reap the consequences, as did every single anarchist movement.If you're implying I'm an anarchist, fuck right the hell off. I'm probably more of an ML then you are, to the point of going beyond even "traditional" Marxist-Leninism. I just don't fucking forget why communism itself entails. Leading revolution or planning concrete details weren't on their agenda, because this is entirely a contextual thing. But what was on their agenda was the theory all future ML's would eventually build their theory on, and one of the most crucial of these is their analysis of what the state actually is.
>Like I said, repeating dogmatic statements does not mean you comprehend them, just as a Myna Bird does not comprehend that swearwords are curses but repeats them anyway because it likes the sound of them.This isn't an argument, this is a baseless assertion. Nowhere have you actually laid out how exactly I have failed to comprehend what I have stated or referred to, all you've basically attempted to say is "You just don't get it", and then refused to elaborate any further before handwaving the argument away in full.
>Then you're just Uranium-tier dense.Literally show me where I have argued in bad faith. My head may be foggy and my eyes shot from huffing fumes from welding all day, but I'm pretty fucking sure I never once argued in bad faith.
>personal property doesn't exist Never stated this. However, given things like inheritance won't have any place in communism itself and the property based relations won't have any kind of existence, what exactly is the use of your institutions?
>Housing, water supplies, judicial decisions and healthcare don't require documentation to make sure that the right people get them. How does any of this relate to the concept of family requiring legal institution?
>You're like those people that conflate wage labor and work as th exact same thing.No, I'm not, and that isn't even comparable. I may as well say you're like those people who think monogamous relationships and the institution of marriage are the same thing.
No.582562
>>582561>I asked you whereAnd I said Scroll up faggot
> The vast, vast majority seem to simply clarify what abolishment of the family means.<majority<not all Fucking shit I hav beeen on this thread since it began and you are by far the densest asshole, you are right on one thing, other anons actually DID try to clarify their understanding of family abolishment, instead of repeating themselves like broken records.
>a dodgeNo, it' not an ARGUMENT you fucktard, an answer is a reply to something, and I have done that, idiot
>no way am I using word salad… You are actually autistic aren't you? No wonder you're this inhumanly inane.
>without devolving into Twitter-esc handwavesThat's all your projection, you stated nothing of concrete substance, and repeating ideological vagaries is not an argument, there is nothing to argue against if you have no real argument to start from
No.582563
>>582561>going beyond even "traditional" Marxist-LeninismThen you're not a ML but an Ultra, faggot, sounds consistent to your bullshit
>don't fucking forget why communism itself entails.Kek ok, nice incoherence
>this is entirely a contextual thing Literally the thing I said bout Marx, it does not excuse YOU or anyone else talking about putting things into practice you incompetent fuck.
>their analysis of what the state actually is. It certainly isn't the boogieman-tier rubbish you present it as.
> a baseless assertion.It is not an argument because there is nothing to argue, you just pam oblique claims that have no substance, so my assertion remains valid and based, seethe more.
>where I have argued in bad faith I posted what, and you ignored it and everything else I stated and just keep repeating the statement about "necessity" and refuse to clarify the method of organization that inevitably produces a state regardless of how you roll it.
>isn't even comparable <I may as well say you're like those people who think monogamous relationships and the institution of marriage are the same thing. Do you not realize that, to all intents and purposes that is the thing you are claiming I say? You are LITERALLY projecting your straw man onto my arguments and ignoring them, that's the reason I've stopped engaging anything you said past telling you off for it, because arguments are wasted on you.
>Never stated this But your own vagaries imply it
>things like inheritance won't have any place in communism Inheritance of CAPITAL, not inheritance of personal property you dullard.
>hat exactly is the use of your institutions? <hurr qho needs hospitals rite? I already addressed this question, I'm tired of repeating myself - you're not listening.
No.582565
>>582557>nobody is saying lie you imbecile Then what? Omit the truth? Pussy.
>You cannot make change in an instant, it is a gradual process and the people have a right to their own decisions.Without a North Star as guidance, every gradual process would just be like drifting in the sea. It is not up to them to decide with North is, but to decide whether to go there in the first place.
No.582566
>>582563>Then you're not a ML but an Ultra, faggot, sounds consistent to your bullshitI don't think you know what an Ultra is then.
>Kek ok, nice incoherenceI obviously meant "what" anon, don't get held up in a typo from an autocorrect.
>Literally the thing I said bout Marx, it does not excuse YOU or anyone else talking about putting things into practice you incompetent fuckFuck off you faggot, the as actual scenario of revolution itself being contextual is not the same as just throwing actual Marxist theory out the window and adopting whatever position on Marxist theory you want on a whim.
>It certainly isn't the boogieman-tier rubbish you present it asWhat the fuck did I present that was "boogieman-tier"?
>It is not an argument because there is nothing to argue, you just pam oblique claims that have no substance, so my assertion remains valid and based, seethe more. This is literally a nothing statement. If you are going to explain that my claims have no substance, then fucking explain how, don't handwave like a pseud and say "uh, well, it has no substance, and, you know, I don't really have to argue against that then".
>I posted what, and you ignored it and everything else I stated and just keep repeating the statement about "necessity" and refuse to clarify the method of organization that inevitably produces a state regardless of how you roll it.I literally posted Engels to clarify what I was talking about.
>Do you not realize that, to all intents and purposes that is the thing you are claiming I say? You are LITERALLY projecting your straw man onto my arguments and ignoring them, that's the reason I've stopped engaging anything you said past telling you off for it, because arguments are wasted on you.What the actual fuck are you talking about you pseud? I stated something regarding institutions, and you made it about family itself.
>But your own vagaries imply itNowhere did I even imply it you fag. Nowhere have I been vague, and everything I have stated would be simple to understand if you had done even a cursory reading of Marx or Engels.
>Inheritance of CAPITAL, not inheritance of personal property you dullard.None of which require legal institution retard, only capital and property with monetary value does. Otherwise it's just a gift given.
>I already addressed this question, I'm tired of repeating myself - you're not listening.In regards to the family fag.
No.582567
>>582565>Omit the truth? Pussy.How mature and nuanced, totally not an infantile take ignoring historical examples.
>Without a North Star as guidance, every gradual process would just be like drifting in the sea Society is mad up of individuals, if you spurn individuals rights completely you are going to get little support from the people
>ot up to them to decide with North is, but to decide whether to go there in the first place Vague as fuck, pointing them in some idealist "predicted" future is motivating very few people and any revolutionary or socialist worth their salt knows this as I posted several times.
No.582568
>>582566>more diatribe, more vague goal shifting and argument by authority, more ignoring the things I said, more laziness, more dogma You remind me of Trotsky, spouting ideological bullshit and then firing off fallacies and various bullshit to cover his ass.
I have better chances telling a flat earther the planet is round than getting you to stop spitting out bullshit covered by fallacies ranging from the eternal straw man to argument by authority and loathsome slander alongside a nice dose of arrogant self-assuredness.
No.582570
Why refute it? Turn the tables how the right destroys families and romance.
No.582572
>>582568>You remind me of Trotsky, spouting ideological bullshit and then firing off fallacies and various bullshit to cover his ass.What the fuck are your actually talking about anon. This whole time, you have not provided any kind of argument, and rather have just implied a whole bunch bullshit without showing it.
>I have better chances telling a flat earther the planet is round than getting you to stop spitting out bullshit covered by fallacies ranging from the eternal straw man to argument by authority and loathsome slander alongside a nice dose of arrogant self-assuredness.I haven't done any of this, and you have done literally all of this. You started out stating an adherence to Marxist Leninism and referring to Lenin, you strwmanned my arguments as something themly we're not, and you have spent the last three posts slandering me with no actual basis to it while acting like an arrogant self-absorbed pseud to boot.
No.582573
>>582569>Lukacs>Reich<Frankfurt Was whoever made this being purposefully retarded?
No.582574
>>582572*strawmanned
*they were
No.582575
>>582573Watch OP's video. It's that Kengor guy.
No.582576
>>582572>This whole time, you have not provided any kind of argumentI did, you ignored them so I stopped repeating myself
>just implied a whole bunch bullshitLMAO this is pure schizophrenic projection. The most concrete thing you posted in the entire thread is not even your own argument but a section of Engels, that you clearly don't understand and are not engaging.
>I haven't done any of thisYou have, and you're not even trying to take aa moment to think.
>you strwmanned my arguments I did not, since I greentext highlighted your statements in my responses prior. You repeat the same tired points and lack any concrete elaboration that I asked for
>ou have spent the last three posts slandering me <blablabla 'no u' You are an amazing knave… Good job, I applaud you.
No.582577
But we do seek to abolish the nuclear family. Why would we refute this.
No.582578
Missed this post completely, got caught up with replying to the other posts.
>>582553>Yeah no, showing compassion and appealing to a persons common sense and intelligence is the exact opposite of that, and your experiences are called not APPEALING to a person but PANDERING to them. 9/10, when a person rattles on about "appealing", they are talking about pandering. Simply showing compassion and attempting to reach a person through "common sense" has never worked in my view, and in the "best" possible scenario just leads to a complete warping of socialism into mere SocDem trite.
>You're projecting your own subconscious attitude about workers.No, I am not.
>I am a prole, I'm from a prole familyYeah, so is everyone else.
so don't tell me that I'm being condescending about the class of people I know and live around. >As I stated before, the proletariat in capitalist countries is not class conscious and rejects communism if they're just said to "accept it" because that's telling them to surrender their agency because someone else told them to, why the fuck would they listen?
I never said to state to them to "accept it" outright with no explanation, I'm saying that if any argument is to be made, its of the necessity of communism in the face of mutual ruin. That communism isn't something that must be strived for because its a nice alternative, but because it is the only alternative available to us outside of the loss of everything.
>Capitalism doesn't do that, because the experience of Union Strikes, the rise of the USSR and the vehement fight against openly repressive fascism indicated that forcing an ideology without support of the proles is impossible.Its actually entirely possible to force an ideology without support of the proles (it quite literally happens all the time), but that's besides the point.
>Why do you think Lenin called for participation in bourg elections? Because he recognized that the true purpose of this qould be to get their message out to the people, promising Land, Peace and Bread, not some generic waffling about some grandiose dialectical progression that people barely care about. Even then, he made it clear that socialism was not merely peace, land, and bread, and understood that merely making promises of such to draw in people is not what would actually propel the bolsheviks forward, as this was already similar to statements made by the Social Democrats of the time. Even when making such statements, Lenin was very clear in not warping Marxism itself to try and make it into something that merely appealed to public sentiment.
>No, it's spammed to them and TOLD to them that it is good, see They Live for an intertextual allegory of this.Everyone fucking knows of They Live and Zizek's analysis of it, you don't need to state it as if I'm fucking new to this shit. And I'm talking of ideology itself, which absolutely crafted in the modern day to try and appeal rather then fundamentally change minds.
>Obviously to make sure it organically gets continued by the people it has to appeal to something, such as greed, or laziness or any other vice that capitalism thrives on. And to double down, there is no method of ethically consuming under capitalism, so people are forced to make do. Again, not new to this.
>Ah yes, because the average Joe understands the intricacies of Base-Superstructure, or Capitalism's exploitation of worker through profit.Never said they understand this immeditaly, but you should explain it to them.
>There is a reason that EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL MOVEMENT TO EXIST has SLOGANS, because people easily identify with that and often do not know to look deeper.The issue is that we want people to look deeper, and in today's climate, we in fact require people look deeper into both the system and history itself. We aren't building off of a largely agrarian society of peasants in order to create some kind of patchwork movement that intends to develop a devastated Russia first before moving on to bigger aspirations, we are trying to construct a movement of people operating in a developed global capitalism that is totalizing in its scope. Simple statement offering simple solutions will not cut it here, you will just lose yourself in the morass of politcal noise that exists for all politcal dispute to remain in while the bourgeoisie continue on in their actions regardless.
>So yes, talking to nonclass conscious people is like talking to a child - you have to walk them through things and make them palatable to an uninitiated mind. Literally anyone can say "Capitalism bad", the issue is that it is not in the slightest some marginal innocuous jump to then say "Communism good", because such a thing is not and will not be palatable to them. You can slowly walk your way step by step to the very edge of saying communism outright, but the actual gulf you must cross is one that cannot rely on appeal, and if you try to do so the person will just fall back to the allure of social democracy, as that at least retains the "appeal" without any of the baggage. Marxism has to be true for them, not just preferable.
>This reminds me of my Chemistry professor in College, she expected us all to have a certain level of understanding on the subject because that's the point of Highschool, and over 50% of the class consistently failed her "Beginner" level class because she refused to change her teaching methods and account for people coming in to a BEGINNER CLASS utterly ignorant of anything because high schools didn't have any standardization and quality control on the material they taught. The connection? People that are NOT class conscious are like those 50% that failed that class, preaching philosophy that they were taught to hate in a knee-jerk reaction is not going to get through to them, because they see a incomprehensible enemy in it. Just appealing to them wont do anything either, as they will end up entering and then dropping out half way through when they realize there was more then they were led on to believe. People aren't as stupid as you think they are, they will notice when you start veering into attempts at sliding in actual communism and not just what they perceived as capitalist reform, which is what they were initially listening to you in the first place over. Also, went to trade school rather then college, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it pretty much impossible for 50% of a class to fail due to how things are graded?
>Proletarian is another termin for worker, if they are still doing work, then they are proles. This is just dishonest, when Marx is referring to the proletariat, he is not referring to anyone who just goes around working. Work existed prior to the proletariat as a class, the proletariat is rather defined by Marx in terms of both their relation the mechanisms of the capitalist class system itself and their selling of labour power for a wage. If the conditions and social relations which constitute the proletariat end, the proletariat abolishes itself. Marx is very clear on this, this shouldn't even be contested. The whole reason the proletariat is historically unique for Marx is because it carries the potential to both abolish itself and the class society as a whole.
>Literally states abolition of family, yet provides no explanation as to the structure after. You're being intentionally obtuse. Ok, this going to an important point for later, but do you understand what "Aufheben" means in the way Marx uses it?
>No YOU don't view them as PEOPLE at all, you view them the way a programmer views a computer, something you can just upload a program into.No, I view them as someone who has to work everyday next to them as another worker, with the people you're going to have to get through. And believe me when I say "appeal" isn't going to cut it for the majority.
>People understand the necessity of a REVOLUTION because revolutions have NEVER been initiated by someone preaching some ambiguous shit, that'd be RELIGION, and even religion starts off by appealing to people. Or providing what they see as a very real and approaching ultimatum.
>I believe people can be better, but to believe that they can be better I must also understand that they need to be made AWARE of the true problems in socio-economic terms AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THEM PERSONALLY, because most people aren't going to risk everything on a revolution unless they already have something threatening their most important things or if they have nothing to lose anymore. This is seen in every historical revolution. Everyone has there own personal reason for anything, but Marxism isn't a box where you throw in what you already held values and desires, mix it all up, and get something out the other end that exists suited and tailored just for you. That's the trap the modern left and really politics as a whole has fallen into. Communism as of right now is a question of necessity and the continued existence of human society as a whole, and little will convince someone to actual communism at this point until they are made to actually understand its actual operations and the stakes that are on the line.
>The fuck are you talking about, stop using big words that you don't understand. "Flattered" is not a "big word" you fag.
>Lenin is the one that marched under a banner of "Land, Peace, Bread" Lenin's efforts in the USSR included introducing literacy and educating people because, guess what, they ALL were ignorant as fuck and thus followed the Bolsheviks because of a hope for betterment from the horrific conditions of the Czardom, not because Lenin spouted "Marx said capitalism gets abolished on page X of book Y". That kind of discussion came AFTER the revolution, qhen people had fought for their freedom and needed to be more in depth in their understanding of communism so that the Soviet plans could proceed collectivization and the like. Lenin was also the one who blatantly rejected tailism or any kind of warping of actual communist theory merely to suit the perceived wants of the populace. "Peace, Land, and Bread" was something that was poart and parcel to their theory to begin with, and even then the scenario was different to what we have now.
>No, you're expecting people to be at a level they are not at and refuse to stoop down and uplift these people from their ignorance. They won't spontaneously become communists because you talk over their head about things. I'm fine with stooping. I'm not fine with treating people as incapable of handling the truth they need to hear. If you truly watched "They Live", then you know actually opening people up to unconformable truths, even people you care for, is often an ideologically "violent" affair.
>I'm ick and tired of your hogwash, you are exactly the kind of condescending idealist ideologue that plagues leftism today.Not an idealist in the slightest.
No.582579
>>582576>I did, you ignored them so I stopped repeating myself If you are talking about the post I missed, then I have now responded to it.
>LMAO this is pure schizophrenic projection. The most concrete thing you posted in the entire thread is not even your own argument but a section of Engels, that you clearly don't understand and are not engaging. Repeatedly stating "You just don't understand it" is not an argument unless you actually explain what exactly the person does not understand.
>You have, and you're not even trying to take aa moment to think. Explain then how I've done any of this.
>I did not, since I greentext highlighted your statements in my responses prior. You repeat the same tired points and lack any concrete elaboration that I asked for Greentexting them doesn't mean the responses didn't then strawman my arguments. And even before the post I just made, I provided sufficient elaboration.
>You are an amazing knave… Good job, I applaud you.<knaveOh fucking get over yourself.
No.582580
>>582579>>582578>blablablabla <goalpost shifting, fallacies, and hand waving Like I said, I'm done trying to carry across a point to you, you're not even trying to listen, just being antagonistic out of subconscious spite and some denied idealism. Do whatever, it doesn't matter to me. I'm just going to point out that your claimed ideas have never been the basis, let alone the keystone to the path of Socialism and as I have seen repeatedly, only serves to make communists and communism look alien, arrogant and so unwelcome to most non-class conscious people. The things you say are tantamount to telling people "ur retarded read a book faggot" rather than breaking doqn the contents in a simple manner so that they aren't spooked off by superficially alarming claims. You can continue to ignore this but you will meet very little support by most people that aren't already left-leaning (i.e. the majority of the ignorant proletariat), that are ignorant because it benefits the upper class, not out of their free will.
>Zizek Quote1) That's an anecdote
2) That still backs up my statements
3) The point of Zizek's quotes is in relation to socialist discourse among people already acknowledging their ignorance in that area. This does not mean that the proletariat and their experiences and opinions are irrelevant even if they are individual. Almost every person has differing experiences and knowledge that you can learn from and gain perspective and that is important for any socialist.
Moreover Lenin originated from a petty bourg family even if exiled, and yet his appeals to the people remained simplistic leaving the complexities of theory and discussion to literature for further clarification. These are basic parts Public Relations and Leadership successfully gaining support and understanding.
No.582582
>>582579Lmao that worker is more of a Marxist than Hobsbwan.
No.582584
>>582323huh? first picrel is right before your excerpt. also have one of the theses on feuerbach as a bonus
>>582577this
No.582585
If reading Engels has taught me anything, is that the modern concept of family has been a byproduct of the different modes of production and labor relations throughout history. The reason nuclear family has been torn apart is because of capitalism (and the systems preceding it) demanding more and more labor from both parents, thus severing intrafamilial bonds. If anything, communism would allow family structures to be built in any desired manner, but not in a capitalist one, that one is to be destroyed.
No.582586
>>582585no, you got it wrong. there won't be any kind of family structure in communism
No.582587
>>582586Why won't there be? It seems to me that communist could allow for the existence of family structure similar to that of primitive communism/one of the stages of savagery.
No.582588
>>582587we're not recreating primitive communism
>there were a bunch of different forms of this kind of interpersonal exploitation throughout history, so under communism there'll be a whole bunch of them at oncewhat kind of logic is that
No.582589
>>582585The concept of the family as it exists is a contextual reflection of certain historical and economic conditions, but this is where you get it wrong: It is precisely because the context is beholden to such determinatives that the 'type' of the family cannot be understood as an ideological imposition or ideal towards which something should be mandated; it is, instead, an emergent, contingent, wholly organic process subject to its own change or preservation. There is no outsider standpoint from which one can abstract their judgment and impose an ideal.
No.582590
>>582589If i understood you right, then it would be like picrel but with family instead of prostitution?
No.582593
the family is a cabal of child molesters with systematic backing from the institutions of state and private property (alien invaders in disguise)
No.582594
>>582322>How do we refute the right-wing claim that leftists seek to "abolish" the family and romance? What's there to refute?
Unique IPs: 108