Abolition of the Family

I'm convinced that it's all just nerd shit for people who fap to optimization.

Abolition of the family is literally a major demand in Manifesto

Under Socialism women wouldn't be forced into the workforce in an attempt to lower wages like what happened under capitalism. Without capitalist propaganda pushing women to be perfect consumerists they would be given the choice to work or have a family, a majority would pick family.

With the abolition of capitalist we'd probably see a restoration of the nuclear family.>>2817607

...

Forgot to add source
The Development of Capitalism in Russia - Lenin
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/devel/

Which only started existing with capitalism, people usually lived in extended families with brothers living in the same house or yard with their own families and their parents.
Also
I'd like to see any sort of proof for this honestly

>

This is as reactionary as fuck. I doubt most women want to be condemned to be eternally dependent on their husbands for money, care for children without rest and cook and clean the day away. Housework is inhuman and I've seen the effects of what it does to a person to do it everyday for years on end
Exactly the opposite. The nuclear family is already fading under capitalism and with socialism it will wither away completely. The time of the isolated domestic economy, with all of its inefficiencies, will be a thing of the past.

there is a difference between living situations and the nuclear family.

burden of proof is on you.

Borderline crypto-fash

Regardless of how stupid this is, whatever point you want to make about women under socialism will apply equally to men, so your point is moot.

it is only reactionary under capitalism. Your argument for it being reactionary falls apart with the absence of money.

this is like 4 hours of actual work the rest is just playing with babies which most women find great joy in.

It is so much better than working an 8 hour shift 5 days a week and tidying up is pretty comfy honestly.

The family is being broken down under capitalism yes. however without capitalism to rip it apart there would be nothing stopping regular families forming under socialism.

what sort of "domestic economy" are you talking about

men enjoy physical work, creating things with other men more than women
and women enjoy child rearing more than men. When people are given a choice and not forced into a position a nuclear family is likely to form.
no yours is

Borderline crypto-liberal

But the nuclear family is not a regular family, this is literally only something that started existing WITH capitalism you absolute retard
So men will also be allowed to stay at home and "tidy up" instead of working.
Or are you saying that women have no actual drive to work?

Your dumb assumptions don't leave much room for debate. "Men enjoy this, women enjoy that t. my dad"
We communists are supposed to make a historical analysis of what causes people to do this or that, not just assume it's becus muh biology.

There is a difference between the nuclear family and living arrangements
There has always been a nuclear family however it wasn't until modern technology that allowed people to decide their living arrangements .
And most people choose to move in as husband and wife not out of necessity but their own choice. you absolute retard

working conditions will be better, making for a more humane work environment that puts people over profits so naturally more men would want to work in environments like this where as most woman would be home raising children given the choice
There is plenty of work that goes into raising children

The family-type prevalent under advanced capitalism is the nuclear family. While in pre-capitalist times the family had a production element (e.g. producing mainly use-values for immediate consumption and some primitive commodity production), under capitalism it has become merely a legal arrangement concerned only with consumption. Marriage and the family are grounded in material and financial considerations, the need to care for the younger generation and in some cases the economic dependence of one person (typically female) on the breadwinner.

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the family will much of its significance as an isolated economic unit. Steps will be taken to shift organization from an individual family basis to collective consumption. Engels, for example in a 1885 letter to Gertrude-Schack spoke of the integrating of private work in the home into the national economy as a condition for true male / female equality, and Marxists such as Kollontai have repeated this. The family as an isolated unit is uneconomic, much like the ownership of individual cars, etc.The family quite literally will wither away. The seeds exist in capitalism

See

Stop assuming there is no material component in decisions taken by families over historical periods.

Its not an assumption. You can look up who feels the most fulfilled from their job and who choices to work more as opposed to who choices to spend time with their family over working.

this is a historical analysis. All you are bringing is butthurt, strawmen and putting muh in front of anything you don't like

The key difference with the nuclear family is that there's no grandparents living in.

Back in the day, the effort you put into raising a child was typically repaid in the form of them taking care of you in old age. Under capitalism, this structure has broken down.

The nuclear family is atomizing and breeds mental illness in just about every single participant. Extended families are vastly superior.

We are in agreement here

There is no reason to think the family would just "wither away"
People would live and form families out of choice rather than economic necessity and most would organize themselves in the form of a nuclear family for reasons I've already stated ITT.

I have seen literally zero material analysis from you in this thread. You are just spouting generalizations like "women like to play with babies" and that "housework is easy". Why not consider why capitalism relies on domestic labor?

so you're ignoring material analysis and reducing it down to: women like X men like X. then claiming there is not material analysis.
This is intellectually dishonest.

I said many times with the abolition of capitalism people will organize out of choice not necessity and that will likely be the nuclear family

Alright, I did:
graphics.wsj.com/how-men-and-women-see-the-workplace-differently/
Gee, women are less happy at work because they are treated as inferior and are paid less. Who woulda thunk.

I really don't see the nuclear family and nuclear family + grandma much different honestly.

lol christ poster gets 666 get

ITT:
Hurr even though the nuclear family is already fragmenting and quickly becoming a thing of the past under capitalism everyone will magically decide to reconstitute themselves in nuclear families under socialism because I said so

they get paid less because their labor is worth less than that of men. Sorry thats capitalism not me

Starting to think this is a troll

...

...

only if you think people you disagree with are trolls

Arguments I've never made

try again

He is right you know.

The perfect and original state of humans living together and reproducing under one household. There is clear evidence for this that goes back to the origins of the species before capitalism even existed.

Pic related is such evidence.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (300x232, 162.27K)

Under socialism we’ll establish an all powerful organization and divide the people by zone. Each zone constitutes a commune. These communes will be self-sufficient in all matters and distribute according to need. Children will have their own barracks, along with men and women in their own respective barracks. They are forbidden from meeting without permission. Dining will be communal, all clothes will be the same and mass propaganda meetings will be held once a week. Families are bourgeois and individualistic. Individualism makes you a class-enemy and will be punished by death

God bless INSOC, shitposter

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (735x381 97.47 KB, 95.19K)

People get so mad when you post against the circle jerk

This should be clarified. Marx and Engels do not call for the wholesale abolishment of the concept of family, but the bourgeoisie concept of the family. Bourgeoisie being the key word here.

To clarify even more, Aufhebung means both abolish and transcend. And just so that we all know what part of the manifesto we're talking about:

Yeah, it seems pretty clear he is in favor of ending the family as we know it. A number of socialists, anarchist and Marxists have called for abolishing institutions like marriage and the nuclear family. And many communes (such as the Kibbutz pictured in the OP) practiced communal upbringing.

I disagree. A core component of capitalist culture is the drive to become independent and atomized from your upbringing. Adults who live with their parents are stigmatized and considered losers.

The presence of grandparents also ensures that childrearing is not completely controlled by the parents. The process is supervised by people who already have experience raising children.

Obviously there are flaws and hindrances to this model. But a socialist society should seek to build on the notion that the uprearing of children is a responsibility for the community at large, rather than being concentrated on two people (and in practice just one mother).

Communal upbringing will ensure better protection for children against abuse, and allow the full resources of the community to be accessible for the child's needs.

Child rearing has never been concentrated in two people. Kids have friends, teachers, and other adults that baby sit them.

I dare you to try and sell me on on hipp/pol/potomous-ism

Good post.
There's some value in illustrating how they could change under socialism, as a way to show the freedom we have when capitalist dynamics are gone and we're organized as a community.

What would you like to know, comrade?

Democratic Kampuchea, through means of the Super Great Leap Forward, instantly transitioned into classless communism following the revolution. Distribution in the communal zones was by need, and money, markets and religion were abolished. The evacuation of the cities was a necessary move due to their overcrowding and the parasitical imperialist nature of the cities. Bourgeois individualism was eradicated. Their was no Cambodian Genocide. Less than a million people died, some in part of the war against Vietnam, others were revisionist traitors who were rightfully purged. Recalcitrant class-enemies are also excusable deaths.

You're not supposed to have kids, you're supposed to work, thats it.

this is utter revisionism, we are not "engineering" communist society by saying that the family needs to be abolished, we are just saying that what is commonly associated with "the family" is a product of material conditions, and specially of the mode of production, and that by getting rid of capitalism such superstructure would banish, to be replaced by something else, or maybe nothing who the fuck knows, saying "it doesn't matter", is just stalinist bullshit to try to justify the fact that their mode of production needs its own version of "the family", made to suit their own brand of red social democracy

They call me the Pol-Potapotamus
Blood that flows like phosphorous
Squirting' off the top of this esophagus
Trashing this metropolis
I'm not a reactionary city-dwelling mammel
Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis?
Did Lê Duẩn tell you that, perchance?
What kind of revolutionary name is Lê Duẩn…

There once was a man from Phnom Penh
who lived to exploit labor 'n' men
The revolution came
his whole class was to blame
kneeling, trembling, death in Tuol Sleng!

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (696x346, 428.63K)

It was against everything communism stands for.
You've said before that the Vietnamese were the ethnic enemy of the Khmer, and are genetically inferior. Now that's some fucking idpol. On top of this you've praised the "Glorious Khmer Empire", and said you should be proud of you ancestors, to a point where others are inferior.
I also enjoy how /PolPot/ made the workers have no say in the government, and created a inner circle, only paralleled by liberals depiction of Stalin.
Pot also betrayed the revolution, and became a SocDem, along with letting the CIA creat infighting in the communist movement.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 164.1K)

honest this VietCong poster has the right idea

Attached: 5df38c6f0773fb6e76ea8d1a76de12f9b2c2f077a10b974e8ff9ee2b85c5cf65.png (660x495, 352.21K)

The Vietnamese had a hereditary vendetta against Khmer Krom. The Indochina Federation would have resulted in amalgamation and domination. Kampuchea was self-reliant and strove towards autarky, made great leaps and bounds towards communism (and actually achieved it). Today Vietnam is revisionist. Comprador capitalists sold them out. Here we see the difference between collectivistic socialism (Pol-Potism) and the failed route which leads to state-capitalism.

wtf is this nazi shit
Into the trash it goes
As we all know, the republic lasted forever, and never went SocDem, and having a boss, and violent hierarchy is great.

Fuck yeah, I want to die of measles

Funny how you don’t criticize the fact that full communism was achieved. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need was alive and well in Democratic Kampuchea.

Attached: polpot.jpg (800x533, 80.36K)

good for them.

"Agrarian communism" is not communism. Communism is the TRANSCENDENCE of capitalism, putting the whole of industrial society to use for the working class. Not the destruction of industrial society. What he did was really just destroy the means of reaching communism. As reactionary as it gets.

So your criticisms are meaningless. The ends justified the means. Your anti-authoritarianism has been addressed by Engels over a century ago. Let’s not forget that even anarchists have adopted what seem to be proto-Pol Potist methods – methods which Marx unconvincingly brushes aside as “barracks communism”. Evidently, though barracks communism, the destruction of class-enemies iconoclasm against the symbols of oppression and exploitation are the only ways to achieve classless rapidly. See the quote from Bakunin and Nechayev below:

This commitee, as discussed by Nechayev and Bakunin is in fact the Angkar in all of its glory

You wrongly assume that the Angkar had no plans to build industry, transportation and communications technology. Read Pol Pot Plans The Future, as translated by Kiernan, Chandler and Boua

Attached: BB9CD845-B7FF-4EAB-8D3E-0A97935A9DE3.jpeg (1024x817 439.74 KB, 281.21K)

Yeah, unfortunately for some reason they had no industry to build industry with.

Are you denying the fact that imperialism greatly contributed to underdevelopment and that America had been bombing Kampuchea? You are an imperialist-apologist

No nigga, they were racist, spooky, CIA funded to divide, inner circlefags, and later SocDem, fucks who took control out of peoples hand, and a based quote about needing death squads fixes none of that.

thats a result of civilization
Amprim is a cure to measles

Communism can only be achieved by destroying industrial society

Ah, I see, I'll just die of a fever after being sneezed on.

if so then you have weak genes and just make the collective stronger
thanks for your sacrifice comrade

you can fix this without killing 3/4 of all human beings, but this is cool too.

I see a lot of moralizing in this post. I used to be like you, now I stand in reverence of Pol Pot. I even have a shrine to him beside my bed. I pray that Year Zero can be achieved on a global scale.

who said anything about killing?
and fix what exactly?

Notice how this poster has no actual arguments but resorts to snide comments in its place

smelly dumb anprim scum, he was referring to how you can fix measles outbreaks with technology instead of just letting 3/4 of your population die because "lul it's so natural only the strongest survive" retardation

No, I'm not denying anything, but you don't counter imperialism by just abandoning cities. A communist country that isn't more efficient than a their capitalist counterpart will lose in the end.

projection here is hard.

technology facilitates capitalism. Without it we are closer to Communism

The cities were immensely overcrowded as a result of people fleeing from the countryside. It was either starvation or evacuation. Putting the intellectuals and urbanites to work in rice production was the best solution, regardless of ideological disagreements

This, abolishing technology in itself would bring us leaps and bounds closer to primitive communism than any hairbrained Marxist theorizing

Attached: I guess.jpg (1200x1314, 45.84K)

Marxist theorizing doesn't attempt to bring us any closer to primitive communism.

now this is rich

The absolute state!

fascist detected

not the same user, but yes they have had those external resources - now they'll simply have more, and they'll be more cohesive and not compartmentalized as they are now

"About nationalism, I fully agree with you that we have to bear down harder. We have here a wonderful Georgian who has undertaken to write a long article for Prosveshchenie after gathering all the Austrian and other materials. We will take care of this matter."
-t. Lenin

Not all. I just don't want to be forced into a shitty racial, age based fascistic commune, where everything is managed by higher ups, and I have to do everything with some monarchist, rascist, micro managing me, and telling me to kill anybody I've bonded with, because they support the idea of strong, individually independent, federation.

You are not a leftist

You have to go back >>>Zig Forums

Zoom, and enhance

Attached: C24jXVUXcAEP0LH.jpg (598x792, 68.84K)

No proof, and even if he did it would not negate his achievements. Nice to know Zig Forums sides with imperialist puppets like Lon Nol over the greatest communist revolutionary in this century

Just because you don't support Pol Pot, doesn't mean you support a capitalist reigme.
Also thanks for siding with the US goverment on the aid accusations. Even the US goverment admits they indirectly supported them.

Every time