Destroy the Nuclear Family

LORD OF THE RINGS

I hate media, especially movies that try so desperately to shove the institution of marriage and nuclear family down our throat. I saw a part of 'The Imitation Game' in which Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) character proposes to his romantic interest (Keira Knightley) that prompted this post. The proposal is very out of the blue and on-the-spot so Alan has to turn out his pockets, find a piece of wire and fashion a ring out of it. In the next scene Keira's character is shown showing the ring to her girlfriends in a bar.

'The ring' is treated as an important part of a union between a man and a woman that any kind of circle (whether it has to be metal or not is not relevant here) that can be put around a finger plays this ritualistic role. And it is funny to think of having a real-life rituals in the 21st century that have real-life effects, like changing the behaviour of both the persons who went through that ritual and of those who interact with them.

Furthermore, in the movie, Alan is not shown replacing the ring, implication being that she had continued wearing it, further driving home two points: 1) that the ring-giving part of the proposal is an essential part of it and 2) the ring acquires metaphysical qualities by virtue of being used in the ritual (for example, it can act as a way to ground our feelings, thoughts and sources of behaviour, justifying them socially).

MARRIAGE SUCKS

In reality, marriage is nothing more than a contract between you, the other person and the State. The State gives you 'rights', such as the ability to inherit the other person's capital and private property after they are dead (as opposed to personal property being given to someone who needs it, for example). Another right is common custody of your children, after a divorce, only one parent becomes the 'main' parent (pretty fucked up, when you think about it, eh?) You also get some tax breaks, which can be considered financial incentives into marriage (why?) In return, the two people entering the contract give a lot to the State. For one, you become a manageable unit that is then further meme'd, to use parlance of our times, into depending on one another more than the people around you. This has the effect of making people distrustful of others, and dependent on their nuclear family, dividing the people into much smaller units. Interestingly, nuclear family and an individual are the only allowed/legal configurations of humans, I can for example think of dozens of others, making me think that it is too strong of a limitation; you wouldn't want only two flavours of ice cream.

The family is also something that gives a person something 'to lose'. If someone is in a marriage, there are also things to think about like shelter for not just you, but others dependent on you (like children and the elderly) and a way to provide the things that are needed. If you are providing for more than just yourself, you need to make a surplus, and one of the only (legal) ways is a job. A marriage ensures both time is spent maintaining the family and that a person is busy and cannot to do other things, such as care about politics, march in the streets, protest or participate in a revolution.

LIBERALS, GAYS AND MARRIAGE

The liberal LGBT agenda is not revolutionary at all, but actually reactionary. Rather than destroy and replace the institution of marriage, the very institution from which they have been banned!, as if they were not deserving of the same kind of social status marriage affords because they are not heterosexuals or not willing to pretend they are.

The liberal LGBT crowd want gays and trans people to become included in the institution, again confirming and re-enforcing status of marriage as something universal rather than a human invention. They reinforce because they are liberals and only want to strengthen capitalism by making it more 'inclusive' rather than dismantle the institutions that both enable the oppression of people (those who can't marry are of course the oppressed) and perpetuate the capitalist system as the nuclear family is one of the pillars of modern, consumerist capitalism.

FUCK MARRIAGE

To move forward as a species, civilisation and society, we must rethink the family and remove marriage. A more communal arrangement, where children are 'raised by the village' and families aren't necessarily nuclear, but people are welcome to make any sort of arrangement they wish with other consenting adults. Meaning that those who want a nuclear family can have one, but those that want to do something else are also allowed to.

Attached: marriedwithchildren.png (650x650, 739.09K)

YOU ARE WHAT YOU OWN

In the end of the movie, 'the ring' is referenced again. Turing sees that his former love interest was engaged to someone else because he saw her wearing a ring. He remarks "it's a much nicer ring than I made for you", which she follows with a mention of her new fiancee's high social status (higher than Turing's) by stating his occupation.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT…?

Which brings me to my question: What effects can be directly traced to us abandoning marriage for a more 'anything goes' approach?

In the capitalist context: Does it have any revolutionary value and potential to change other institutions within capitalism?

In the socialist context: In capitalism the home is the reflection of the outside world, in socialism it would be as well. How would the structure of the social arrangements of workers reflect the commonly owned means of production in the world? Or, even, would the lack of restriction on the types of social relationships enable those kinds of relationships that would give rise to the materialist relations of commonly owned means of production and the lack of private property?

Capitalist marriage is very possessive 'MY wife', 'MY children', 'we live in OUR house', this kind of language and relationships are a reflection of similar values in the capitalist market.

Attached: marriedwithchildren2.jpeg (640x376, 52.6K)

communism will destroy or least irrevocably change all existing institutions, including those of family and marriage, and if you clutch your pearls about how "c-communism is just workers ownership of MoP! nothing else will change! family and my other favorite spooks will survive!" instead of accepting this fact you are not a revolutionary

my family will survive tho. There is no evidence to support your claim. The only structure which should be destroyed is nuclear family in favour of extended family structure.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (400x580, 466.49K)

I honestly find that type of lifestyle boring. Ive seen it play out before my eyes so many times. Im bored of it already.

OP is the most based man on this website

wtf communism sounds fucking terrible

why not go back to tribal/clan organization while we're at it?

why?
such is the plan. We just call it "commune"

The village is the primary unit of society in communism

Positivists get OUT

as a fascist i agree with this statement
the nuclear family should be dissolved
I propose people should live in larger estates in multigenerational households

five labor vouchers say you've never lived in the same house with more than 2 or 3 other people

special snowflake capitalists go away reee

Those will be destroyed for vast majority of population thanks to your economics.

The only way to establish extended family structure in sutainable way is to abolish capitalism completely.

(checked)
20 labour vouchers that you are just edgy high school kid

try 17 and they were all related by blood or marriage

reeeeeeee abolish the natural system that arose out of feudal economies and replace it with bartering for tins of rice or filling out requisition forms and waiting 5 years for the paperwork to go through
bloody marvelous

abolish the natural system that arose out of feudal economies and replace it with natural system which will arouse out of capitalist economies*
fixed it 4 u

Attached: IMG_0271.PNG (485x443, 21.94K)

where did you get my photo you pervert?!

hand over those vouchers, I am 25 and working. property is the sole reason family exists. communal living won't be the same as extended family, which is hierarchical, undemocratic, and based on property and inheritance.

you believe your natural system that must arise out of the ashes of capitalism must be done violently? and its been hit and miss every time its been attempted in the last century?
just try and do it again! i actually seriously want you to senpai


not you know that other thing
kin selection and the selfish gene

where is your proof that communal living won't be hierarchical, undemocratic and based on property?


capitalism had to use lot's of violence in order to destroy monarchies, I do not see any problem with that.
Well, it was not the best system, but the best we had so far. Preferable to liberal capitalism we have today or fascism which failed much worse.

my nations monarchy survived intact its not capitalism's fault that most of Europe has autism
oh no see my particular brand never got to be implemented tbh so I can claim moral highground until it does

nigga, just because monarchy survived doesn't mean that transition between feudalism and capitalism was not violent.
I'll bite, tell me more about it. And I'm mostly curious how will you solve falling rate of profit without massive wars and ending up like Hitler, the man which managed to kill more than 6 milions germans, not to mention all other white casualties.

invading and colonizing sub-Saharan Africa utilizing highly dangerous biological warfare to wipe the hominid population away so all that rich Earth can be mined/farmed

the only way to do this is by injecting every child with aids.
by giving them aids, they will become property of the state and can be bound to servitude with aids medication.
children can not possibly afford the expensive aids medications, anti-virals and so on, and so it will be the perfect way to ensure loyalty.
nice one op, with luck this idea can move forward.

but then you've made everyone sort of related like the entire nation is now family as they share genes in common, all the HIV genes

It's embarrassing that you think that's some kind of argument or burn

Attached: f62368d7592aabbc22baaa3b033e93d76dc7ac0278385f74b68e6c6d181171fc.png (648x678, 192.74K)

whats really embarrassing is how many anarcho-wotsits claim that argument

If I wanted my comeback I'd scoop it out of your mom's sloppy pussy and spoon feed your dad with it, you skinny chode.

You've completely misunderstood the basis of the argument and every post signals how fucking dumb you are.

Attached: not real communism.png (1569x462, 69.12K)

but i want to fugg a qt girl and have kids with her and have her be my willing stepford wife

sure, why not?

Marx says that the ==Bourgeoisie== conception of the family will be abolished, not that family itself will. Conflating this conception of family with family in general is making more assumptions then is reasonable and all while having no basis in Marx.

Attached: 2bed628d6be2839031521d95359ba423b4677d5d41eac908e282b63e5aebc62d.jpg (1112x672, 110.72K)

The bourgeois family will be replaced with whatever will arise out of the ruins of capitalist society, NOT with your dreamworld.

how about
hold on there
what if
what if people do whatever the fuck they want

I can't imagine living with more than 2 or 3 other people. lmao. It would drive me fucking nuts.

When my brother and sister left the nest and it was just me and my parents, that was comfy as fuck.

My brother is a lot older than me and moved out when I was young so I don't remember what it's like living with him. But I was happy as hell when my sister moved out.

When I lived in a dorm with 3 room mates, I hated it. I'm a loner. I prefer living by myself or with my parents because I've lived with them all my life so I'm used to them and get along with them fine.

People like having their privacy. It's bad enough when I forget to flush my kleenex and my dad sees it. lmao. When I had room mates, I felt like I could never jerk off in my household.

...

I don't want to believe it, but a deep part of me believes that females don't have the same primal ideas about family as us.

Females are similar to deer, in that they believe the ideal is to raise children on their own and to not live with a man. As we see females get more and more "sexual freedom" this is the trend we get. However, it makes men very unhappy at the same time.

So in order to fix this, we need to start selecting HARD for family-loving traits. But there are little fertile females available these days, trying to cut that even more would be damn near impossible.

Attached: FT_Family_Changes.png (310x699, 16.4K)

OP mentions nuclear family and capitalist family I think we're all talking about the bourgeoisie conception of family in this thread when we talk about 'family' today. After all, it is the only form of family (other than single) you can have in capitalism.

Women are only having children without men because society is telling them to, because capitalism would rather have five independent consumers with shit financial planing and credit cards rather than one mother holding the checkbook of the entire family and hoarding cash. Or to put it more bluntly this is more of a "nurture" problem rather than a "nature" problem. The whole trend of unlimited sexual freedom leads to single cougars and bachelors instead of tight families.

Figure that 50 years ago people worked starting at 16-17 and were expected to have at least one kid by 20, today most children are told to stay in school through at least 22 and not have children until after they buy their first home. Workaholics don't self-perpetuate.

It was more of a mass reply to the sentiment of some anons in this thread that family itself will be abolished.

Attached: 1517894693.jpg (631x480, 78.2K)

...

...

The same goes for parents though, who have never raised children before. The community, under socialism, would raise children much as they help each other out really, and would be very much more capable than any two given people who happened to have unprotected sex.

Also the idea of wedding rings was literally a marketing scheme by a diamond company.

There’s a handful of shows that at least try and portray the struggles accurately. I was watching Roseanne the other night, and was surprised by how it showed that.

wedding rings are much more practical than different dress code for single/married people

Bad goy, haven't you heard, only deplorables watch that show. I bet you didn't even vote for Hillary!

Are you retarded, that would make the falling rate of profit fall more.

Guess what? We also want to make sure to keep the house we worked for years to acquire with our partners in the event that they die. We also want all the discounts in health care and insurance, all the other shit that staight people and us fucking need, because you and your crowd didn't made the fucking revolution you've been talking about for the last 100 years, so we still live in the nightmare of capitalism and need every advantage we can get our hands on!

You fucking expect me to be a homeless man, me and my boyfriend looking behind our shoulders every where we go, wanted for both being communists and queers, while straight people get to pick if they want to join in?

FUCK OFF!

This is exactly why liberals dominated the left in the first place. While you were discussing the dialects of Chmess, the liberals made sure that truck stops and bathrooms weren't the only places we could go looking for each other.

So you get your fucking shit together, start a real project for revolution, and then you *ask* me to join you.

We should start selecting, starting with nazis.

Wait, we don't have to!

Attached: the master race.jpeg (423x267, 23.06K)

You're just as culpable as "the straights" in there not being a revolution. Seriously shut the fuck up with this bullshit or kys.

Best post in thread, I was raised in an extended family unit and I'm better because of it

We're just as culpable but not as capable. You actually think there's enough queer people to form the "rainbow liberation army"? You think if I step in on a night club I'll be able to walk out with a mass line?

Besides, if anything IdPol is only helpful for the revolution. When 50% of CEOs are Cheryl Dunye or whatever, capitalism will not longer have any scapegoats. There'll be nothing left to divide the proletariat against itself.

Don't fatshame. I'm doing my best to lose weight!

Last time I checked neoliberalism doesn't guarantee you a home, gay or straight. So I honestly don't get your gripe in this regard. If you were homeless before the diversity revolution you will still be homeless after. Your boyfriend will only get on your insurance if you could afford insurance to begin with.

Life sure has improved for moneyed queers, that is indisputable.

It's always 'me, me, me' with you liberals.

And you think marriage is the only way to confer these rights? Civil unions exist that perform the function of a marriage and provide these rights to people in the union. Further, a piece of paper signed by two people, or even two people saying they are 'together' for purposes of inheritance, insurance and children should be enough. The State has no business in the bedroom.

Who are 'me and my crowd'? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Again with the generalisations. In the same post you talk about evils of capitalism then defend liberalism. Liberals have done nothing more than worked for their own class interests. If a system doesn't work for all, but has to be amended, changed, modified to work for people other than the core group that came up with it then it is not a good system. Same logic is applied to scientific theories, too many ad hoc additions, the theory is considered flawed and is replaced by a better one. All liberals are doing is trying to keep capitalism alive, they don't actually care about you or the rest of the working class. Remember Hillary Clinton was against gay marriage in 2004 and Bill Clinton signed Defense of Marriage Act into law back in 1996, meaning it was the liberals who made your struggle harder.

A revolution will not be an indiegogo campaign and the participants won't get an e-vite.


Your idea is to give more people authority in order to get rid of that authority? It doesn't matter to me whether the person holding my mortgage is a man, woman, black, gay, trans…I am still in debt. Same applies to bosses, landlords, police, and anyone else with authority derived either from force or from uneven distribution of capital. Capitalism doesn't care about what you are, only about what you own.

Historically, marriage was a way for kings, lords and other owners of capital to be sure that they are passing on their inheritance onto their actual offspring. Since the 1500s it was the Church that enforced the idea of marriage and conversely the idea of pre-marital sex and all the associated sinning. They did this so they can hold power over the people. Now, it is the State that holds that power. Remember, you need to hire lawyers and go through a whole process just to stop living with another person (how crazy is that?!)

You will notice I used gender-neutral nouns:
In the beginning I stress 'man and woman' to bring attention to the classic definition of marriage and its exclusionary nature. Despite that nature, you, who have historically been excluded from the institution now defend it, like a beaten slave who no longer yearns for freedom but wants to be like the master.

All you do by wanting to get married is perpetuate the the capitalist notion that marriage and by extension capitalism with all its institutions is a 'natural system' that doesn't need to be replaced, just modified to be more Inclusive®©.

I too want to enjoy the benefits of marriage with my partner. What I don't want is to involve the State in my union or ask for permission to spend the rest of my life with someone. I don't want to be forced into a marriage with the State just so that my child can be born in the magical state of 'wedlock', otherwise it may have 'bastardism'. Like I said in the OP, we ascribe a lot of power to an institution invented out of thin air, when in reality it has none. Just as easily as we have imagined the current idea of marriage, we can just as easily unimagine it.

I am for the abolition of capitalist marriage and the nuclear family. People can form whatever unions they want and enter into any kind of familial arrangement they desire. You wanting to get married actually hurts my chances for a world where I don't have to.

Attached: plan.jpg.jpg (970x545, 130.32K)

The fact that you think of yourself as gay and that this is somehow in contradiction with your status as working class whilst chastising socialists and communists who were always at the forefront of fighting for your acceptance decades before liberals were and then have the gall to ascribe gay liberation as inherent to liberalism because it happened to historically fall under such conditions of capitalist society makes me think we'd be better off without you personally so the feeling is mutual. Now jog on.